display all the ideas for this combination of texts
16 ideas
16193 | 'Adverbialism' explains change by saying an object has-at-some-time a given property [Hawley] |
Full Idea: Another strategy for the problem of change says that instantiation - the having of properties - is time-indexed, or relative to times, although properties themselves are not. This 'adverbialism' says that object has-at-t some property. | |
From: Katherine Hawley (How Things Persist [2001], 1.5) | |
A reaction: [She cites Johnson, Lowe and Haslanger for this] Promising. The question is whether the time index is attached to the object, to the property, or to the instantiation. The middle one is wrong. There aren't two properties - green-at-t1 and green-at-t2. |
16195 | Presentism solves the change problem: the green banana ceases, so can't 'relate' to the yellow one [Hawley] |
Full Idea: Adopting presentism solves the problem of change, since it means that, once the banana is yellow, there just is no green banana, and the question of the relationship between yesterday's green banana and today's yellow one therefore does not arise. | |
From: Katherine Hawley (How Things Persist [2001], 1.7) | |
A reaction: Change remains kind of odd, but it is no longer the puzzlement of two things being the same when they are admitted to be different. There is only ever one thing. This is my preferred account, I think. I certainly hope past bananas don't exist. |
16202 | The problem of change arises if there must be 'identity' of a thing over time [Hawley] |
Full Idea: It is the insistence on identity between objects wholly present at different times which gives rise to the problem of change. | |
From: Katherine Hawley (How Things Persist [2001], 2.2) | |
A reaction: My solution is to say things are the 'same', in a slightly loose non-transitive way, rather than formally identical, which is a concept from maths, not from reality. |
16192 | Endurance theory can relate properties to times, or timed instantiations to properties [Hawley] |
Full Idea: Endurance theory might claim a banana stands (atemporally) in different relations to different times (being-green-at to Monday), ..or has different instantiation relations to different properties (instantiates-on-Monday to being green). | |
From: Katherine Hawley (How Things Persist [2001], 1.3) | |
A reaction: She suggests that the first approach is more plausible for endurantists. I think she is right (assuming these are the only two options). Monday awaits a banana, but yellow doesn't. |
16196 | Endurance is a sophisticated theory, covering properties, instantiation and time [Hawley] |
Full Idea: Endurance theory is not just a default 'no-theory' theory, for it must incorporate a sophisticated account of properties and instantiation, and requires a certain view of time if it is even to be formulable. | |
From: Katherine Hawley (How Things Persist [2001], 1.8) | |
A reaction: A bit odd to claim it is a sophisticated theory when it is held (at least in our culture) by absolutely everyone apart from a few philosophers and physicists. The sophistication may come with trying to describe it using current metaphysical vocabulary. |
16197 | How does perdurance theory explain our concern for our own future selves? [Hawley] |
Full Idea: A question for perdurance theory is whether it can account for the special concern we feel for our own future selves. | |
From: Katherine Hawley (How Things Persist [2001], 1.8) | |
A reaction: That is one of those questions that begins to look very mysterious whatever your theory. I favour endurantism, but me next year looks a very remote person for me to be concerned about, in comparison with the people around me now. |
16191 | Perdurance needs an atemporal perspective, to say that the object 'has' different temporal parts [Hawley] |
Full Idea: Perdurance relies on our having an 'atemporal' perspective from which we can truly say a banana has both yellow and green parts, where this 'has' is not in the present tense. ..Perdurance theory cannot be expressed straightforwardly in the present tense. | |
From: Katherine Hawley (How Things Persist [2001], 1.2) | |
A reaction: This seems to require the tenseless B-series view of time. It seems to need a tenseless view of the past, but what does it have to say about the future? |
16199 | If an object is the sum of all of its temporal parts, its mass is staggeringly large! [Hawley] |
Full Idea: The mass of an object is the sum of its nonoverlapping parts. Analogy would suggest that a persisting banana has, atemporally speaking, a mass that is the sum of all the masses of the 100g temporal parts, a worryingly large figure. | |
From: Katherine Hawley (How Things Persist [2001], 2.1) | |
A reaction: This is an objection to the Perdurance view that an object is the sum of all of its temporal parts. Their duration tends towards instantaneous, so the aggregate mass tends towards infinity. She says they should deny atemporal mass. |
16201 | Perdurance says things are sums of stages; Stage Theory says each stage is the thing [Hawley] |
Full Idea: According to Perdurance Theory, it is long-lived sums of stages which are tennis balls, whereas according to Stage Theory, it is the stages themselves which are tennis balls. | |
From: Katherine Hawley (How Things Persist [2001], 2.2) | |
A reaction: These seem to be the two options if you are a four-dimensionalist, though Fine says you could be a weird three-dimensionalist and choose stage theory. |
16240 | If a life is essentially the sum of its temporal parts, it couldn't be shorter or longer than it was? [Hawley] |
Full Idea: It seems that perdurance theory should identify Descartes with the sum of his temporal parts, but that means Descartes essentially lived for 54 years, which seems absurd, as he could have lived longer or less long than he in fact did. | |
From: Katherine Hawley (How Things Persist [2001], 6.10) | |
A reaction: [She credits Van Inwagen with this] I'm not clear why a counterpart of Descartes could not have a shorter or longer sum of parts, and still be Descartes. If the sum is rigidly designated, that is a problem for endurance too. |
16206 | Stages must be as fine-grained in length as change itself, so any change is a new stage [Hawley] |
Full Idea: To account for change, stages and temporal parts must be as fine-grained as change: a material thing must have as many stages or parts as it is in incompatible states during its lifetime. | |
From: Katherine Hawley (How Things Persist [2001], 2.4) | |
A reaction: There seems to be a dilemma for stages here, of being so fat that they are divisible and change, or so thin that they barely exist. Lose-lose, I'd say. |
16203 | Stage Theory seems to miss out the link between stages of the same object [Hawley] |
Full Idea: The first worry for Stage Theory is that many present stages are bananas, and many stages tomorrow are bananas, but this seems to omit the important fact that some of those stages are intimately linked, that certain stages are the same banana. | |
From: Katherine Hawley (How Things Persist [2001], 2.3) | |
A reaction: Hawley has a theory to do with external relations, which I didn't find very persuasive. Just to say stages have a 'relation' seems too abstract. Stages of disparate things can also have 'relations', but presumably the wrong sort. |
16204 | Stage Theory says every stage is a distinct object, which gives too many objects [Hawley] |
Full Idea: The second worry for Stage Theory is that there are far too many bananas in the world on this account. | |
From: Katherine Hawley (How Things Persist [2001], 2.3) | |
A reaction: The point is that each (instantaneous) stage is considered to be a whole banana (as opposed to one sum of all the stages of the banana, in the Perdurance view). A pretty serious problem, which she tries to deal with. |
16212 | An isolated stage can't be a banana (which involves suitable relations to other stages) [Hawley] |
Full Idea: A single isolated stage could not be a banana, because in order to be a banana a stage must be suitably related to other stages with appropriate properties. | |
From: Katherine Hawley (How Things Persist [2001], 3.4.1) | |
A reaction: This seems at odds with the claim that each stage is the whole thing (rather than the long temporal 'worm' of perdurance theory). Isolated stages are instantaneous, so can't be anything, really. Her 'relations' seem hand-wavy to me. Connections? |
16213 | Stages of one thing are related by extrinsic counterfactual and causal relations [Hawley] |
Full Idea: I claim that there are relations between the distinct stages of a persisting object which are not determined by the intrinsic properties of those stages. …The later stages depend, counterfactually and causally, upon the earlier stages. | |
From: Katherine Hawley (How Things Persist [2001], 3.5) | |
A reaction: This is the heart of her theory. How can there be a causal link between two stages which is not the result of intrinsic properties of the stages? This begins to sound like Malebranche's Occasionalism. |
16205 | The stages of Stage Theory seem too thin to populate the world, or to be referred to [Hawley] |
Full Idea: A third worry for Stage Theory is that the momentary stages themselves are just too thin to populate the world, and too thin to be the objects of reference. | |
From: Katherine Hawley (How Things Persist [2001], 2.3) | |
A reaction: Her three objections to her own theory add up to sufficient to refute it, in my view, though a large chunk of her book is spent trying to refute the objections. |