data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/18916/18916de460f56b0a126b4afd4bfffe6a710a0ad9" alt=""
Publication details
Publisher: Springer
Place: Berlin
Year: 2017
Pages: 721-729
Series: Axiomathes
Full citation:
, "Parfitians as exdurantists", Axiomathes 27 (6), 2017, pp. 721-729.
Abstract
Derek Parfit's thesis that identity doesn't matter in survival has been extensively discussed except for its metaphysical robustness. How can we justify the abandonment of identity in the way Parfit suggests? My argument is the following. Those who want to endorse the thesis that identity doesn't matter (and, therefore, abandon identity across time) should adopt exdurantism, i.e. a metaphysics according to which the world is composed by temporal parts each existing at a time and according to which there is nothing as a numerically same entity which exists at different times. I do that by showing that the metaphysics behind Parfit's theory is neither compatible with endurantism, according to which object persists by being wholly present at different times, nor with perdurantism, according to which entities are aggregates of temporal and spatial parts.
Cited authors
Publication details
Publisher: Springer
Place: Berlin
Year: 2017
Pages: 721-729
Series: Axiomathes
Full citation:
, "Parfitians as exdurantists", Axiomathes 27 (6), 2017, pp. 721-729.