Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Eternalism and endurantism can be combined coherently — Carmelics
    Home/Personal Identity
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Eternalism and endurantism can be combined coherently

    Modality & PossibilityPersonal Identity
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • A consistent metaphysical position can hold both that all times exist and that objects are wholly present at each time
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Endurantism requires an object to be wholly present at t1 and wholly present at t2, yet numerically identical across both times.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Eternalism treats t1 and t2 as equally real, making the object's intrinsic properties at each time equally real and potentially contradictory.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.An object that is bent at t1 and straight at t2 cannot be wholly and numerically identical at both times without violating Leibniz's Law, as Lewis argued in 'On the Plurality of Worlds'.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Eternalism's block universe renders all temporal locations ontologically on a par with spatial locations.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If times are analogous to places in the block universe, then an object 'wholly present' at multiple times is as paradoxical as a single object being wholly present at multiple distinct spatial locations simultaneously.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Endurantism's 'wholly present' relation presupposes a privileged present that eternalism structurally eliminates, making the combination incoherent at the level of foundational ontology, as Sider argues in 'Four-Dimensionalism'.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Personal IdentityModality & Possibility

    Related

    A consistent metaphysical position can hold both that all times exist and that o...An object that is bent at t1 and straight at t2 cannot be wholly and numerically...Endurantism requires an object to be wholly present at t1 and wholly present at ...Endurantism's 'wholly present' relation presupposes a privileged present that et...
    +3 moreShow less
    Eternalism treats t1 and t2 as equally real, making the object's intrinsic prope...Eternalism's block universe renders all temporal locations ontologically on a pa...If times are analogous to places in the block universe, then an object 'wholly p...

    Similar

    Eternalism and endurantism should not be combined94%Presentism compels endurantism90%Eternalism rules out endurantism87%Presentists should be endurantists84%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: temporal-parts
    View source passageHide passage
    Suggested Reading: Earlier discussions of temporal parts paid close attention to analogies and disanalogies between space and time: e.g. Taylor (1955), Meiland (1966); Butterfield (1985) reflects on these. Lombard (1999) and Brogaard (2000) argue that presentism is compatible with perdurantism, while Merricks (1995) and Hestevold and Carter (2002) argue that presentism compels endurantism. Benovsky (2009) takes an even-handed approach. Merricks (1995) and Hinchliff (1996) argue that eternalism r
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit