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
    It is more natural to attribute temporally successive pro... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Consciousness & Mind
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    It is more natural to attribute temporally successive properties of an event to different temporal parts of that event rather than to the event as a whole.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.A performance can be allegro in one movement and andante in another.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.It is not natural to say the same event was first allegro then andante.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.It is natural to say different movements—themselves events—bear different properties.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Enduring objects and events bear properties at times via instantiation relations (x has P at t), not by having temporal parts that simply have P.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Lewis's perdurance theory requires temporal parts as a metaphysical posit, but adverbialism about property-instantiation (Johnston, van Inwagen) handles change without them.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If 'x is F at t' is primitive and irreducible, attributing successive properties to the whole event is not unnatural but is the default logical form of temporal predication.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The supporting argument from musical performances equivocates: movements are conventionally individuated sub-events, not metaphysically mandated temporal parts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Strawson's particular-based ontology and Broad's process view both treat events as irreducible wholes that genuinely persist through qualitative change without decomposition into parts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If ordinary event-talk (e.g., 'the storm intensified then weakened') attributes successive properties to the same event as a whole, then naturalness favors endurantism, not perdurantism, for events.
      ?

      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

    Consciousness & Mind

    Related

    A performance can be allegro in one movement and andante in another.Enduring objects and events bear properties at times via instantiation relations...If 'x is F at t' is primitive and irreducible, attributing successive properties...If ordinary event-talk (e.g., 'the storm intensified then weakened') attributes ...
    +5 moreShow less
    It is natural to say different movements—themselves events—bear different proper...It is not natural to say the same event was first allegro then andante.Lewis's perdurance theory requires temporal parts as a metaphysical posit, but a...Strawson's particular-based ontology and Broad's process view both treat events ...The supporting argument from musical performances equivocates: movements are con...

    Similar

    The temporal parts of events are themselves events in their own right ...85%It is not natural to speak of the temporal parts of objects at all.80%There is a major difference between substances and events with respect...80%Presentedness is supposed to be the phenomenal property that makes som...80%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: substance
    View source passageHide passage
    Various problems can be raised for this account. The most obvious is that it does not, as stated, distinguish between substances and events. Some property-instances belong to events rather than substances. The performance of a symphony, for example, is an event, and it may possess the property, in one of its movements, of being allegro. It seems plausible that this particular case of something’s being allegro could not have been exemplified by another performance, but the performance might go on
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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