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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that 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.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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