Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Lewis's 'personal time' solution requires distinct temporal stages, presupposing perdurantist ontology rather than rescuing endurantism.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Personal time indexing allows endurantists to distinguish experiences without ontological stages—relativity of simultaneity suffices.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Stage-talk can be merely notational convenience for enduring objects, not ontological commitment requiring perdurantism.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Lewis's solution preserves standard endurantist semantics; stages reduce to perspectival orderings, not metaphysical duplications.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Lewis's solution treats temporal stages as fundamental ontological commitments, which is characteristic of perdurantism, not endurantism.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Endurantism requires objects to be wholly present at each moment; invoking distinct stages contradicts this core commitment.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Lewis's framework cannot preserve endurantist identity conditions while allowing temporal stage differentiation without covert perdurantist machinery.
?
How convincing is this?
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.