The notion of Persistence gives way to several predominant theories; of which, attempt to account for many possible questions that arise from it. As in most cases of debate, when more than one account of such is held to be true, there will clearly be much disagreement. Two views that claim to account accurately for persistence that remain widely known are , that of an endurantist (Threeist) and that of a perdurantist (Twoist). The endurantist will hold that objects are wholly present at all times, a persistent object ‘endures’ over time. The conflicting view of a perdurantist claims that objects are actually composed of temporal parts, more precisely, proper temporal parts. Further, a Twoist (vs. Oneist), will say that a name most often refers to the sum of one’s temporal parts, whereas a Threeist believes a name to refer to one who is wholly present during all times of its existence. The two opposing theories stated very simply, as above, give insight as to the nature of their arguments against one another. It does seem, however, that the Twoist’s account of persistence gives an exceedingly useful notion in regards towards many more subjects of philosophy, as well as an explanation that accounts for much more in terms of the problems associated strictly with persistence itself.
The argument posed by VanIwagen, a Threeist, against the Twoist is known as the problem of Essential Duration; and the counterpart argument given by the Twoist is referred to as the problem of Temporary Intrinsics. VanInwagen’s (modal) argument goes as follows: One could have lived longer than did in the actually world; this must be accounted for by either, one having been composed of more temporal parts that actually was, or at least some of one’s temporal parts had a longer duration than did in the actual world. VanInwagen continues with; a twoist must clearly hold that temporal parts have their duration essentially; their duration can not be shorter or longer. It then follows that a person is also a temporal part, which is to say they are the sum of all his or her temporal parts, making this the largest part. If this is so, says VanInwagen, then the Twoist must hold this duration essentially and one could not have lived longer than did in the actual world. A contradiction is reached, VanInwagen then very quickly disregards any additional consideration of such an avenue.
Parfit’s view on the nature of persisting persons raises interesting issues in terms of identity. Though there are identifiable objections to his views, I am in favor of the argument he develops. This paper will layout Parfit’s view on that nature of persisting person, show support as well as argue the objections to the theory. In Derek Parfit’s paper Personal Identity, Parfit provides a valid account of persisting persons through time through his clear account of psychological continuities. He calls people to accept the argument that people persist through time but people do not persist or survive by way of identity.
American Philosophical Quarterly 21, no. 3 (1984): 227-36.
John McTaggart in his essay “Time” presents a radical argument that claims time is unreal. While the argument is interesting and has attracted much attention for his arguments, I remain unconvinced of the argument he makes. This paper will lay out McTaggart’s argument that time in unreal, critically analyze why I believe McTaggart’s argument fails and present an alternative idea about time, utilizing aspects of McTaggart’s argument.
To answer the question of whether a person can persist through time, it is important to consider what is meant by a ‘person’. This consideration seems trivial at first, and if one were to take the physicalist route, it would be – a person persists through time by existing as the same human animal. However, it is in fact a lot harder to pinpoint what the ‘self’ actually consists of if we were to take the psychological route and consider the voice inside our heads, the voice that thinks and experiences and suffers. What is this mysterious immaterial phenomenon that we hold to be our personal identity? And what makes it the same entity as the one yesterday? Although these questions don’t have an explicit answer yet, in this essay I will attempt to give an insight on how they could be answered, offering a psychological
The 'doctrine of recollection' states that all true knowledge exists implicitly within us, and can be brought to consciousness - made explicit - by recollection. Using the Platonic concepts of 'Forms', 'particulars', 'knowledge' and 'true opinion', this essay explains what can or cannot be recollected, why all knowledge is based on recollection, and why the doctrine does not prove the soul to be immortal.
Wittgenstein, Ludwig; G. E. M. Anscombe, P.M.S. Hacker and Joachim Schulte (eds. and trans.). Philosophical Investigations. 4th edition, Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009. Print.
...e person themselves, and as such, lasts only as long as that identity as chosen by the individual.
In “A Dialogue on Personal Identity and Immortality” John Perry conveys conversations between a philosopher and her two friends a few nights before she dies. We then come to how the dying philosopher is trying to have everyone convince her that she will survive even after her body dies. In this John Perry claims that there are three ways of deliberating personal identity: bodily identity, psychological continuity and immaterial soul. The essay then describes the different types of identity and how they can use them to prove to the perishing philosopher that she can still remain alive. I will argue that the only way we can distinguish personal identity is through psychological continuity and how we can determine a person based on their memories and experiences. From this we can go into discussion about some terms that will be used throughout this paper.
Briefly, we can conclude by deduction that body, brain, and soul are not sufficient to explain personal identity. Personal identity and immortality will always cause questions to arise from philosophers, as well as other individuals, and although many philosophers may object and disagree, the memory criterion offers the most sufficient explanation.
Our assurance that certain sets of conditions are sufficient to produce certain effects is based on past experience that like has been conjoined with like. The belief in necessary connection entails (Hume will conclude that it amounts to) a belief that events similar to those experienced in the past will be accompanied by similar conjuncts. Such a belief may only be arrived at inductively, and induction does not discover necessity.1[1]
Object permanence: Object permanence is whereby the children start understanding that the objects continue to exist even when the objects are not in sight. The object permanence in an infant is depicted when they start retrieving hidden objects (Berk, 2013).
...tion of permanence meaning that anything that appears to be forever and permanent is not inclined to change. Basic change, hence, is not possible. Each and everything have been in existence and will always be in either in one way or other. This notion of Parmenides directs him to the result that due to permanence there is an undivided unanimity within the world. Heraclitus on the other hand took an entirely different stand point and proposed that the world was directed and administered by a divine or spiritual rationale or logos. His assertion that the world has always been a subject to change and it stays in constant change and modification is the chief theme of his argument. He persisted that change prevails within the reality and the unknown and all- pervasive Being is there and commands the universe and all the things will remain subject to change for eternity.
Robinson, R. R. (1994). Some methodological approaches to the unexplained points. Philosophy 2B/3B (pp. 27-34). Melbourne: La Trobe University.
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (2014), A Peer Reviewed Academic Resource. Retrieved from http://www.iep.utm.edu/milljs/ on February 15th, 2014.
When I first read this topic, the word that jumped out at me was “change”. It reminded me that nothing stands still. We are all constantly moving forward, transforming, evolving and changing. We would not be able to advance if we just kept still, not wanting to move, we would get left behind. Time does not wait for anyone, the old dies and is replaced with the young and new. A bud grows into a flower and then into a fruit, a young girl changes into a woman. Morning changes to noon, and then into night and the whole cycle starts again which makes me think that no change is permanent. Change is subject to change.