![]() ![]() Grasping the individual’s qualitative essence. I have discussed only one objection to names being rigid over time, but there are others not necessarily committed to instantaneous individuals (e.g., Dranseika, Dagys and Berniūnas 2020).īrentano, according to one interpretation anyway, maintained inĮffect that we single out an individual rigidly in our minds by way of Sum of instantaneous parts, with respect to different times ‘you’ is taken as a rigid designator but for a Reservations about verbal camouflage can arise without nonrigidity if Temporal as opposed to the alethic case, is that Quinn-inspired ![]() Substantive interpretation of counterpart-theoretic talk, inĬriticizing reductive analyses. Quinn accordinglyĭirects his critical attention, in effect, to a metaphysically Rendering of ordinary talk into the stages idiom. But then there is really no point to the awkward Persons who persist through time” (Quinn 1978, pp.ģ53–354). Of person-stages” would be “derivative from talk of Of ordinary speech with rigid designators, in which case “Talk That there is no ontologically substantive difference expressed byĬounterpart-talk, as opposed to rigidity-talk: he allows thatĬounterpart-talk could be presented as a mere verbal variant Quinn, presented below as a critic of the counterpart reduction,Īctually nuances his position to make room, in effect, for this idea Parallel case (for a temporally-oriented skeptic, see Miller 2005). – pot-ä-to,” just as there are in the alethic As for whether names are rigid over time or whether a nonrigid counterpart treatment is preferable, there are skeptics who would say “pot-ā-to
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |