Abstract
AbstractAccording to Perdurantism, persons are identical to maximal aggregates of appropriately interrelated temporal parts. Within the Perdurantist framework, an epistemic concern arises, targeting the perduring persons’ belief that they are persons, suggesting that, ultimately, they are not in a position to know that they are persons as opposed to temporal parts. Despite the consideration it has received over the years, this concern has not yet been converted into a full-fledged objection. This paper aims to address this gap by exploring the possibility of formulating a coherent Epistemic Objection against Perdurantism. We shall examine several epistemological principles around which such an objection might be built, arguing that none of them, in the end, allows a plausible formulation of the objection. As a result, we shall conclude that the burden of proving that in a Perdurantist setting persons are not in a position to know that they are persons rests with the objectors.
Funder
Central European University Private University
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference57 articles.
1. Altschul, J. (2011). Reliabilism and brains in vats. Acta Analytica, 26(3), 257–272.
2. Bacon, A. (2018). Tense and Relativity Noûs, 52(3), 667–696.
3. Bourne, C. (2002). When am I? A tense time for some tense theorists? Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 80(3), 359–371.
4. Braddon-Mitchell, D. (2004). How do we know it is now now? Analysis, 64(3), 199–203.
5. Briggs, R. (2010). Putting a value on beauty. In T. S. Gendler and J. Hawthorne (Eds.), Oxford Studies in Epistemology. Oxford University Press, 3, 3–34.