University of Kentucky UKnowledge Theses and Dissertations--Philosophy Philosophy 2017 NIHILIST PERDURANTISM: A NEW ONTOLOGY OF MATERIAL OBJECTS Brian Matthew Carlson University of Kentucky, [email protected] Author ORCID Identifier: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9625-2266 Digital Object Identifier: https://doi.org/10.13023/ETD.2017.268 Right click to open a feedback form in a new tab to let us know how this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Carlson, Brian Matthew, "NIHILIST PERDURANTISM: A NEW ONTOLOGY OF MATERIAL OBJECTS" (2017). Theses and Dissertations--Philosophy. 17. https://uknowledge.uky.edu/philosophy_etds/17 This Doctoral Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Philosophy at UKnowledge. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations--Philosophy by an authorized administrator of UKnowledge. For more information, please contact [email protected]. STUDENT AGREEMENT: I represent that my thesis or dissertation and abstract are my original work. Proper attribution has been given to all outside sources. I understand that I am solely responsible for obtaining any needed copyright permissions. I have obtained needed written permission statement(s) from the owner(s) of each third-party copyrighted matter to be included in my work, allowing electronic distribution (if such use is not permitted by the fair use doctrine) which will be submitted to UKnowledge as Additional File. I hereby grant to The University of Kentucky and its agents the irrevocable, non-exclusive, and royalty-free license to archive and make accessible my work in whole or in part in all forms of media, now or hereafter known. I agree that the document mentioned above may be made available immediately for worldwide access unless an embargo applies. I retain all other ownership rights to the copyright of my work. I also retain the right to use in future works (such as articles or books) all or part of my work. I understand that I am free to register the copyright to my work. REVIEW, APPROVAL AND ACCEPTANCE The document mentioned above has been reviewed and accepted by the student’s advisor, on behalf of the advisory committee, and by the Director of Graduate Studies (DGS), on behalf of the program; we verify that this is the final, approved version of the student’s thesis including all changes required by the advisory committee. The undersigned agree to abide by the statements above. Brian Matthew Carlson, Student Dr. Clare Batty, Major Professor Dr. Clare Batty, Director of Graduate Studies NIHILIST PERDURANTISM: A NEW ONTOLOGY OF MATERIAL OBJECTS DISSERTATION A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the Requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Kentucky By Brian Matthew Carlson Lexington, Kentucky Co-Directors: Dr. Clare Batty, Professor of Philosophy Dr. Megan Wallace, Professor of Philosophy Lexington, Kentucky Copyright © Brian Matthew Carlson, 2017 ABSTRACT OF DISSERTATION NIHILIST PERDURANTISM: A NEW ONTOLOGY OF MATERIAL OBJECTS Ordinary material objects, such as guitars and houses, do not seem to pose any serious philosophical problems. However, the nature of the material objects and their part-whole relation raises serious questions about fundamental ontologies. Furthermore, part-whole relations are not necessarily spatial; they can be temporal as well. My dissertation investigates the problems posed by ordinary material objects, and the different ontological views that attempt to provide answers to these problems. I then present a new and radical view, which I call Nihilist Perdurantism (NP). NP claims that objects have temporal parts, but not spatial parts. I arrive at this view by first exploring and arguing against different views on composition, with a focus on arguments against common sense ontologies of ordinary objects. I then discuss the nature of mereological simples and argue against several views that claim that qualitatively heterogeneous simples are possible (Markosian and McDaniel). Next, I present my arguments against perdurantist, endurantist, and presentist view of persistence. I especially focus on endurantism, and use the aforementioned argument against the possibility of qualitatively heterogeneous simples to construct a similar argument against endurantism. Finally, I argue in favor of my view, NP. This view combines a mereological nihilist view (defended at various times by Unger, Van Inwagen, Merricks, and Sider) about spatial parts with a perdurantist view (defended at various times by Lewis, Hawley, Heller, and Sider) of temporal parts. Therefore, according to NP, there are no guitars, trees, or houses. The only objects that exist are NP objects; these are line-shaped objects that extend through spacetime. With respect to the three spatial dimensions, these objects have no parts. However, with respect to the temporal dimension, NP objects do have parts in the form of points and line segments. My work shows that NP has better solutions to many of the puzzles and problems posed by material objects, such as the puzzle of change, over the three standard views. Hinchliff argues that change is puzzling because in order for there to be real change, then the following four intuitions must be true: (1) The candle persists through the change. It existed when it was straight, and it exists now when it is bent…(2) Shapes are properties not relations. They are one-placed, not many-placed…(3) The candle itself has the shapes. Not just a part but the candle itself was straight, and not just a part but the candle itself is bent…(4) The shapes are incompatible. If the shapes were compatible, there need not have been a change. The puzzle of change is the mutual inconsistency of these four intuitions. I argue that perdurantists must deny intuition (3), endurantists must deny intuition (2), and presentists must deny intuition (1). I then argue that only NP can accommodate all four intuitions about both macroscopic and microscopic change while resolving the inconsistency of the four intuitions. My dissertation presents a new view that provides a fresh perspective on the debate about the nature of material objects. My development of NP touches on a number of other philosophical problems. In Chapter One, I discuss the role of intuitions in metaphysics, and argue that many supposedly “common sense” intuitions are already philosophical positions. In Chapter 2, I argue against Korman’s and Markosian’s common sense ontologies of ordinary objects. In Chapter 3, I argue that the endurantist view of persistence is inconsistent and should be rejected. In addition to making the case for NP and its solution to the puzzle of change in Chapter 4, I also argue that NP can solve the problem of motion in a homogenous substance. Finally, in Chapter Five, I argue against the possibility of both gunky and junky material objects. KEYWORDS: Metaphysics, Analytic Philosophy, Material Objects, Mereology, Time Brian Carlson July 10, 2017 NIHILIST PERDURANTISM: A NEW ONTOLOGY OF MATERIAL OBJECTS By Brian Matthew Carlson Clare Batty C0-Director of Dissertation Megan Wallace Co-Director of Dissertation Clare Batty Director of Graduate Studies July 10, 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................... iv Chapter 1: Motivation and Methodology ............................................................................. 1 1.1 Material Objects ........................................................................................................... 1 1.2: Material Objects and Persistence ............................................................................... 4 1.3: Asking the Right Question ......................................................................................... 6 1.4: Methodology and Assumptions ............................................................................... 12 Chapter 2: Composition ...................................................................................................... 16 2.1: Answers to the SCQ .................................................................................................. 16 2.2: Sometimeser Answers to the SCQ ........................................................................... 23 2.3: Three types of Nihilism ............................................................................................ 53 2.4: The Pointy View ....................................................................................................... 54 2.5: MaxCon .................................................................................................................... 61 2.6 The Natural Property View of Simplicity ................................................................ 80 2.7: Qualitatively Heterogeneous Extended Simples ..................................................... 85 Chapter 3: Time and Persistence ........................................................................................ 96 3.1: A & B Theories of Time and Tensed Propositions ................................................... 97 3.2: Theories of Objects in Time .................................................................................... 111 3.3: The Argument from Vagueness ............................................................................. 130 3.4: The Argument From Temporary Intrinsics ............................................................ 141 Chapter 4: Nihilist