one object can possess incompatible qualities at different times
The Presentist Solution
the issue is irrelevant because the only time that is real is the present
Problem with Presentism
what happens to the past and the future?
other times are real, a is f at t
Relational Property View
analyzes a is f at t as a is f-at-t; not simple f-ness but f-at-t
Relational property's solution to qualitative change
Problem with the relationist solution
denies that the object possesses the intrinsic qualities that such change is supposed to involve; a possesses the intrinsic properties of straightness at t0 and bentness at t1; not straightness-at-t0 and bentness-at-t1
explain the problem of substantial change by means of a concrete example
we give a lump of clay to a scupltor, who then sculpts a statue. later, we flatten the statue and make it look exactly as it did prior to sculpting. are the statue and the lump of clay numerically identical or distinct?
Modal property of an object
a modal property of an object is a property that an object has in virtue of what could happen to it
historical property of an object
a historical property of an object is a property that object has in virtue of what has happened to it in the past
Lowe's solution to the problem of substantial change
the statue and the clay are numerically distinct persisting objects the exactly coincide, for a period of time they differ in their modal and historical properties given leibniz's law, they are numerically different
two attractive features of Lowe's solution
we need not deny leibniz's law does not require the acceptance of the theory of relative identity/existence nor the doctrine of temporal parts
two unattractive features of lowe's solution
how can numerically distinct objects exactly coincide? how does this explain away our judging the statue to be identical to the lump of clay?
Problem of causation
explaining what the statement "event e caused event c" means
Humean Analysis of event causation
event c was a cause of event e if 1) c preceded e and 2) c and e are event types T1 and T2, every event type T1 is followed by T2
Main Problem with the Humean analysis of Event causation
2 events can satisfy the parameters though they are causally unrelated
Counterfactual analysis of event causation
event c was a cause of event e is 1) c occurred, 2) e occurred, 3) c and e are wholly distinct events and 4) if c had not occurred, then e would not have occurred
Why counterfactuality is not sufficient for causality
events c and e can both occur and not be related; Napoleon is born, Napoleon dies, to say that his birth caused his death is unnatural though one does not occur without the other.
Probability analysis of event causation
event c was a cause of event e if 1) c occurred, 2) e occurred, 3) the occurrence of c raised the probability of the occurrence of e by some amount
Problem with the Probabilistic analysis of event causation
it's subject to the same criticism of the counterfactual analysis, if c had not occurred then the probability of e occurring would be less
What is an agent? Example
a persisting object possessing various properties, including certain causal powers and liabilities; a paradigm example of an agent would be a human being or some other conscious being capable of performing intentional actions
a species of causation in which the cause of some event of state of affairs is not or not only some other event but is, rather, an agent of some kind.
analyze agent causation in terms of event causation
analysis #1: Agent A caused event e if there was some event, x, such that x involved A and x caused e
analyze event causation in terms of agent causation
analysis #2: event c caused event e if there was some agent A and some manner of acting X sugh that c consisted in A's X-ing and A, by X-ing, caused e
Want to see the other 24 Flashcards in Final Exam?JOIN TODAY FOR FREE!