Use this URL to cite or link to this record in EThOS: http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.701188
Title: In defense of (extreme) monism
Author: Garner, Jeremy
ISNI:       0000 0004 5990 5824
Awarding Body: University of Nottingham
Current Institution: University of Nottingham
Date of Award: 2016
Availability of Full Text:
Access from EThOS:
Full text unavailable from EThOS. Restricted access.
Access from Institution:
Abstract:
There are broadly speaking two varieties of views regarding the nature of coincident entities such as statues and the pieces of matter which constitute them. According to Monists, (some) coincident entities are identical while according to pluralists coincident entities are always distinct. The aim of this thesis is to defend the view that many cases of coincidence, including cases of temporary coincidence, are instances of identity. First, I will argue that pluralism ought to be rejected because it faces serious philosophical challenges monism avoids. Next, I will argue that monism can adequately resist the three most common Leibniz law arguments levied against the plausibility that (some) coincident objects are identical. Specifically I will argue that the best monist response to the modal Leibniz law is to adopt a counterpart theoretic account of de re modality to justify the claim that modal contexts are referentially opaque. Next, I will show how monists can resist the linguistic version of LLA by either denying the truth (or falsity) of one of the relevant premises, or by denying the validity of the argument in question. Finally I will argue that the best monist response to the temporal version of LLA is to adopt a stage theoretic account of persistence which can offer a unified account of what Michael Rea has called the 'the problems of material constitution'.
Supervisor: Not available Sponsor: Not available
Qualification Name: Thesis (Ph.D.) Qualification Level: Doctoral
EThOS ID: uk.bl.ethos.701188  DOI: Not available
Keywords: B Philosophy (General)
Share: