Kathrin Koslicki

THE CROOKED PATH FROM VAGUENESS TO FOUR-DIMENSIONALISM

How do the familiar concrete objects of common-sense – houses, trees, people, cars and the like – persist through time? According to the position known as ‘four-dimensionalism’ or ‘the doctrine of temporal parts’, ordinary concrete objects persist through time by perduring, i.e., by having temporal parts at all those times at which they exist, in addition to their ordinary spatial parts.1 The contrasting position, known as ‘three-dimensionalism’, holds that ordinary concrete objects lack such an additional temporal dimension; rather, they persist through time by enduring, i.e., by being ‘wholly present’ (whatever exactly that comes to) at each of those times at which they exist.2,3 In his excellent recent book, Four-Dimensionalism: An Ontology of Persistence and Time (Sider, 2001), Theodore Sider defends a version of four-dimensionalism which he calls the ‘stage-theory’: according to this view, ordinary persisting objects are analyzed as being identical to momentary stages; they persist by having temporal counterparts at other times. (The ‘stage-theory’ contrasts with the more familiar ‘worm-theory’, according to which ordinary persisting objects are analyzed as extended space-time worms, rather than momentary stages.) Sider’s claim on behalf of the stagetheory is that it is the position which, on the whole, provides the best analysis of the persistence of ordinary concrete objects: when compared with competing views, the stage-theory yields the best unified solution to a wide range of classical metaphysical puzzles and has “on balance, the most important advantages and the least serious drawbacks” (Sider, 2001, p. 140). Despite all of its many significant virtues, however, Sider’s case for four-dimensionalism is troubling in certain crucial respects, both philosophically and meta-philosophically. My purpose in this paper

The Semantics of Mass-Predicates*

‘gold’, ‘trash’, ‘gravel’, ‘clothing’, ‘furniture’, ‘music’, and ‘information’. 1 Some standardly have only count-occurrences, e.g. ‘thunderstorm’, ‘river’, ‘person’, ‘circle’, ‘molecule’, ‘word’, ‘line’, and ‘definition’. Others standardly have both kinds of occurrences, e.g. ‘hair’, ‘chicken’, ‘carrot’, ‘apple’, ‘proof’ and ‘truth’. In each group, there are some nouns which denote concrete things ~e.g. ‘snow’, ‘river’, ‘chicken’ ! and some which denote abstract entities ~e.g. ‘information’, ‘line’, ‘proof’ !. 2

Genericity and Logical Form

In this paper I propose a novel treatment of generic sentences, which proceeds by means of different levels of analysis. According to this account, all generic sentences (I-generics and D-generics alike) are initially treated in a uniform manner, as involving higher-order predication (following the work of George Boolos, James Higginbotham and Barry Schein on plurals). Their non-uniform character, however, re-emerges at subsequent levels of analysis, when the higher-order predications of the first level are cashed out in terms of quantification over individuals: this last step, I suggest, involves knowledge concerning the lexical meaning of the predicates in question.

Isolation and Non-Arbitrary Division: Frege's Two Criteria for Counting

In §54 of the Grundlagen, Frege advances an interesting proposal on how to distinguish among different sorts of concepts, only some of which he thinks can be associated with number. This paper is devoted to an analysis of the two criteria he offers, isolation and non-arbitrary division. Both criteria say something about the way in which a concept divides its extension; but they emphasize different aspects. Isolation ensures that a concept divides its extension into discrete units. I offer two construals of this: isolation as discreteness, i.e. absence of overlap, between the objects to be counted; and isolation as the drawing of conceptual boundaries. Non-arbitrary division concerns the internal structure of the units we count: it makes sure that we cannot go on dividing them arbitrarily and still find more units of the kind. Non-arbitrary division focuses not only on how long something can be divided into parts of the same kind; it also speaks to the way in which these divisions are made, arbitrarily or non-arbitrarily, as well as to the compositional structure of the objects divided.

Substance, Independence, and Unity

Hylomorphism is the position popular among neo-Aristotelian metaphysicians according to which unified wholes (such as presumably organisms) are in some sense compounds of matter (hyle) and form (morphe). Neo-Aristotelians also often find themselves drawn to an account of substancehood which centers on the idea that the substances are just those entities which are ontologically independent, according to some preferred notion of ontological independence. But what this preferred notion of ontological independence is in terms of which a successful criterion of substancehood can be formulated has been a difficult and controversial question.1

Where Grounding and Causation Part Ways: Comments on Jonathan Schaffer

Does the notion of ground, as it has recently been employed by metaphysicians, point to a single unified phenomenon (the ‘‘Unity Hypothesis’’)? Jonathan Schaffer holds that the phenomenon of grounding exhibits the unity characteristic of a single genus. In defense of this hypothesis, Schaffer proposes to take seriously the analogy between causation and grounding. More specifically, Schaffer argues that both grounding and causation are best approached through a single formalism, viz., that utilized by structural equation models of causation. In this paper, I present several concerns which suggest that the structural equation model does not transfer as smoothly from the case of causation to the case of grounding as Schaffer would have us believe. If it can in fact be shown that significant differences surface in how the formalism in question applies to the two types of phenomena in question, Schaffer’s attempt at establishing an analogy between grounding and causation has thereby been weakened and, as a result, the application of the Unity Hypothesis to the case of grounding once again stands in need of justification.