請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/15885完整後設資料紀錄
| DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 楊金穆(Chin-Mu Yang) | |
| dc.contributor.author | Shu-He Shiu | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 許樹和 | zh_TW |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-07T17:54:30Z | - |
| dc.date.copyright | 2012-08-19 | |
| dc.date.issued | 2012 | |
| dc.date.submitted | 2012-08-16 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | Armstrong, D. M., 1980, “Identity Through Time”, in Peter van Inwagen (ed.) Time and Cause, Dordrecht: D. Reidel: 67–78.
Baker, Lynne Rudder, 1997, “Why Constitution is not Identity”, Journal of Philosophy, 94: 599–621. –––, 2000, Persons and Bodies: a Constitution View, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Barker, S. and Dowe, P., 2003, “Paradoxes of Multi-Location”, Analysis, 63: 106-14. –––, 2005, “Endurance is Paradoxical”, Analysis, 65: 69–75. Baxter, D., 1989, “Identity Through Time and the Discernibility of Identicals”, Analysis, 49: 125–31. Beebee, H. and Rush, M., 2003, “Non-Paradoxical Multi-Location”, Analysis, 63.4: 311-17. Brogaard, B., 2000, “Presentist Four-Dimensionalism”, Monist, 83: 341–56. Cowles, D.W., 1994, “On van Inwagen's Defense of Vague Identity”, Philosophical Perspectives, 8: 137–58. Crisp, Thomas and Smith, Donald, 2005, “'Wholly Present' Defined”, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 71.2: 318–44. Doepke, Frederick C., 1982, “Spatially Coinciding Objects”, Ratio, 24: 45–60. Haslanger, Sally, 1989a, “Persistence, Change and Explanation”, Philosophical Studies 56: 1–28. –––, 1989b, “Endurance and Temporary Intrinsics”, Analysis, 49: 119–125. –––, 2003, “Persistence Through Time”, in Michael Loux and Dean Zimmerman (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Metaphysics, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hawley, Katherine, 1999, “Persistence and Non-Supervenient Relations”, Mind, 108: 53–67. –––, 2001, How Things Persist, Oxford: Oxford University Press. –––, 2005, “Fission, Fusion and Intrinsic Facts”, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 71.3: 602–21. Hawthorne, John, 2006, “Three-Dimensionalism”, in his Metaphysical Essays, Oxford: Oxford University Press. –––, 2008, “Three-Dimensionalism versus Four-Dimensionalism”, in Contemporary Debates in Metaphysics, edited by Hawthorne, Sider and Zimmerman, Oxford: Blackwell. Heller, Mark, 1984, “Temporal Parts of Four-Dimensional Objects”, Philosophical Studies, 46: 323–334. –––, 1990, The Ontology of Physical Objects, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. –––, 1992, “Things Change”, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 52: 695–704. –––, 1996, “Against Metaphysical Vagueness”, Philosophical Perspectives, 10: 177–185. –––, 2000, “Temporal Overlap is not Coincidence”, Monist, 83: 362–80. Hirsch, Eli, 1982, The Concept of Identity, Oxford: Oxford University Press. –––, 2008, “Ontological Arguments: Interpretive Charity and Quantifier Variance”, in Contemporary Debates in Metaphysics, edited by Hawthorne, Sider and Zimmerman, Oxford: Blackwell. Lewis, David, 1971, “Counterparts of Persons and their Bodies”, Journal of Philosophy, 68: 203–211. –––, 1976, “Survival and Identity”, in Amelie Rorty (ed.) The Identities of Persons, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 117–40. Reprinted with significant postscripts in Lewis's Philosophical Papers volume I, Oxford: Oxford University Press. –––, 1986a, On the Plurality of Worlds, Oxford: Blackwell. –––, 1986b, Philosophical Papers, volume II. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Loux, Michael J., 1998, Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction, London: Routledge. Markosian, Ned, 1994, “The 3D/4D Controversy, and Non-present Objects”, Philosophical Papers, 23: 243–9. McTaggart, J.M.E., 1927, The Nature of Existence, volume 2, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Parfit, Derek, 1971, “Personal Identity”, The Philosophical Review 80: 3–27. –––, 1984, Reasons and Persons, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Quine, W.V.O., 1950, “Identity, Ostension and Hypostasis”, in his From a Logical Point of View, Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 65–79. –––, 1960, Word and Object, Cambridge MA: MIT Press. –––, 1981, Theories and Things, Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. Rea, Michael, 1995, “The Problem of Material Constitution”, Philosophical Review, 104: 525–552. –––, 1998b, “Temporal Parts Unmotivated”, Philosophical Review, 107: 225–60. Sider, Theodore, 1996, “All the World's a Stage”, Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 74: 433–453. –––, 1997, “Four-Dimensionalism”, Philosophical Review, 106: 197–231. –––, 2000, “The Stage View and Temporary Intrinsics”, Analysis, 60: 84–8. –––, 2001, Four-Dimensionalism, Oxford: Oxford University Press. –––, 2003a, “Against Vague Existence”, Philosophical Studies, 114: 135–46. –––, 2003b, “Maximality and Microphysical Supervenience”, Philosophy and Phenomenological Researchh, 66: 139–49. –––, 2004, “Replies to Gallois, Hirsch and Markosian”, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 68: 674–87. –––, 2008, “Temporal Parts”, in Contemporary Debates in Metaphysics, edited by Hawthorne, Sider and Zimmerman, Oxford: Blackwell, 241–62. van Inwagen, Peter, 1981, “The Doctrine of Arbitrary Undetached Parts”, Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 62: 123–137. –––, 1988, “How to Reason about Vague Objects”, Philosophical Topics, 16: 255–84. –––,1990a, “Four-Dimensional Objects”, Nous, 24: 245–55. –––, 1990b, Material Beings, Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press. –––, 2000, “Temporal Parts and Identity Across Time”, Monist, 83: 437–59. Zimmerman, Dean, 1995, “Theories of Masses and Problems of Constitution”, Philosophical Review, 104: 53–110. –––, 1997, “Coincident Objects: could a ‘Stuff’ Ontology Help?”, Analysis, 57: 19–27. –––, 1998a, “Temporary Intrinsics and Presentism”, in Metaphysics, the Big Questions, ed. van Inwagen and Zimmerman, Oxford: Blackwell: 206–219. | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/15885 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 本文旨於(1)評估各種四次元論,並比較何種版本的四次元最合理; (2) 指出四次元論的局限,說明何以四次元論目前尚不是關於事物歷經變化而持存的主流理論。
第一章介紹三次元論與四次元之間的爭辯,並點出爭辯的焦點在於是否接受事物具有「時間部分」。三次元論者主張事物只有空間上的部分,沒有時間上的部分。四次元論者則持相反看法。Peter van Inwagen認為這場爭辯只是字面之爭,沒有實質意涵。Theodor Sider則論證這場爭辯是場有意義的辯論。 第二章介紹「時空蟲理論」,並評價該理論的優缺點。時空蟲理論可以充分解釋事物的變化與續存,但會面臨無法正常指稱、計數事物的問題,並且會不得不承認同一空間區域會有多數(甚至無限多)事物同時存在的現象。 第三章介紹「階段論」,並評價該理論的優缺點。作為時空蟲理論的改良版本,階段論是目前為止最成功的四次元論。 第四章則指出關於四次元論的疑慮。嘗試提出改良階段論的可能方向。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | My MA thesis has two tasks: (1) evaluate different versions of four-dimensionalism in market, chose the best four-dimensioanlsim, and justified my choice. (2) specify the unease concern about four-dimensionalism. These concerns is why four-dimensionalism is not a well-accepted metaphysical doctrine today. It seems to my that if there is a version of four-dimensionalism that can ease or resolve these concerns, four-dimensionalism, compare to its rival, i.e., three-dimensionalism, will be a dominate metaphysical doctrine regarding to the issue of persistence.
In Chapter 1 I briefly introduce the debate between three- and four-dimensionalism and point out the core of this debate is about the acceptance of temporal parts. Four-dimensionslist belive that by appealing to temporal parts many traditional metaphysical problems or paradox can be solved or avoided. However, there is debate bout whether the debate about temporal part is verbal dispute or real. Peter van Inwagen claims that this debate is verbal but Theodor sider argues that the debates is real. And then I introduce several reasons in favor of four-dimenstionalism; some of them is about the definition and others about famous traditional metaphysical problem or paradox. In Chpater 2 I evaluate the strengthens and weakness of the first version of four-dimensionalism—worm theory. It is interesting that no one calls herself worm theorist explicitly in literature while there are so many philosophers implicitly holding this view that it is the first four-dimensionalism that comes into three-dimensionalists’ minds. I shall state what I mean by ‘worm theory’ in the first section. In the due two sections I shall address how the metaphysical problems mentioned in chapter 1, the problem of change and the paradox of material coincidence, can be response or solved in the worm view. These addresses will demonstrate the strengthens of worm theory in comparison to three-dimensionalism. In the fourth section I shall offer three critics to the worm theory; these critics consist of the weakness of the worm theory and point out the possibility of an alternative version of four-dimensionalism. In Chpater 3 I evaluate the strengthens and weakness of the other version of four-dimensionalism—stage theory. Here I introduce Sider’s stage theory; I shall in what aspect stage theory is the different version of four-dimensionalism and how this new theory can have the benefit of worm theory without facing its problems in the meantime. In this sense stage theory is the best four-diemensionalism so far. In Chpater 4 I elaborate my two concerns about four-dimensionalism, in particular, stage theory. One is about the underlying supposition of stage theory; the other is about the significance of accepting stage theory. In the end I conclude that these concerns will indicate the how stage theory should be modified in the future. | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-07T17:54:30Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-101-R97124009-1.pdf: 491959 bytes, checksum: cafec7b25b65122dde4dc998ef4cc50a (MD5) Previous issue date: 2012 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | Chapter 1 Temporal parts - the debate between three-dimensionalism and four-dimensionalism 6
1.1 Introduction 6 1.2 Temporal parts 8 1.3 The definition of the notion of 'temporal part' 13 1.4 Case I: Change 21 1.5 Case II: Coincidence 28 Chapter 2 Worm Theory 33 2.1 Worm theory stated 33 2.2 Response to no-change objection 36 2.3 Solution of the paradox of coincidence 42 2.4 Critics 45 2.4.1 Overpopulation 46 2.4.2 Counting 48 2.4.3 Reference 50 2.5 Conclusion 52 Chapter 3 Stage Theory 54 3.1 Stage theory stated 54 3.2 Advantage over worm theory 59 3.2.1 Overpopulation 60 3.2.2 Counting 61 3.2.3 Referring 61 3.3 Problems and Responses 63 3.4 Conclusion 65 Chapter 4 Four-dimensionalism Reconsidered 67 4.1 Do four-dimensionalists must embrace eternalism? 67 4.2 Is coincidence the only reason that we should accept four-dimensionalism? 70 References 72 | |
| dc.language.iso | en | |
| dc.subject | 時空蟲論 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 四次元論 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 時間部分 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 時間哲學 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 階段論 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | Temporal parts | en |
| dc.subject | four-dimensionalism | en |
| dc.subject | worm theory | en |
| dc.subject | stage theory | en |
| dc.subject | philosophy of time | en |
| dc.title | 四次元論的合理性及其限度 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | Critical Study of Four-Dimensionalism | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 100-2 | |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 何志青,蔡行健 | |
| dc.subject.keyword | 時間部分,四次元論,時空蟲論,階段論,時間哲學, | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | Temporal parts,four-dimensionalism,worm theory,stage theory,philosophy of time, | en |
| dc.relation.page | 77 | |
| dc.rights.note | 未授權 | |
| dc.date.accepted | 2012-08-16 | |
| dc.contributor.author-college | 文學院 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author-dept | 哲學研究所 | zh_TW |
| 顯示於系所單位: | 哲學系 | |
文件中的檔案:
| 檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| ntu-101-1.pdf 未授權公開取用 | 480.43 kB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。
