The paper critiques the structured debate on persistence in objects, suggesting it misrepresents the metaphysical question.
The debate about how objects persist is primarily structured by the opposition between perdurantism and endurantism. In the present paper, I argue that there is something wrong with this structuring of the debate. Assuming that the question at issue in this debate—which I call the question of persistence—is the question for the ground or metaphysical explanation of the persistence of objects, I argue that, on a proper understanding of the notion of persistence, neither endurantism nor perdurantism provides the required explanation. Proceeding from this result, I further elucidate the question of persistence and give an outline of two different ways it might be answered.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dirk Franken (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: