Re: SUO: The Story So Far
Chris,
These aren't inconsistent:
>There a number of well-known positions that are inconsistent (e.g.
>Perdurantism and Endurantism - vide Statue and Clay example).
This is the point that I was making in the discussion about
Whitehead's process approach. We have two informal English
words "statue" and "clay", which people have been using for
centuries without getting into trouble.
If perhaps one definition creates an inconsistency, that is
simply a problem with that definition. See Whitehead's
terminology:
http://www.bestweb.net/~sowa/ontology/anw_obj.htm
According to that view (which I endorse), all objects are
"recurring event types", which result from certain causally
determined processes that result in some aspects (called
objects) remaining recognizable for longer periods of time
than others.
The word "clay" describes one kind of recurring event type,
and the word "statue" describes another kind. Those two kinds
happen to have a large overlap. In particular, the clay may
persist for a longer period of time than the statue. (In 4D
terminology, the space-time region of the clay includes the
space-time region of the statue.)
But there is no inconsistency. We can use the ordinary English
words without any trouble and relate them to various formal
definitions, which can also be stated without inconsistency.
Neither the English words nor their definition in terms of
W's process ontology are causing any trouble. The main
source of confusion seems to be the words "perdurantist" and
"endurantist".
Suggestion: Let's stop using those words. They are causing
more confusion than clarification.
John