Abstract
I consider a problem that arises in connection with (alleged) cases of coincident objects, such as a statue and the lump of clay it is made of, and that affects the two main accounts of such cases, namely, Pluralism (according to which statue and lump are distinct) and Monism (according to which they are one). The problem is that both views seem committed to give strained interpretations of some statements describing the situation. I consider Pickel's arguments against the Pluralist's strategy of interpreting 'is' as expressing constitution in sentences such as 'The statue is the lump of clay', and provide reasons for rejecting them - so as to eventually vindicate the Pluralist position.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callSimilar Papers
More From: THEORIA. An International Journal for Theory, History and Foundations of Science
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
