The Perdurantist Argumentative Analysis

In this essay, I will evaluate the perdurantist view of persistence, as opposed to the endurantist view. I am going to explore specifically the reasoning behind the worm theory. I will start by briefly explaining the problem of persistence. I will go on to define the perdurantist view, explaining the two principle theories of worm-theory and stage-theory, and how they apply to this argument of milk going sour. I will evaluate it through explaining its criticisms in the face of endurantism. In this essay I will argue that the reasoning behind perdurantism, more specifically worm theory, is more satisfactory in explaining the persistence of the milk over time then the opposing endurantist claims, though it is not without fault. It is first important to examine what we mean by identical. It is important to distinguish between being qualitatively and quantitatively identical. If the object was qualitatively identical, then it must possess all the same qualities, and if an object is quantitative the same, then it will also possess the same spaciotemporal property. With regards to whether the fresh milk and the sour milk are identical, we are referring to their quantitative identity, so whether they are in fact the same ‘thing’.

The problem of persistence arises due to disputes over the nature of

The classic example is the Ship of Theseus, which I will briefly explain. If a ship is completely replaced over the course of time plank by plank, then a dispute may arise as to whether it is the same ship. Those who subscribe to the worm- theory would argue that it is, as it is all part of its time worm. If each plank removed was taken and used to completely reconstruct the ship somewhere else, this would create a different time worm. However, critics then argue that you would then be left with two ships in the original harbour where it set off, as both time worms come back to this