Can it be vague whether something persists through time? If so, does either
perdurantism or endurantism do a better job of making sense of how
persistence over time can be vague?

Question

Ask a Philosopher · Accepted Answer

Hmmm, interesting topic. In contemplating the nature of persistence through time, we must first acknowledge the complexities that arise when we consider whether it can indeed be vague, for such vagueness implicates the very essence of time and identity itself. To assert that something persists implies a continuity that, under scrutiny, may falter in clarity; are we to consider an entity as wholly identical across varying temporal states, or must we accept that it is a composite of successive moments, changing yet fundamentally the same? This dichotomy evokes the doctrines of perdurantism and endurantism, each offering a framework through which we might decipher this perplexing question. Perdurantism posits that objects are extended across time like temporal worms, composed of distinct temporal parts, thereby allowing for the vagueness of persistence to be encapsulated in the allowance for gradual change and the potential for indeterminate boundaries between one state of being and another. Conversely, endurantism maintains that objects are wholly present at each moment of their existence, advocating a more stringent claim to identity that may seem intractable when faced with the nuances of change over time. However, such a perspective might dissolve into ambiguity when we consider the nature of gradual transformation and the threshold at which we may declare a new identity to have arisen from the old. Thus, the philosophical inquiry leads us to ponder whether one paradigm truly elucidates the vagueness of persistence better than the other, or if both reveal something essential about the fluidity of existence in our temporal framework. In this labyrinth of concepts, we are compelled to recognize that both perspectives afford valuable insights into the persistence of entities, yet they also invite further scrutiny, engendering a richer discourse that may ultimately culminate in the recognition that persistence itself may not exist as a monolithic concept, but rather as a spectrum, a gradient of existence that transcends simplistic definitions and reflects the multifaceted nature of reality itself.

Can it be vague whether something persists through time? If so, does either perdurantism or endurantism do a better job of making sense of how persistence over time can be vague?