Dion, Theon, and DAUP
Parsons (Josh)
Source: Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 85 (2004)
Paper - Abstract

Paper StatisticsBooks / Papers Citing this PaperNotes Citing this PaperDisclaimer

Author’s Abstract

  1. Peter van Inwagen's puzzle of Descartes's foot1, and Chrysippus' similar puzzle of Dion and Theon2, do not have as much bearing on the 'doctrine of arbitrary undetached parts' (or DAUP) as is usually supposed.
  2. Van Inwagen's argument against DAUP works via his rejection of the "remainder principle", which, I argue, is, in fact, independent of DAUP itself.

In-Page Footnotes

Footnote 1:

Text Colour Conventions (see disclaimer)

  1. Blue: Text by me; © Theo Todman, 2020
  2. Mauve: Text by correspondent(s) or other author(s); © the author(s)

© Theo Todman, June 2007 - August 2020. Please address any comments on this page to theo@theotodman.com. File output:
Website Maintenance Dashboard
Return to Top of this Page Return to Theo Todman's Philosophy Page Return to Theo Todman's Home Page