This paper addresses a mereological paradox which faces proponents of endurantism, the theory of persistence according to which objects may be wholly located at several times. The paradox is intended to demonstrate that endurantism is false because it entails that enduring objects are both 3D and 4D. I offer three ways for the endurantist to avoid the paradoxical conclusion by demonstrating that the fusion principle required to generate the paradox is untenable.
"Currently Persisting Paradoxes: Getting Clear about Endurantism,"
International Journal of Undergraduate Research and Creative Activities: Vol. 6:
2, Article 9.
Available at: https://digitalcommons.cwu.edu/ijurca/vol6/iss2/9