Advertisement

Sophia

, Volume 58, Issue 3, pp 401–408 | Cite as

Hell, Heaven, Neither, or Both: the Afterlife and Sider’s Puzzle

  • Jeremiah Joven JoaquinEmail author
Article
  • 111 Downloads

Abstract

Theodore Sider’s puzzle in Hell and Vagueness has generated some interesting responses in the past few years. In this paper, I explore yet another possible solution out of the conundrum. This solution implies three ways of denying a binary conception of the afterlife. I argue that while these solutions might first seem tenable, they might still succumb to a Sideresque revenge puzzle.

Keywords

Theodore Sider Hell Divine judgment Vagueness Gappy afterlife Glutty afterlife Many-states afterlife 

Notes

Acknowledgements

An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Philosophical Association of Philippines-Pagarubangan 2016 Conference. My thanks go to the organizers and participants for their useful comments and suggestions. Several people have helped in developing the main points of the present version. My thanks go to Hazel Biana, Robert James Boyles, Mark Joseph Calano, Aaron Cotnoir, Mark Anthony Dacela, Dennis Edralin, James Franklin, Adrianne John Galang, Brian Garrett, Alan Hajek, Rhommel Hernandez, Dante Leoncini, Napoleon Mabaquiao, Graham Priest, Luis Sembrano, Theodore Sider, Benito Teehankee, and the anonymous referees of this journal.

References

  1. Corabi, J. (2011). Eschatological cutoffs. Faith and Philosophy, 28(4), 385–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Dougherty, T., & Poston, T. (2008). Hell, vagueness, and justice: a reply to Sider. Faith and Philosophy, 25(3), 322–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Fowlie, W. (1981). A reading of Dante’s Inferno. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  4. Hajek, A. (2016). Philosophical heuristics and philosophical methodology. In H. Cappelen, T. Gendler, & J. P. Hawthorne (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of philosophical methodology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. John Paul, I. I. (1994). Catechism of the Catholic Church. Geoffrey Chapman Publishers.Google Scholar
  6. Konieczka, M. (2011). Hell despite vagueness: a response to Sider. Sophia, 50(1), 221–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Priest, G. (2008). An introduction to non-classical logic: from if to is. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Sanghvi, S. (1974). Commentary on Tattvārthasūtra of Vācaka Umāsvāti (trans: Dixit, K.K.). Ahmedabad: L. D. Institute of Indology.Google Scholar
  9. Sider, T. (2002). Hell and vagueness. Faith and Philosophy, 19(1), 58–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Sider, T. (2010). Logic for philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Vasubandhu. (1988). Abhidharmakośa (trans: Pruden, L. M.). Berkeley: Asian Humanities Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.De La Salle UniversityManilaPhilippines

Personalised recommendations