Perdurance Theory
The theory of perdurance has a rather simple justification: any object that exists, in reality, has only temporary structural elements. Proponents of this theory argue that the object is not able to have a permanent state of presence throughout the entire period of existence. For instance, the supporters of the hypothesis often tend to the ideas of the theory of relativity, where they consider time as the unit of measurement that does not have constant indicators. Nevertheless, this hypothesis also has opponents who refute this assertion. Their arguments tend to benefit the theory of endurance, which, as it becomes evident, differs from the first and, probably, has an entirely different justification and explanation.
Endurance Theory
This movement contradicts the first and offers the following explanation: one or another object exists ultimately, without dividing into its structural parts. Thus, one of the most vivid examples of the theory is such phenomenon as presentism, which provides the possibility of existence only at a particular moment in the present. Besides, the number of endurance theories is bigger than perdurance, which helps to note that people believe in the hypothesis of presentism instead of any other. Anyhow, both concepts are the reflection of humans’ attempts to prove the rules of being in any possible way.
Comparison of the Two Theories
Therefore, the difference between the two approaches is significant, but it is possible to claim that there are more followers of endurance ideas than perdurance. The examples prove that their supporters have quite reasonable arguments. Nevertheless, no one has officially announced one of the two theories the only correct yet. Accordingly, these two philosophical approaches to the concept of reality are more distinct than similar, and the disputes over this may continue for a long time.