McTaggart's Argument Evaluation

McTaggart's Argument Evaluation

McTaggart takes a bold step in trying to disprove the existence of a phenomenon as taken for granted and unquestioned as breathing when he tackles the issue of time. If for no other reason, this quest is extremely daring in its scope, because he chooses to question an entity whose reality has probably never crossed most people’s minds.

McTaggart’s goal in his paper is, on a large scale, to prove that time does not exist. We will, however, be tackling the aspect of time known as the A-Series in this essay. His entire argument rests on his ability to prove this A-Series is unreal. The A-Series is the “tense” component of time that we perceive. When we refer to happenings in our lives, they occur in the past, present or future tense. Which tense a given event commands depends on its relation to a moving “now.” As we move through life, things in the future move ever closer to the present and after an event occurs it is forever moving further and further into the past thanks to the forward-moving “now.” McTaggart’s goal is to prove the logical difficulties that the concept of the moving “now’s” existence calls to mind, and it is these difficulties that ultimately lead McTaggart to rule out time’s existence.

McTaggart’s first step in proving his point is to highlight the incompatibility of the respective tenses of past, present and future. The incompatibility lies in the fact that no event can possess all of these properties at once. At first glance this may seem like an obvious and meaningless thing to say, because no one would argue that anything represents all these qualities at one time. Instead, most would be inclined to point out that an occasion holds all three of these qualities at three different points in time. McTaggart has no problem with this claim and goes so far as to label each period during which something has each of these qualities as T1, T2, and T3. When something exists at a certain moment in the future, that moment is T1. This strategy is applied to the event at the moment it enters the present; it is here that it is known as T2. And when the happening is located at a moment in the future, it is referred to as T3. Again, objectors to the theory that the A-Series is unreal would feel like they still have the upper hand; fully agreeing with McTaggart’s logic, but this is where McTaggart make...

... middle of paper ...

...ature of God’s creation. The vastness of that which He’s created suggests that there will be things that humans won’t be able to logically sort out. This inability should not, however, be mistaken as proof that the A-Series or another complex entity does not exist. McTaggart’s argument lacks proof of his claim; he uses his opposition’s inability to form a definite refutation of his claim while he never really provides one himself.

While McTaggart makes a pretty convincing case, I don’t feel like there is any real proof in his claims. There is compelling evidence in his arguments, but he definitely leaves room for dissent. One other problem I have with McTaggart’s argument is what his conclusion means. Assuming he has made an air-tight case that cannot be argued against, what has he really said? Following his logical process he doesn’t provide a meaningful conclusion. What have we gained from knowing that the A-Series and our perceived “now” do not exist as we were once sure they did? Do we change the way we live our lives? Nothing at all changes, because our perception of the world remains exactly the same, with nothing more than a slightly enlightened perspective gained.