Presentism deals with a branch of metaphysics which is concerned with the nature of time. In particular, it shows how our understanding of time may be linked to our understanding of what exists. In other words, it answers the question: how are time and ontology related? Fundamentally, presentism argues that only present entities exist, what is past does not exist (it did, but doesn't any more) and what is future does not exist (it will, but it doesn't yet). More specifically, presentism involves the ontological thesis just announced, and also a dynamic thesis that what exists changes. In my opinion, presentism faces two major objections in the form of time travel and truth making. Within this essay I shall explain their arguments against presentism …show more content…
From there, I shall show how despite this objection, presentism manages to respond both fluently and sufficiently, consequently retaining the theory's plausibility.
A regular traveller is one who departs and arrives at a destination, and the time elapsed from departure to arrival is equal to the duration of the journey. However, 'if he is a time traveller, the separation in time between departure and arrival does not equal the duration of his journey' (Smith, 2016). Although currently we are not capable of time travel, one might think that it is possible. If presentism is true, then 'it is impossible to time travel as you would be trying to get to somewhere that does not exist' (Ryan, Gensel, 2008). Since only the present exists, would-be time travellers would be trying to go somewhere which either does not or, rather, no longer exists. Consequently, there is a case to argue that this 'nowhere objection' renders time travel and presentism as incompatible. However, I would reject this by stating that non-travellers are able to move from one moment in time to the next on the basis of
…show more content…
It is common to accept that if a proposition is true then there is something about the world that makes that proposition true. The truthmaker principle argues that 'p' is true if and only if there exists an entity 'T' such that if 'T' exists then 'p'. Therefore, given there are past-tense truths (for example, 'my father was in the Olympic Judo team') there must be truthmakers for these truths. Eternalism - the theory which argues that all past, present and future entities exist - can readily provide these truthmakers because the past entities exist-simpliciter so they can be the truthmakers. Presentism, however, has no straightforward truthmaker for such truths. Using the example 'large dinosaurs did exist', an eternalist could easily answer by stating that 'there is a region of space-time located earlier than our current region, and dinosaurs did exist in that region' (Miller, 2013). In other words, the past with the large dinosaurs in it, exists in their ontology. Meanwhile, because dinosaurs do not exist in the present, there is scope to argue that this might be extremely problematic from a presentist point of view. Since there are no past or future events in presentism, those events cannot provide the truth of past or future-tensed statements. Therefore, the problem the truthmaker poses for presentists is: 'if asked what things exist-simpliciter that make (past- and
Douglas L. Wilson addresses his idea of presentism differently than that of Paul Finkelman. Wilson sees presentism (regarding Thomas Jefferson) as a problem due to the fact that Jefferson was born into a time period in which slavery was normal. Jefferson’s concern extended beyond his own morality to the well-being of his slaves (Wilson). Even though he did own slaves, it was simply a norm for his time. In Finkelman’s eyes, Jefferson was extremely hypocritical. He agrees with the idea of presentism, stating that Jefferson wanted all people to be free, yet owned several slaves during the time of which the Declaration of Independence was written. Jefferson knew slavery was wrong, but he did little to end slavery or to dissociate himself from his role as the master of Monticello (Finkelman).
John McTaggart in his essay “Time” presents a radical argument that claims time is unreal. While the argument is interesting and has attracted much attention for his arguments, I remain unconvinced of the argument he makes. This paper will lay out McTaggart’s argument that time in unreal, critically analyze why I believe McTaggart’s argument fails and present an alternative idea about time, utilizing aspects of McTaggart’s argument.
“Life is all about making decisions: some big, some little, some mundane, some vital to your existence.” (Zimabardo & Boyd Prologue) Philip Zimbardo’s Time Orientation Theory states that our choices are surrounded by many time zones, such as past-positive, past-negative, present-hedonistic, present-fatalism, and future. Many people acquire a prejudiced outlook on a situation based on something that happened in the past, present, or future although these bad outlooks can be changed and adapted to make better decisions and live a better life. Some characteristics of my personality can be defined by looking at the results of my Time Orientation Survey, which consists of having a high past-negative score, an equivalent present-fatalistic and hedonistic
One way which we speak, experience and conceive of time is that time is something that flows or passes from the future to the present and from the present to the past. When viewed in this way, events which are present have a special existential status. Whatever may be the case with regard to the reality or unreality of events in the future and the past, events that are in the present exist with a capital 'E'. It can then be postulated that it is the 'present' or 'now' that shifts to even later times. If events in time (or moments of time) are conceived in terms of past, present and future, or by means of the tenses, then they form what McTaggart called the A-series (from which the A-theory of time is derived). This type of change is commonly referred to as 'temporal becoming', and gives rise to well known perplexities concerning both what does the shifting and the type of shift involved, which we will discuss later.
Specifically, he elaborates that “We might compare time to a constantly revolving sphere; the half that was always sinking would be the past, that which was always rising would be the future; but the indivisible point at the tip, where the tangent touches, would be the extensionless present” (“A New Refutation of Time”, 289). This being the case, however, he elaborates in the final paragraph that “denying temporal succession, denying the self, denying the astronomical universe, are apparent desperations and secret consolations…Time is the substance I am made of…The world, unfortunately, is real; I, unfortunately, am Borges” (“A New Refutation of Time”, 290). In essence, Borges, despite his refutation, accepts his role in a universe that is irrevocably tethered to a concept of time that moves in a solely linear fashion. According to Donnelly, “Borges has simultaneously established that time is not temporally successive, and that temporal succession is not unreal (and therefore time is not not temporally successive)” (77). In conclusion, Borges present multiple opinions on the facets of time, including the idea that it is non-linear in
An essential requirement for the possibility of time travel is the presumption that future and past were somehow real. But according to one popular view only the present is real, and to suppose that the past or future are also real is to suppose that the past and the future are also present -- a contradiction. According to this sort of Heraclitean metaphysical conception, the future is genuinely open: there is no realm of determinate future fact, no denizens of the future to identify or talk about, though of course -- in the fullness of time -- there will be. Travel to the future on this view would be ruled out because there is simply nowhere to go.
the truth of things is here and now and is laid as a never ending
Time is relative. What do I mean by this? Well, in 1905, Albert Einstein realized that while you’re moving through space, you are also moving through time. Time is the fourth dimension which seems confusing at first, but thinking logically, you would never say “I’ll meet you at 3:30” or “I’ll meet you at the movie theater”. You would instead say “I’ll meet you at the movie theater at 3:30.” While you are sitting down reading this sentence, you are traveling through time at a rate of sixty
The possibility of time travel has not been ruled out by scientists. If the human race truly wishes to advance through science, then time travel may be revealed. Today, it may seem like hocus pocus, but in the future taking vacations through time could be as much a reality as flying in a plane. But time travel raises interesting questions; what would happen if one were to travel back in time and kill somebody?
...from the future has given us the secrets to do so? Is it because the future has not been acted out yet? Or has it been, and we are simply the past, seeing it as the present? Time travel has been a long debated subject. One such debate is, can it even be done? Many models of the big bang suggest that it can, while the theory of relativity says that it cannot be done.
Time is and endless phenomenon that has no beginning or end, therefore making it infinite. Emily Dickinson proves this point in her poem, Forever – is Composed of Nows, referring to “nows” as more significant than the future (Wilbur 80).
The scientific definition of time is a measurement of progress that is relative to an individual’s perception of events (HowStuffWorks.com, 2010). A psychological study proves that these viewpoints are
Although, Prior does not seem to account for the present tense in his argument. If one were to instead claim ‘Thank goodness I’m here!’ there is only a sense of being thankful for the present moment. So, if one were to claim ‘Thank goodness I’m here, on February 10, 2014’, the tense in which the event is being thanked, appears rather vague. It seems to insinuate that there has been a past event worth ending, and yet the sentence does not say specifically state anything of a past event. It seems then, we actually tend to think in the past, even when we are claiming the present in our statements. Prior therefore may need to explain why our reactions or attitudes towards time can remain in this fixed state.
THE POWER OF THE MOMENT: The ability to stay in the present is a virtue. Most people are always living either in the past or in the future. So they are either worrying about the past, worrying about the past pains, the past results, the past failures, past relationships, past struggles, or they are ruminating about the future fears, the future impossibilities, the future achievements, future possibilities. Worrying about the past or future would not benefit you as you are putting yourself in a position of disadvantage.