Graduate studies at Western
Phronesis 51 (4):362-387 (2006)
|Abstract||This essay offers a reading of a difficult passage in the first book of Lucretius' "De Rerum Natura" in which the poet first explains the Epicurean account of time and then responds to a worry about the status of the past (1.459-82). It identifies two possible readings of the passage, one of which is compatible with the claim that the Epicureans were presentists about the past. Other evidence, particularly from Cicero "De Fato", suggests that the Epicureans maintained that all true assertions must have a contemporaneous truth-maker and that no contingent future-tensed assertions are true. It appears, however, that they did not assert a symmetrical view of past-tensed assertions. There is no compelling reason, therefore, to think that the Epicureans were presentists about the past|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
David Cockburn (1997). Other Times: Philosophical Perspectives on Past, Present, and Future. Cambridge University Press.
Vincent Colapietro (2011). Customary Reflection and Innovative Habits. Journal of Speculative Philosophy 25 (2):161-173.
James Warren (2004). Facing Death: Epicurus and His Critics. Clarendon Press.
Bradford Skow (2012). Why Does Time Pass? Noûs 46 (2):223-242.
Eric Olson (2009). The Passage of Time. In Robin Le Poidevin (ed.), The Routledge Companion to Metaphysics. Routledge.
Torrengo Giuliano (forthcoming). &Quot;the Grounding Problem and Presentist Explanations&Quot;. Synthese.
Craig Bourne (2006). A Theory of Presentism. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 36 (1):1-23.
Jonathan Tallant & David Ingram (2012). Time for Distribution? Analysis 72 (2):264-270.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads30 ( #46,628 of 756,891 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,433 of 756,891 )
How can I increase my downloads?