David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 87 (3):584-610 (2013)
A familiar slogan in the literature on temporal experience is that ‘a succession of appearances, in and of itself, does not amount to an experience of succession’. I show that we can distinguish between a strong and a weak sense of this slogan. I diagnose the strong interpretation of the slogan as requiring the support of an assumption I call the ‘Seems→Seemed’ claim. I then show that commitment to this assumption comes at a price: if we accept it, we either have to reject the extremely plausible idea that experience is as it seems, or we are forced to provide an account of temporal experience that isn’t compatible with the phenomenology. I conclude by noting that the only plausible interpretation of the slogan is the weak interpretation, and outline a positive account of temporal experience, according to which an appearance of succession requires a succession of appearances
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
C. D. Broad (1923). Scientific Thought. Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Barry F. Dainton (2000). Stream of Consciousness: Unity and Continuity in Conscious Experience. Routledge.
Daniel C. Dennett & Kinsbourne Marcel (1992). Time and the Observer. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 15 (2):183-201.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Michael Pelczar (2010). Must an Appearance of Succession Involve a Succession of Appearances? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 81 (1):49-63.
Donald L. M. Baxter (2000). A Humean Temporal Logic. The Proceedings of the Twentieth World Congress of Philosophy 2000 (Analytic Philosophy and Logic):209-216.
Ian Phillips (2010). Perceiving Temporal Properties. European Journal of Philosophy 18 (2):176-202.
Jon Charles Miller (2008). Hume's Impression of Succession (Time). Dialogue 47 (3-4):603-.
B. W. Frier (1984). The Law of Succession Under Diocletian O. E. Tellegen-Couperus: Testamentary Succession in the Constitutions of Diocletian. Pp. Xiii + 231. Uitgeverij Terra: Zutphen, 1982. [REVIEW] The Classical Review 34 (02):234-236.
James Cain (1995). The Hume-Edwards Principle. Religious Studies 31 (3):323 - 328.
Margaret Exley (2007). Managing CEO Succession: New Models for a New Era. International Journal of Business Governance and Ethics 3 (2):139-149.
Michael J. Olson (2010). The Intuition of Simultaneity: Zugleichsein and the Constitution of Extensive Magnitudes. Kant-Studien 101 (4):429-444.
Sanford Budick (2010). Kant and Milton. Harvard University Press.
Quentin Smith (1995). Internal and External Causal Explanations of the Universe. Philosophical Studies 79 (3):283 - 310.
John Crook (1974). Succession in the Late Roman Republic Alan Watson: The Law of Succession in the Later Roman Republic. Pp. Xii+209. Oxford: Clarendo Press, 1971. Cloth, £3·50 Net. [REVIEW] The Classical Review 24 (02):240-243.
Jeanne Millet, André Bouchard & Claude Édelin (1998). Plant Succession and Tree Architecture: An Attempt at Reconciling Two Scales of Analysis of Vegetation Dynamics. Acta Biotheoretica 46 (1).
Leslie F. Stevenson (2000). Synthetic Unities of Experience. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 60 (2):281-306.
John Knox Jr (1985). Subjective Successions. Inquiry 28 (December):429-440.
Added to index2012-07-26
Total downloads30 ( #62,302 of 1,101,958 )
Recent downloads (6 months)6 ( #52,474 of 1,101,958 )
How can I increase my downloads?