Farewell to Mctaggart's argument?

Philosophia 38 (2):243-255 (2010)
Abstract
Philosophers have responded to McTaggart’s famous argument for the unreality of time in a variety of ways. Some of those responses are not easy to evaluate, since they involve, for example, sometimes murky questions concerning whether a certain infinite regress is or is not vicious. In this paper I set out a response that has not, I think, been advanced by any other author, and which, if successful, is absolutely clear-cut. The basic idea is simply that a tensed approach to time can avoid McTaggart’s contradiction, and can also avoid any regress, vicious or otherwise, by specifying the times at which events have different tensed properties in a tenseless fashion — namely, by using dates. This answer to McTaggart’s argument is, however, open to four important objections. The first objection is that my answer to the second part of McTaggart’s argument is incompatible with something that McTaggart takes himself to have proved in the first part of his argument — the claim, namely, that “there can be no change unless some propositions are sometimes true and sometimes false.” The second objection is that the sentences that I claim can be used to specify when an event has a given tensed property do not in fact do so, since they turn out to be purely tenseless sentences. The third objection is that the sentences in question make use of tenseless verbs, and that it is not in fact possible to make sense of such verbs. The fourth and final objection is that it is not really possible to specify, in tenseless terms, when an event has a given tensed property, since dates have to be analyzed using the relation of temporal priority, and that relation, in turn, must be analyzed in terms of the tensed properties of pastness, presentness and futurity, so that the purportedly tenseless specification is implicitly tensed. I argue, however, that none of these four objections can be sustained.
Keywords McTaggart  McTaggart’s argument  Unreality of time  Tensed propositions  Tensed propositions and temporal indexicals  Tensed propositions involving dates  Growing block view of time
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
 
Download options
PhilPapers Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 11,793
External links
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
D. H. Mellor (1981). Real Time. Cambridge University Press.

View all 9 references

Citations of this work BETA
Similar books and articles
Cheng-Chih Tsai (2011). A Token-Based Semantic Analysis of McTaggart's Paradox. Linguistic and Philosophical Investigations 10:107-124.
D. H. Mellor (1998). Transcendental Tense: D.H. Mellor. Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 72 (1):29–44.
D. H. Mellor (1998). Transcendental Tense. Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 72 (1):29 - 56.
William Seager (1999). The Reality of Now. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 13 (1):69 – 82.
Richard Swinburne (1990). Tensed Facts. American Philosophical Quarterly 27 (2):117 - 130.
Heather Dyke (2001). The Pervasive Paradox of Tense. Grazer Philosophische Studien 62 (1):103-124.
Analytics

Monthly downloads

Added to index

2009-08-22

Total downloads

158 ( #5,046 of 1,099,716 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

11 ( #20,573 of 1,099,716 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature


Discussion
Start a new thread
Order:
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.