B-theory old and new: on ontological commitment

Synthese 190 (17):3953-3970 (2013)
Authors
Daniel Johnson
Shawnee State University
Abstract
The most important argument against the B-theory of time is the paraphrase argument. The major defense against that argument is the “new” tenseless theory of time, which is built on what I will call the “indexical reply” to the paraphrase argument. The move from the “old” tenseless theory of time to the new is most centrally a change of viewpoint about the nature and determiners of ontological commitment. Ironically, though, the new tenseless theorists have generally not paid enough sustained, direct attention to that notion. I will defend a general criterion of ontological commitment and apply it to generate a version of the new tenseless theory of time. I will argue that many of the extant versions of the new tenseless theory of time (specifically, all those which seek to identify tenseless truth-conditions of tensed sentences as a way out of apparent ontological commitment to tensed features of reality) are unsatisfactory because their general criterion of ontological commitment is inadequate. Those versions of the new tenseless theory which are adequate (specifically, those which identify tenseless truthmakers for tensed sentences) actually entail the criterion of ontological commitment that I defend, despite appearances to the contrary
Keywords Ontological commitment  B-theory of time  A-theory of time  Paraphrase  Truth-conditions  Truthmakers
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s11229-012-0239-z
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 37,134
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

The Nature of Necessity.Alvin Plantinga (ed.) - 1974 - Clarendon Press.
Real Time Ii.D. H. Mellor - 1998 - Routledge.
A Puzzle About Belief.Saul A. Kripke - 1979 - In A. Margalit (ed.), Meaning and Use. Reidel. pp. 239--83.
Two-Dimensional Semantics.David J. Chalmers - 2006 - In E. Lepore & B. Smith (eds.), The Oxford Handbook to the Philosophy of Language. Oxford University Press.

View all 22 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Two Kinds of Ontological Commitment.Howard Peacock - 2011 - Philosophical Quarterly 61 (242):79-104.
How to Express Ontological Commitment in the Vernacular.Jamin Asay - 2010 - Philosophia Mathematica 18 (3):293-310.
Ontology, Commitment, and Quine's Criterion.Yvonne Raley - 2007 - Philosophia Mathematica 15 (3):271-290.
Truthmaker Commitments.Jonathan Schaffer - 2008 - Philosophical Studies 141 (1):7-19.
When Best Theories Go Bad.David Manley - 2009 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 78 (2):392-405.
A Truthmaker Indispensability Argument.Sam Baron - 2013 - Synthese 190 (12):2413-2427.
Ontological Commitment.Agustín Rayo - 2007 - Philosophy Compass 2 (3):428–444.
Implicit Ontological Commitment.Michaelis Michael - 2008 - Philosophical Studies 141 (1):43 - 61.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2013-01-17

Total downloads
72 ( #93,332 of 2,308,308 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
11 ( #51,344 of 2,308,308 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature