Switch to: Citations

Add references

You must login to add references.
  1. The A-Theory of Time, The B-Theory of Time, and ‘Taking Tense Seriously’.Dean W. Zimmerman - 2005 - Dialectica 59 (4):401-457.
    The paper has two parts: First, I describe a relatively popular thesis in the philosophy of propositional attitudes, worthy of the name ‘taking tense seriously’; and I distinguish it from a family of views in the metaphysics of time, namely, the A-theories (or what are sometimes called ‘tensed theories of time’). Once the distinction is in focus, a skeptical worry arises. Some A-theorists maintain that the difference between past, present, and future, is to be drawn in terms of what exists: (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   72 citations  
  • McTaggart’s Paradox and Crisp’s Presentism.L. Nathan Oaklander - 2010 - Philosophia 38 (2):229-241.
    In his review of The Ontology of Time, Thomas Crisp (Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews, 2005a ) argues that Oaklander's version of McTaggart's paradox does not make any trouble for his version of presentism. The aim of this paper is to refute that claim by demonstrating that Crisp's version of presentism does indeed succumb to a version of McTaggart's argument. I shall proceed as follows. In Part I I shall explain Crisp's view and then argue in Part II that his analysis (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   15 citations  
  • The Presentist’s Dilemma.Ulrich Meyer - 2005 - Philosophical Studies 122 (3):213-225.
    This paper defends three theses: that presentism is either trivial or untenable; that the debate between tensed and tenseless theories of time is not about the status of presentism; and that there is no temporal analogue of the modal thesis of actualism.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   52 citations  
  • What is presentism?Franklin Mason - 2006 - Southern Journal of Philosophy 44 (1):107-128.
    Presentism has received much scrutiny of late, yet little has been said of its definition. Many assume that it means simply that all that exists, exists at present. However, this definition will not do. It is defective in a multiplicity of ways. I consider and reject each of a number of intuitive ways in which to amend it. Each carries us a bit closer to our goal, but not until the end do we reach a definition that is wholly satisfactory. (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  • Presentism and the grounding objection.Thomas M. Crisp - 2007 - Noûs 41 (1):90–109.