Transient time and the persistence of the concrete

Philosophia 28 (1-4):491-501 (2001)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

I suggest that Carter and Hestevold's arguments for L1 and L2 can be given a chance to succeed if (i) everywhere in them that we find an occurrence of the thesis Transient Time we replace it with an occurrence of Presentism, and (ii) everywhere in them that we find an occurrence of the thesis Static Time we replace it with an occurrence of Presentism's denial. I'm fairly confident that their arguments for L1 would succeed if these changes were made. (If Presentism is true, nothing has temporal parts, for some at least of the temporal parts of a thing extended in time must be past or future. But if nothing has temporal parts, Endurance must be true.) I'm less confident that their arguments for L2 would succeed if those changes were made. But if the changes that I suggest are not made, the arguments for L1 and L2 certainly fail

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 100,063

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
40 (#553,424)

6 months
8 (#549,811)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Franklin Mason
Purdue University

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

The notion of the present.Arthur N. Prior - 1972 - In J. T. Fraser, F. C. Haber & G. H. Mueller (eds.), The Study of Time. Springer Verlag. pp. 320--323.

Add more references