, Volume 78, Issue 4, pp 713–726 | Cite as

Our Experience of Passage on the B-Theory

  • Natalja Deng
Original Article


Elsewhere I have suggested that the B-theory includes a notion of passage, by virtue of including succession. Here, I provide further support for that claim by showing that uncontroversial elements of the B-theory straightforwardly ground a veridical sense of passage. First, I argue that the B-theory predicts that subjects of experience have a sense of passivity with respect to time that they do not have with respect to space, which they are right to have, even according to the B-theory. I then ask what else might be involved in our experience of time as passing that is not yet vindicated by the B-theoretic conception. I examine a recent B-theoretic explanation of our ‘illusory’ sense of passage, by Robin Le Poidevin, and argue that it explains away too much: our perception of succession poses no more of a problem on the B-theory than it does on other theories of time. Finally, I respond to an objection by Oreste Fiocco that a causal account of our sense of passage cannot succeed, because it leaves out the ‘phenomenological novelty’ of each moment.


Temporal Reality Causal Dimension Temporal Extent Temporal Perspective Causal Account 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



Thanks to Oliver Pooley for extensive discussion of these issues. Thanks also to Antony Eagle and Robin Le Poidevin for their comments. Part of this work was carried out while I was a member of the Swiss National Science Foundation project “Intentionality as the Mark of the Mental–Metaphysical Perspectives on Contemporary Philosophy of Mind” (Sinergia, CRSI11-127488).


  1. Dainton, B. (2000). Stream of Consciousness: Unity and continuity in conscious experience. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Deng, N. (2010). Beyond A- and B-time Reconsidered. Philosophia, 38(4), 741–753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Deng, N. (2013). Fine’s McTaggart, temporal passage, and the A versus B-debate. Ratio, 26(1), 19–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Falk, A. (2003). Time plus the Whoosh and Whiz. In A. Jokic & Q. Smith (Eds.), Time, tense, and reference. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  5. Fiocco, O. (2007). Passage, becoming and the nature of temporal reality. Philosophia, 35(1), 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gallagher, S. (1998). The inordinance of time. Evanston, Illinois: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Le Poidevin, R. (2007). The images of time: An essay on temporal representation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Le Poidevin, R., & Mellor, D. H. (1987). Time, change, and the ‘indexical fallacy’. Mind, 96(384), 534–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lowe, E. J. (1987a). The indexical fallacy in McTaggart’s proof of the unreality of time. Mind, 96(381), 62–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lowe, E. J. (1987b). Reply to Le Poidevin and Mellor. Mind, 96(384), 539–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Mellor, D. H. (1998). Real time II. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Oaklander, N., & Smith, Q. (Eds.). (1994). The new theory of time. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Paul, L. (2010). Temporal Experience. Journal of Philosophy, 107(7), 333–359.Google Scholar
  14. Phillips, I. (2009). Review of Robin Le Poidevin’s ‘the images of time’. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 60(2), 439–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Prosser, S. (2013). Passage and perception. Noûs, 47(1), 69–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Département de PhilosophieUniversité de GenèveGenevaSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations