The grounding problem and presentist explanations
- 410 Downloads
Opponents of presentism have often argued that the presentist has difficulty in accounting for what makes (presently) true past-tensed propositions (TptP) true in a way that is compatible with her metaphysical view of time and reality. The problem is quite general and concerns not only strong truth-maker principles, but also the requirement that truth be grounded in reality. In order to meet the challenge, presentists have proposed many peculiar present aspects of the world as grounds for truths concerning the past, such as uninstantiated haecceities, Meinongian non-existents, ersatz times, and dispositional and distributional properties. The main problem with all such solutions is that any explanation of what grounds a TptP that involves the past is eo ipso a better explanation than any that involves only the present. Thus, the quest for an account of grounding for TptP that is compatible with the presentist ontology and ideology is doomed to be explanatorily deficient with respect to eternalism. In a recent article, Ben Caplan and David Sanson have claimed that presentists should change their strategy and, rather than seeking for exotic grounds for TptP, should adopt a more liberal view of explanation. That is, they should allow themselves to resort to “past directed” explanations, even if they do not accept the past in their ontology and ideology. I argue that such a proposal is not compatible with the tenet that there is a substantial distinction between the ideology of such a version of presentism and that of eternalism. Therefore, the presentist cannot endorse such “deflationist” explanations as an easy way out to the problem of the grounding of TptP.
KeywordsPresentism Truthmaker Past Tense Grounding problem
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Beebee H. (2003) Causing and nothingness. In: Collins J., Hall H., Paul L. A. (eds) Causation and counterfactuals. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 291–308Google Scholar
- Bigelow J. (1996) Presentism and properties. In: Tomberlin J. E. (eds) Philosophical perspectives. Blackwell, Cambridge, MA, pp 35–52Google Scholar
- Callender, C. (ms). Time’s ontic voltage. http://philosophy.ucsd.edu/faculty/ccallender/.
- Cameron R. P. (2010) Truthmaking for presentists. In: Bennett K., Zimmerman D. (eds) Oxford studies in metaphysics. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 55–100Google Scholar
- Craig W. L. (2003) In defense of presentism. In: Joikic A., Smith Q. (eds) Time, tense, and reference. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
- Crisp T. (2004a) On presentism and triviality. In: Zimmerman D. (eds) Oxford studies in metaphysics (Vol. 1). Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 15–20Google Scholar
- Crisp T. (2004b) Reply to Ludlow. In: Zimmerman D. (eds) Oxford studies in metaphysics (Vol. 1).. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 37–46Google Scholar
- Dolev Y. (2007) Time and realism. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
- Keller S. (2004) Presentism and truthmaking. In: Zimmerman D. (eds) Oxford studies in metaphysics. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 93–104Google Scholar
- Ludlow P. (2004) Presentism, triviality, and the varieties of tensism. In: Zimmerman D. (eds) Oxford studies in metaphysics (Vol. 1). Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 21–36Google Scholar
- Markosian N. (2004) A defense of presentism. In: Zimmerman D. (eds) Oxford studies in metaphysics. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 47–82Google Scholar
- Savitt, S. F. (2006). Presentive and eternalism in perspective. In D. Dieks (Ed.), The ontology of spacetime. Amsterdam: Elsevier. http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001788/01/PEP.pdf.
- Sider T. (2009) Ontological realism. In: Chalmers D., Manley D., Wasserman R. (eds) Metametaphysics. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 384–423Google Scholar
- Varzi A. (2008) Failures, omissions, and negative descriptions. In: Korta K., Garmendia J. (eds) Meaning, intentions, and argumentation. CSLI Publications, Stanford, pp 61–75Google Scholar