Advertisement

The Other Contenders

  • Fabrice Correia
  • Sven Rosenkranz
Chapter
Part of the Synthese Library book series (SYLI, volume 395)

Abstract

In this chapter we offer novel characterisations of presentism and permanentism which, or so we argue, significantly improve upon extant accounts. In particular, we show that, given the availability of these characterisations, neither presentism nor dynamic permanentism needs to invoke any substantial notion of presentness. In Sect. 5.1 we rehearse T. Williamson’s misgivings about the use of the notion of presentness in attempts to articulate presentism. While Williamson takes these misgivings to be sufficient to discard presentism, in Sect. 5.2 we show that the view allows for its systematic reformulation solely in terms of tensed quantification, temporal operators and a predicate for times. In Sect. 5.3, after giving a characterisation of static permanentism and critically discussing R. Cameron’s recent account of the Moving Spotlight Theory, we offer an equally lean formulation of dynamic permanentism solely in terms of temporal operators and a tensed proposition true at one time only.

Bibliography

  1. Cameron, R. (2015). The moving spotlight. An essay on time and ontology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Correia, F., & Rosenkranz, S. (2015b). Presentism without Presentness. Thought: A Journal of Philosophy, 4, 19–27.Google Scholar
  3. Crisp, T. M. (2004). On Presentism and triviality. Oxford Studies in Metaphysics, 1, 15–20.Google Scholar
  4. Dorr, C., & Goodman, J. (forthcoming). Diamonds are forever. In Noûs.Google Scholar
  5. Fine, K. (2005). Modality and tense. Philosophical papers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Meyer, U. (2013b). The triviality of Presentism. In R. Ciuni, K. Miller, & G. Torrengo (Eds.), New papers on the present (pp. 67–88). Munich: Philosophia Verlag.Google Scholar
  7. Moore, G. E. (1939). Proof of an external world. Proceedings of the British Academy, 25, 273–300.Google Scholar
  8. Putnam, H. (1962). The analytic and the synthetic. Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 3, 358–397.Google Scholar
  9. Shoemaker, S. (1969). Time without change. The Journal of Philosophy, 66, 363–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Williamson, T. (2013). Modal logic as metaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fabrice Correia
    • 1
  • Sven Rosenkranz
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Département de PhilosophieUniversité de GenèveGenèveSwitzerland
  2. 2.ICREABarcelonaSpain
  3. 3.Departament de FilosofiaUniversitat de BarcelonaBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations