Abstract
Le Poidevin’s argument is that defenders of the tenseless theory of time must explain the aspects of our experience of time that seem to suggest that the tensed theory of time is true. In particular, he mentions (1) what is experienced is always experienced at present; (2) we seem to share the same present and (3) we perceive that one thing occurs after another. Regarding the third point, we perceive something y as occurring after something x because in part our perception of y is causally influenced by our perception of x.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2001 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Smith, Q. (2001). Is Precedence a Secondary Quality? A Reply to Robin Le Poidevin. In: Oaklander, L.N. (eds) The Importance of Time. Philosophical Studies Series, vol 87. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-3362-5_22
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-3362-5_22
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-5841-6
Online ISBN: 978-94-017-3362-5
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive