scholarly journals McTaggart's paradox and Smith's tensed theory of time

Synthese ◽  
1996 ◽  
Vol 107 (2) ◽  
pp. 205-221 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. Nathan Oaklander
Keyword(s):  
Mctaggart's Paradox ◽  
Tensed Theory

Time and time again: two volumes by William Lane Craig William Lane Craig The Tensed Theory of Time: A Critical Examination. Synthese Library Volume 293. (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2000). Pp. v+287. £78.00 (Hbk). ISBN 0792366344. William Lane Craig The Tenseless Theory of Time: A Critical Examination. Synthese Library Volume 294. (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2000). Pp. v+256. £65.00 (Hbk). ISBN 0792366352.

2002 ◽  
Vol 38 (4) ◽  
pp. 489-498
Author(s):  
PAUL HELM
Keyword(s):  
Philosophy Of Science ◽  
Critical Examination ◽  
William Lane Craig ◽  
Tenseless Theory ◽  
Tensed Theory

The two books make a notable contribution in drawing together many of the philosophical problems about time, and the associated literature. The expositions are also valuable for their interdisciplinary strengths, especially in the history and philosophy of science and (to a lesser extent) in theology, and for the clarity and thoroughness of Craig's approach. However, the two books do not present, as might at first appear, a side by side exposition of the respective strengths and weaknesses of the A-series and the B-series views of time. They are, rather, one interconnected defence of the A-series view. Some of the strengths and weaknesses of Craig's exposition and defence of the A-series view are noted.

scholarly journals McTaggart’s paradox and its consequences

2015 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 226-242
Author(s):  
Strahinja Djordjevic
Keyword(s):  
Time Series ◽  
21St Century ◽  
History Of Philosophy ◽  
Temporal Relations ◽  
Philosophy Of Time ◽  
Human Understanding ◽  
Contrary View ◽  
History Of ◽  
Mctaggart's Paradox

McTaggart?s explanation of the human understanding of time, which uses the time series, is a significant moment in the history of philosophy, and his attempt to prove time?s unreality had strong but diverse reactions. The majority of thinkers who wrote after him agree that time is indeed real, but the intellectual division that was created around the question of which part of the paradox in dispute will dominate philosophy of time in the 20th and 21st century. It can be concluded that both major theories within this field have an undeniable influence on the division of time series which McTaggart made. After analyzing the paradox, the focus will be on clarifying the debate between tensed and tenseless theorists. The former dispute the claim that the A-series is contradictory and argue that the tensed time is the proper determination of events in time, while the latter claim that the B-series is independent and that time can be determined only by temporal relations. By recognizing the differences between these two lines of thought, it will become easier to understand the nature of their relationship to the time series, namely by considering the ways in which they defend their own and attack the contrary view.

McTaggart’s Paradox

2000 ◽  
pp. 169-217
Author(s):  
William Lane Craig
Keyword(s):  
Mctaggart's Paradox

Leibniz's non-tensed theory of time

2002 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 125-139
Author(s):  
Michael J. Futch
Keyword(s):  
Tensed Theory

Presentism, Ontology and Temporal Experience

2002 ◽  
Vol 50 ◽  
pp. 73-90 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. Nathan Oaklander
Keyword(s):  
Recent Article ◽  
Philosophical Argument ◽  
Ontological Status ◽  
Temporal Experience ◽  
The Past ◽  
William Lane Craig ◽  
Deep Trouble ◽  
Differential Experience ◽  
Mctaggart's Paradox ◽  
Basic Beliefs

In a recent article, ‘Tensed Time and Our Differential Experience of the Past and Future,’ William Lane Craig (1999a) attempts to resuscitate A. N. Prior's (1959) ‘Thank Goodness’ argument against the B-theory by combining it with Plantinga's (1983) views about basic beliefs. In essence Craig's view is that since there is a universal experience and belief in the objectivity of tense and the reality of becoming, (that he identifies with ‘the presentist metaphysic’) ‘this belief constitutes an intrinsic defeater-defeater which overwhelms the objections brought against it.’ (1999a, 519) An intrinsic defeater-defeater is a belief that enjoys such warrant for us that it simply overwhelms the defeaters brought against it without specifically rebutting or undercutting them. Thus, Craig claims that an effete philosophical argument like McTaggart's paradox is nothing more than ‘an engaging and recalcitrant brain teaser whose conclusion nobody really takes seriously.’ (1999a, 532) It is difficult to reconcile this statement with Craig's own writings elsewhere. For Craig has vigorously argued in at least two other articles that 'hybrid A-B theorists like McCall, Schlesinger, and Smith [who give ontological status to both A-properties and B-relations] are in deep trouble’ (1998, 127) since they are all effectively refuted by McTaggart's Paradox (cf. Craig 1997). It is not Craig's inconsistency regarding the significance of McTaggart conundrum that I want to draw attention to, however. Rather I wish to raise a different issue.

McTaggart's Paradox: Two Parodies

Philosophy ◽  
1981 ◽  
Vol 56 (217) ◽  
pp. 333-348 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenneth Rankin
Keyword(s):  
Point Of View ◽  
Similar Argument ◽  
Logical Principle ◽  
Mctaggart's Paradox

To be truly provocative and outrageous the superior philosophical sophistry will commonly possess four somewhat adventitious features. I shall rate it as classic if it has all four. First, and least adventitiously, the argument will be crisp and initially seductive. Second, by the standard the sophistry sets direct rebuttal will be laborious and diffuse. Third, the recipe for the latter will prescribe that we pick out some hitherto unarticulated logical principle (e.g. ‘Existence is not a real predicate’) such that if the principle be true then the sophistical argument must be invalid, and then, on the strength of that consequence assume the principle to be true. Consequently and fourth, as an antidote parody is supreme. With a persuasive absence of fuss and bias we can turn the tables if we show that, if the sophistical argument were really valid, then some structurally similar argument would prove just as consummately far too much. In short, from the rhetorical point of view at least, Gaunilo is more lethal than Kant. Even if the similarity is defective, the sophist will lose some of his adventitious and insufferable poise, if he ventures to show why.

Creation and conservation once more

1998 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 177-188 ◽  
Author(s):  
WILLIAM LANE CRAIG
Keyword(s):  
Divine Action ◽  
Crucial Difference ◽  
The Universe ◽  
Tensed Theory

God is conceived in the Western theistic tradition to be both the Creator and Conservor of the universe. These two roles were typically classed as different aspects of creation, originating creation and continuing creation. On pain of incoherence, however, conservation needs to be distinguished from creation. Contrary to current analyses (such as Philip Quinn's), creation should be explicated in terms of God's bringing something into being, while conservation should be understood in terms of God's preservation of something over an interval of time. The crucial difference is that while conservation presupposes an object of the divine action, creation does not. Such a construal has significant implications for a tensed theory of time.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document