I have done things I regret having done. Regret is a past-directed emotion by its very nature. One cannot regret present or future actions or omissions. So if I regret action A, A is wholly past. What's more, I cannot regret a non-existent action. But on presentism, all items in time are such that they exist at present. Therefore, presentism is false.
1) There exist states of regret.
2) Every such state has as its accusative an event that exists.
3) Every such state has as its accusative an event that is wholly past.
Therefore
4) There exist wholly past events.
5) If presentism is true, then there exist no wholly past events.
Therefore
6) Presentism is false.
Doesn't this argument blow presentism clean out of the water? It is plainly valid in point of logical form. Which premise will you deny?
"You're begging the question! You are using 'exist(s)' tenselessly. But on presentism, the only legitimate uses of 'exist(s)' are present-tensed."
Reply: Please note that you too must use 'exist(s)' tenselessly to formulate your presentist thesis on pain of your thesis collapsing into the miserable tautology, 'Whatever in time exists (present-tense) exists (present-tense).' That's fake news. To advance a substantive claim you must say, 'Whatever in time exists simpliciter exists at present' where 'simpliciter' is cashed out by 'tenselessly.'
Comments enabled, but no comment will be allowed to appear that does not address the above argument.
16 responses to “Presentism and Regret”