{"id":10529,"date":"2011-07-18T17:52:04","date_gmt":"2011-07-18T17:52:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2011\/07\/18\/presentism\/"},"modified":"2011-07-18T17:52:04","modified_gmt":"2011-07-18T17:52:04","slug":"presentism","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2011\/07\/18\/presentism\/","title":{"rendered":"Presentism"},"content":{"rendered":"<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">Franklin Mason tells me he is a presentist.&#0160; I would like to see if he and I understand the same thing by the term.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">The rough idea, of course, is that the temporally present &#8212; the present time and its contents &#8212; alone exists. The only items (events, individuals, properties, etc.) that exist are the items that presently exist. Past and future items do not exist. But surely it is trivial and not disputed by any anti-presentist that the present alone <em>now<\/em> exists. (Obviously, the past does not now exist, else it would not be past, and the future does not now exist else it would not be future.) If the presentist is forwarding a substantive metaphysical thesis then it cannot be this triviality that he is hawking. So what does the thesis of presentism amount to?<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">It seems obvious that the presentist must invoke a use of &#39;exist(s)&#39; that is not tensed in order to formulate his thesis. For this is a rank tautology: <em>The only items that exist (present tense) are the items that exist (present tense).<\/em> It is also tautologous to affirm that <em>the only items that exist (present tense) are the items that presently exist.<\/em> So it seems that if presentism is to be a substantive thesis of metaphysics, then it must be formulated using a temporally unqualified use of &#39;exist(s).&#39; So I introduce &#39;exist(s)<em> simpliciter<\/em>.&#39; Accordingly:<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">P. The only items that exist <em>simpliciter<\/em> are items that presently exist.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">(P) is a substantive thesis. The presentist will affirm it, the antipresentist will deny it. Both, of course, will agree about such Moorean facts as that James Dean existed. But they will disagree about whether Dean exists <em>simpliciter<\/em>. The presentist will say that he does not, while the anti-presentist will say that he does. Again, both will agree that Dean does not exist now. But whereas the presentist will say that he does not exist at all, the anti-presentist will say that he does exist, though not at present. The anti-presentist can go on to say that, because Dean exists <em>simpliciter<\/em>, there is no problem about how he can stand in relations to things that presently exist, one of these relations being the reference relation.&#0160;The presentist, however, faces the problem of how the existent can stand in relation to the nonexistent.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">My mother is dead. But I am her son. So I stand in the <em>son of <\/em>relation to my mother. If the dead are nonexistent, then I, who exist, stand in relation to a nonexistent object. But how the devil can a relation obtain between two items when one of them ain&#39;t there? This is a problem for the presentist, is it not? But it is not a problem for the anti-presentist who maintains that present and past individuals both exist <em>simpliciter<\/em>. For then the relation connects two existents.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">A second problem for presentism is that it seems not able to accommodate the obvious distinction between actual past items and merely possible past items.&#0160; Kierkegaard and Regine Olsen are past individuals.&#0160; Their child Angie, like Schopenhauer&#39;s son Will, however, are past merely possible individuals.&#0160; But what becomes of this distinction if everything past is nonexistent?&#0160; For the presentist, what was is not.&#0160; But then what was is indistinguishable from what never was (because merely possible).<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">No doubt the presentists will have answers to these objections.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">The antipresentist, however, needs to tell us what exactly existence <em>simpliciter<\/em> is, and whether it is the same or different than tenseless existence (whatever <em>that<\/em> is).<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">But <em>nota bene<\/em>: the presentist must<em> also <\/em>tell us what existence <em>simpliciter<\/em> is since he needs it to get his thesis (P) off the ground.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">In my experience, the problems associated with time are the most difficult in all of philosophy.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Franklin Mason tells me he is a presentist.&#0160; I would like to see if he and I understand the same thing by the term. The rough idea, of course, is that the temporally present &#8212; the present time and its contents &#8212; alone exists. The only items (events, individuals, properties, etc.) that exist are the &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2011\/07\/18\/presentism\/\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading<span class=\"screen-reader-text\"> &#8220;Presentism&#8221;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[204],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-10529","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-time-and-change"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10529","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=10529"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10529\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=10529"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=10529"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=10529"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}