{"id":3165,"date":"2020-04-28T16:33:51","date_gmt":"2020-04-28T16:33:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2020\/04\/28\/continuing-the-discussion-of-time-tense-and-existence\/"},"modified":"2020-04-28T16:33:51","modified_gmt":"2020-04-28T16:33:51","slug":"continuing-the-discussion-of-time-tense-and-existence","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2020\/04\/28\/continuing-the-discussion-of-time-tense-and-existence\/","title":{"rendered":"Continuing the Discussion of Time, Tense, and Existence"},"content":{"rendered":"

This just in from London.  I've intercalated my responses.<\/span><\/p>\n

Here is another take. We agree on our disagreement about the following consequence<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

(A)  X is no longer temporally present, therefore X has ceased to exist.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

You think it is not valid, i.e. you think the antecedent could be true with the consequent false. I think it is valid. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

BV: Yes. So far, so good.<\/span>  <\/span><\/p>\n

However regarding <\/span><\/p>\n

          (B) X is no longer temporally present, therefore X does not still exist<\/span><\/p>\n

we seem to agree. We both think the antecedent cannot be true with the consequent false.<\/span><\/p>\n

BV:  Right.  For example, we agree BOTH that the Berlin Wall is no longer temporally present (and is therefore temporally past) AND that the Berlin Wall does not still exist.  I should think that we also, as competent speakers of English, agree that locutions of the form 'X still exists' are intersubstitutable both salva veritate<\/em> and salva significatione<\/em> with locutions of the form 'X existed and X exists' where all of the verbs are tensed and none are tense-neutral or tenseless. Agree?  My second comment has no philosophical implications.  It is merely a comment on the meaning\/use of a stock English locution.<\/span>
<\/span><\/p>\n

My puzzle is that my reading, and I think a natural reading, is that (A) and (B) mean the same, because \u201cX has ceased to exist\u201d and \u201cX does not still exist\u201d mean the same. You clearly disagree.<\/span><\/p>\n

BV:  If we stick to tensed language, then 'X has ceased to exist' and 'X does not still exist' mean the same.  So I don't disagree if we adhere to tensed language. But note that 'X has ceased to exist' is ambiguous as between<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

a) X has ceased to presently-exist (or present-tensedly exist)<\/span><\/p>\n

and<\/span><\/p>\n

b) X has ceased to be anything at all (and thus has become nothing at all).
<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

For example, the Berlin Wall has ceased to presently-exist.  But it doesn't follow that said wall has become nothing, that it is no longer a member of the totality of entities, that it has been annihilated by the mere passage of time.  If you think that it is no longer a member of said totality, then you are assuming presentism and begging the question against me.  You have restricted the totality of what exists to what presently exists. Note that I do not deny that one can move validly from the premise of (A) to its conclusion if one invokes presentism as an auxiliary premise. My claim is that the inference fails as a direct or immediate inference.<\/span><\/p>\n

I think<\/em> you want to argue that there is a covert tensing in \u201cX does not still exist\u201d which is absent in \u201cX has ceased to exist\u201d, which (according to you) is tenseless. But how? Doesn\u2019t the verb \u2018cease\u2019 always imply a time at which X ceased to exist? Would it make sense to say that 2+2 has ceased to equal 4? How?<\/span><\/p>\n

BV: In 'X does not still exist,' 'exist' is present-tensed.  But 'X has ceased to exist' is ambiguous as explained above . It can be read your tensed way, but it can also be read in my tenseless way.  Surely you don't want to say that 'exists' has exactly the same meaning \/sense as 'exists-now' or 'exists' (present tense).  We could call that semantic presentism<\/em>. I don't think anyone is a semantic presentist.  And for good reason. You, as a nominalist, will not countenance abstracta such as numbers and sets and the other denizens of the Platonic menagerie. But you understand what you are opposing when you oppose their admission into our ontology in the Quinean sense (our catalog by category of what there is).  And so you understand the notion of tenseless existence and tenseless property possession as when a 'Platonist' says that 7 is prime. The copula is tenseless, not present-tensed.<\/span><\/p>\n

So, in summary, my problem (and I am always seeing problems) is how you think (A) and (B) differ.<\/span><\/p>\n

Over to you.<\/span><\/p>\n

BV: The Boston Blizzard of '78 was one hell of a storm. When it ended, did it cease to exist? Yes of course, if we are using 'exist' in the ordinary present-tensed way. The storm because wholly past, and in becoming wholly past it stopped being presently existent. Obviously, nothing can exist at present if it is wholly past.  And it is quite clear that what no longer is present is not still present, and that what no longer presently exists is not still presently existent.<\/span><\/p>\n

So far, nothing but platitudes of ordinary usage.  Nothing metaphysical.  <\/span><\/p>\n

We venture into metaphysics when we ask: Does it follow straightaway from the storm's having become wholly temporally past, that it is nothing at all?  I say No. If you say Yes, then you are endorsing presentism, a controversial metaphysical theory. 
<\/span><\/p>\n

You can avoid controversy if you stick to ordinary language.  If you have trouble doing this, Wittgensteinian therapy may be helpful.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

This just in from London.  I've intercalated my responses. Here is another take. We agree on our disagreement about the following consequence (A)  X is no longer temporally present, therefore X has ceased to exist. You think it is not valid, i.e. you think the antecedent could be true with the consequent false. I think … Continue reading “Continuing the Discussion of Time, Tense, and Existence”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[21,142,20,204],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3165","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-aporetics","category-existence","category-metaphilosophy","category-time-and-change"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3165","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=3165"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3165\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3165"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3165"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3165"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}