ADVERTISEMENT

If you are seeing this message, you may be experiencing temporary network problems. Please wait a few minutes and refresh the page. If the problem persists, you may wish to report it to your local Network Manager.

It is also possible that your web browser is not configured or not able to display style sheets. In this case, although the visual presentation will be degraded, the site should continue to be functional. We recommend using the latest version of Microsoft or Mozilla web browser to help minimise these problems.

Wiley InterScience

Dialectica

Dialectica

Volume 59 Issue 4, Pages 401 - 457

Published Online: 11 Nov 2005

Journal compilation © 2009 Editorial Board of dialectica



< Previous Abstract  |  Next Abstract >

Save Article to My Profile      Download Citation      Request Permissions

Abstract |  References  |  Full Text: HTML, PDF (Size: 228K)  | Related Articles | Citation Tracking

The A-Theory of Time, The B-Theory of Time, and 'Taking Tense Seriously'
Dean W. Zimmerman
   Department of Philosophy, Rutgers University, Davison Hall, 26 Nichol Avenue, New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1411; Email: dwzimmer@rci.rutgers.edu
Copyright 2005 Editorial Board of dialectica

Abstract

Abstract1. Introduction2. A-theories of time and seriousness about tense3. Perspectival thought4. B-theorist serious-tenser vs. A-theorist eternalist: What is the difference?References

The paper has two parts: First, I describe a relatively popular thesis in the philosophy of propositional attitudes, worthy of the name 'taking tense seriously'; and I distinguish it from a family of views in the metaphysics of time, namely, the A-theories (or what are sometimes called 'tensed theories of time'). Once the distinction is in focus, a skeptical worry arises. Some A-theorists maintain that the difference between past, present, and future, is to be drawn in terms of what exists: growing-block theorists eschew ontological commitment to future entities; presentists, to future and past entities. Others think of themselves as A-theorists but exclude no past or future things from their ontology. The metaphysical skeptic suspects that their attempt to articulate an 'eternalist' version of the A-theory collapses into merely 'taking tense seriously'– a thesis that does not imply the A-theory. The second half of the paper is the search for a stable eternalist A-theory. It includes discussion of temporary intrinsics, temporal parts, and truth.


DIGITAL OBJECT IDENTIFIER (DOI)
10.1111/j.1746-8361.2005.01041.x About DOI

Related Articles

  • Find other articles like this in Wiley InterScience
  • Find articles in Wiley InterScience written by any of the authors

Wiley InterScience is a member of CrossRef.

Cross Ref Member


IT'S TIME TO RENEW

DLTC

It’s time to renew your subscription to Dialectica.

Click here for 2010 subscription rates and to renew securely online.