Abstract
AbstractRecently, some have attempted to reformulate debates in first-order metaphysics, particularly in the metaphysics of time and modality, for reasons due to Williamson (Modal logic as metaphysics, Oxford University Press, 2013). In this paper, we focus on the ways in which the likes of Cameron, Correia and Rosenkranz, Deasy, Ingram, Tallant, Viebahn, inter alia, have initiated and responded to attempts to capture the core of presentism using a formal, logical machinery. We argue that such attempts are doomed to fail because there is no theoretical core to presentism. There is no single view or family of views that is presentism.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
General Social Sciences,Philosophy
Reference64 articles.
1. Adams, R. (1986). Time and thisness. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 11, 315–329.
2. Baron, S. (2015). The priority of the now. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 96, 325–348.
3. Bergmann, M. (1999). (Serious) actualism and (serious) presentism. Noûs, 33, 118–132.
4. Broad, C. D. (1923). Scientific thought. Abingdon: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
5. Cameron, R. (2015). The moving spotlight. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cited by
6 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献