Abstract
Arthur Norman Prior (1914–1969) discovered a way to formalise the tenses into the system now known as ‘tense-logic’. His discovery made it possible for him to defend two strong beliefs of his: tensed realism and real freedom. His analysis and work on the philosophical and theological problems related to these two beliefs constitutes what is perhaps his greatest legacy in analytic philosophy. Recent research in Prior’s nachlass has revealed that he already pondered and wrote on the two issues from his years at Wairarapa High School in New Zealand. With these recent discoveries, it is possible to draw a clearer picture than has hitherto been drawn with regard to Prior’s journey to what he termed ‘real freedom’. The view of freedom he ended up defending as ‘real freedom’ comes close to William James’ view of free will, which Prior termed ‘modern Arminianism’ in 1931 and, during his crisis of faith from 1941 to 1943, viewed as the actual state of affairs. This conclusion is substantiated using Prior’s two models of future contingency as a framework for comparing his own early description of William James’ view of ‘real freedom’ as being grounded in the difference between the past and the future. Prior’s early adherence to James’ view of ‘real freedom’ provides us with an explanation for why he, in 1945 rejected, the theory of middle knowledge; this explains why, even though he knew of an Ockhamist model of the true future, he did not include it in Past, Present and Future (1967) but instead opted for an Ockhamist model in which the contingent future is branch relative.