Can We Define Changes of Tense? The Insight and Failure of McTaggart's Argument

Kagaku Tetsugaku 37 (2):59-70 (2004)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

McTaggart has an insight that changes of property rely on changes of tense (McTaggart 1908). As I show in this paper, he fails to define A-series as a series for changes of tense, and therefore his proof for the unreality of time is unsuccessful. A-series found in the proof is reduced to a number of mere indexicals of time, and this reduction is pushed forward in Dummett's defense. My aim in this paper is not only to check the validity of their arguments but to investigate invincible difficulties faced in defining changes of tense. The latter is my main aim, and the former is a preliminary argument for it.

Links

PhilArchive

External links

  • This entry has no external links. Add one.
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP
2015-07-23

Downloads
347 (#61,344)

6 months
47 (#94,665)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Takuo Aoyama
Kyoto University

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

The unreality of time.John Ellis McTaggart - 1908 - Mind 17 (68):457-474.
Mctaggart's paradox revisited.E. J. Lowe - 1992 - Mind 101 (402):323-326.

Add more references