Abstract

I intend to defend three claims in this paper: Locke's position does imply a specious present theory, one which importantly resembles a version adopted by C. D. Broad. Contrary to what some commentators think or imply, Locke does not make the ideas which occupy the specious present durationless and he does not confine the specious present to the duration of what we experience in reflection. The theory he implies does create a serious problem for him, however, and in order to avoid the problem he must drop the reflective specious present.The specious present theory in general holds that what we experience as a whole is never instantaneous and that at least part of the duration of what we experience as a whole at a given time is earlier than that time. The experienced present is always at least in part a bit of the past. For example, if at t I hear a sequence of sounds, then at least the first sound in the sequence is earlier than t, since I first heard it before t.