Sydney Shoemaker argues that time without change is possible, but begs the question by assuming an, in effect, Newtonian absolute time, that 'flows equably' in a region in which there is no change and in one in which there is. An equally possible, relativist, assumption, consistent, it seems, with relativity theory, is that where nothing changes there is no time flow, though there may be elsewhere, where there is change. Such an assumption would require some revision of uncritical common thought (...) about time. Aristotle argues that there is no time without change but that time is not change. His arguments for the latter can be faulted both internally and again in terms of the same relativist assumption. From the Physics we can derive, though Aristotle himself did not, an argument that time is to change as geometrical space is to body: the thing itself in abstraction. (shrink)

To prove the equivalence one must start with one side, and the earlier-later side seems, for starting with, logically the clearer. The equivalence is provable on reasonable definitions of ‘past’, ‘present’ and ‘future’ in terms of the earlier-later structure of time. McTaggart's attempted distinction between the past-present-future A series and the earlier-later B series, as though they were rivals for the structure of time, is based on an unexamined, and false, assumption. The equivalence shows they are not rivals; they are (...) quite consistent with each other. A very serious consequence is that all subsequent argument, from the A side or the B, however sophisticated, is flawed to the extent that it accepts McTaggart's false distinction. (shrink)

Following observations of Aristotle, Kant, Newton, Leibniz and Einstein (on space), we can devise a means of showing how the ontology of time supports the precedes-succeeds logic, which the temporal series shares with those of space and number, and how the past-present-future account is consistent with that. Time, by a relativist, not absolutist, account, turns out to be the existence and nonexistence of exactly the same thing in exactly the same respect. Both A and not-A can be the case, but (...) not at the same time. On the relativist view their both being the case constitutes time. This turns out to be, in the most general sense, a causal theory of time. (Published Online February 27 2006). (shrink)

The argument of J. M. E. McTaggart in ‘The Unreality of Time’ (Mind 1908) fails logically. There is no A series as such, but there is a shifting past-present-future arrangement within and consistent with the earlier-later B series, past being always earlier, future always later, present always a position earlier or later. An exactly similar logical structure is constructible within the number series, by making each number as one goes up it in turn (it does not matter what ‘it’, or (...) ‘present’, means, ontologically). The subsequent argument that past-present-future time falls into contradiction then fails also, and proves to be equivocal. (shrink)

Philosophical development of Leibniz's view that time is merely earlier–later order is necessary because neither Leibniz nor modern followers sufficiently answered the Newtonian charge that order does not give quantity. Logically, order is transitive, quantity, as in distance, is not. Quantity, as well as order, is naturally assumed in Newton's absolute time, so that to declare the mere relative order sufficient is to have to show how quantity can arise for it. The modern theory of the continuum, perfectly applicable to (...) Newton's absolute, does not show this but assumes quantity. The development given here shows how interval, instant and simultaneity can be logically developed from Leibniz's insight. (shrink)

This is of course the relational, as opposed to the Newtonian absolutist, theory of space and time. The trouble is, as Clarke indicated several times during the correspondence, and as Russell pointed out in his early study of Leibniz: if continua such as space and time are relations, then it must be shown how a relation can behave as we recognize a continuum to do. How, for example, can a relation be divided or measured as we think space and time (...) can? Russell says. (shrink)

This revised edition has been published in the light of a questionnaire answered in detail by users of the first edition. The nature of psychology; the growth and development of the human being; motivation, emotion, adjustment; learning and thinking; perception; individuality and its appraisal; psychology and social problems are considered, and in that order. The text includes a section on psychology as a profession. The end of each chapter has a summary and suggestions for further reading. A glossary of psychological (...) terms and author and subject indices complete the work. (shrink)

This is a textbook of Scholastic psychology with “a short, simple survey and critical evaluation of the most important data of contemporary experimental and dynamic psychology.” It has six sections, the first an introduction to philosophical psychology; then parts one and two deal respectively with plant and animal life. Parts three, four and five deal respectively with human sense life, human rational life and man as a person, each part having two sections, empirical and a philosophical. There are some footnotes, (...) valuable suggestions for reading, a general bibliography and an index. (shrink)