Whatever its ultimate philosophical merits, it is often thought that the growing block theory presents an intuitive picture of reality that accords well with our pre-reflective or folk view of time, and of the past, present, and future. This is partly motivated by the idea that we find it intuitive that, in some sense, the future is open and the past closed, and that the growing block theory is particularly well suited to accommodate this being so. In this paper, we (...) empirically investigate three claims. First, that people's intuitive or pre-reflective sense that the future is open is at least partly captured by there being truth-gaps for future contingents: what we call alethic openness. Second, that people, perhaps tacitly, believe that the fact that the future is alethically open is a reason to endorse the growing block theory; and third, that part of what explains why people tend to naively represent our world as a growing block is that they represent the future as alethically open. We found evidence in support of the first two claims. We consider the implications of these findings for several debates in the philosophy of time. (shrink)

Present-bias is the preference, all else being equal, for positive events to be located in the present rather than the non-present, and for negative events to be located in the non-present rather than the present. Very little attention has been given to present-bias in the contemporary literature on time biases. This may be because it is often assumed that present-bias is not a distinctive psychological kind; that what explains people’s being present-biased is just what explains them displaying various other time-biases. (...) According to this view, there is no need to investigate present-bias independently of investigating these other biases, since present-bias is really just a manifestation of these other biases. We call this the manifestation thesis. We take up the question of whether the manifestation thesis is true, and argue that it is not. Thus, by failing to investigate present-bias in its own right we are failing fully to understand the spectrum of ways in which people display time biases. In turn, we suggest, this may have implications for the ways we evaluate whether present-bias is rationally permissible. (shrink)

This article presents a conceptual analysis of the contemporary understanding of NURSING in Australia and proposes strategies for decolonisation. Through historical reflection and the lens of cultural safety and critical race theory, it examines some conditions which make up this concept, including “Florence Nightingale‐influenced practices,” “intellectual practitioners,” and “whiteness in nursing.” This analysis aims to identify conditions which we take to be necessary for the folk concept of NURSING to be satisfied and which result in negative outcomes. The article explores (...) why these conditions are plausibly included in this concept and possible objections to their inclusion. These conditions, and subsequently the concept of NURSING, are then critiqued. In this conceptual analysis of NURSING in Australia, we explore three conditions. By critically examining these conditions through the lens of cultural safety and employing decolonising methodologies, the article sheds light on the complex interplay of historical legacies, contemporary practices and potential negative outcomes within the nursing profession. The conclusions drawn propose a shift toward decolonisation, advocating for a cultural safety framework to address historical injustices and highlights possible ways in which one might amend the concept of nursing to be more inclusive of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. The need for this change is emphasised by the acknowledgement of historical conditions that perpetuated racism and hindered equitable healthcare. Ultimately, the article advocates for a comprehensive decolonisation of the concept of NURSING in Australia, urging the nursing profession to implement cultural safety for the overall well‐being of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. The authors of this article would like to acknowledge the people of the Dharawal and Dharug language group, who are the custodians of the unceded land we have worked on throughout this project. We would also like to acknowledge Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island people nationwide and warn them that some traumatic aspects of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander history are mentioned throughout this article. Always was, always will be, Aboriginal land. Two authors on this article identify as Aboriginal, while three do not. Two authors are registered nurses, one is an anthropologist, one is a philosopher and one is a historian. (shrink)