The purpose of this paper is to explore the connection between change and the B-theory of time, sometimes also called the Scientific view of time, according to which reality is a four-dimensional spacetime manifold, where past, present and future things equally exist, and the present time and non-present times are metaphysically the same. I argue in favour of a novel response to the much-vexed question of whether there is change on the B-theory or not. In fact, B-theorists are often said (...) to hold a ‘static’ view of time. But this far from being innocent label: if the B-theory of time presents a model of temporal reality that is static, then there is no change on the B-theory. From this, one can reasonably think as follows: of course, there is change, so the B-theory must be false. What I plan to do in this paper is to argue that in some sense there is change on the B-theory, but in some other sense, there is no change on the B-theory. To do so, I present three instances of change: Existential Change, namely the view that things change with respect to their existence over time; Qualitative Change, the view that things change with respect to how they are over time; Propositional Change, namely the view that things (i.e. propositions) change with respect to truth value over time. I argue that while there is a reading of these three instances of change that is true on the B-theory, and so there is change on the B-theory in this sense, there is a B-theoretical reading of each of them that is not true on the B-theory, and therefore there is no change on the B-theory in this other sense. (shrink)

Some Presentists—according to whom everything is present—identify instants of time with propositions of a certain kind. However, the view that times are propositions seems to be at odds with Presentism: if there are times then there are past times, and therefore things that are past; but how could there be things that are past if everything is present? In this paper, we describe the Presentist view that times are propositions ; we set out the argument that Presentism is incompatible with (...) the view that times are propositions ; and then we describe three possible responses to that argument on behalf of Presentists who identify times with propositions. We argue that each of these responses comes with significant costs. Finally, we describe a fourth possible response—according to which times are irreducibly higher-order entities—which appears to avoid the costs of the other three. We also describe and respond to two objections to the higher-order strategy. (shrink)

In this paper I describe a specific emotional reaction to the fact that we will cease to exist, namely existential dread, and I argue that the B-theory of time, according to which reality contains a four-dimensional spacetime manifold and the present time is metaphysically on a par with past and future times, cannot accommodate it. Some may see this as an advantage of the B-theory; some may see it as a problem for the view. My aim is not to argue (...) either for or against the B-theory, but merely to show that it is incompatible with a certain common emotion. The paper is split into three sections. I begin by introducing existential dread. Next, I show how existential dread fits into a widely accepted theory of emotion according to which emotions are intentional states susceptible of being both intelligible and correct, where an emotion is intelligible if, roughly, it makes sense; and is correct if, roughly, it fits its object. The core of the paper is the third section: in that section, I introduce the B-theory of time and I argue that it is incompatible with existential dread. (shrink)

A partire dalla celebre disputa tra Martin Heidegger e Rudolf Carnap, avvenuta nella prima metà del secolo scorso, circa la significatività della metafisica, la filosofia ha iniziato a indirizzarsi verso due canali differenti e per lo più paralleli, quelli della filosofia analitica e della filosofia continentale. Nonostante attualmente si ricorra spesso a questa distinzione in maniera dogmatica, il presente articolo mira a definire i contorni di un recentissimo dibattito tra alcuni filosofi contemporanei di stampo analitico in merito alla ricezione e (...) alla comprensione di alcune tesi di Martin Heidegger. L’argomento risulta di particolare interesse non solo al fine di introdurre all’interno del panorama filosofico italiano un dibattito ancora poco studiato, ma anche perché porta con sé un notevole esempio di dialogo tra i due approcci alla filosofia sopramenzionati. Il focus centrale del dibattito riguarda la nozione filosofica di «modi d’essere», così come elaborata da Kristopher McDaniel e Joshua Tepley, che individuando in Heidegger un sostenitore della tesi aristotelica secondo cui «l’essere si dice in molti modi», cercano di smarcarsi dalla celebre dottrina di W. V. O. Quine e dai suoi sviluppi univocisti. La dottrina univocista rispetto al predicato d’esistenza gioca un ruolo di predominio nella metafisica analitica contemporanea e trova nel filosofo americano Peter van Inwagen uno dei massimi esponenti. Il fine della strategia di McDaniel consiste nel richiamarsi a Heidegger allo scopo di fornire una fondazione non solo della nozione polivoca dell’essere, analiticamente tradotta in ontological pluralism, bensì anche della sua struttura analogica. Joshua Tepley, dal canto suo, si preoccupa invece di fornire un’interpretazione della filosofia heideggeriana maggiormente appetibile, a suo dire, ai filosofi analitici traducendo i vari modi dell’essere, e l’essere stesso, in termini di «proprietà» degli enti. Nelle seguenti pagine si offrirà una panoramica esaustiva di questo dibatto fornendo, al termine di essa, alcune osservazioni critiche sia di carattere speculativo sia in merito all’effettiva coerenza con l’opera di Martin Heidegger. (shrink)