Presentism states that everything is present. Crucial to our understanding of this thesis is how we interpret the ‘is’. Recently, several philosophers have claimed that on any interpretation presentism comes out as either trivially true or manifestly false. Yet, presentism is meant to be a substantive and interesting thesis. I outline in detail the nature of the problem and the standard interpretative options. After unfavourably assessing several popular responses in the literature, I offer an alternative interpretation that provides the desired (...) result. This interpretation is then used to clarify the distinction between ‘real change’ from mere variation and temporal relativisation. Reflecting on my solution, I try to diagnose the source of confusion over these issues. Then, building upon Fine’s distinction between ontic and factive presentism, I elucidate what the presentist thesis specifically concerns and how best to formalise it. In the process I distinguish a weak and strong version of the presentist thesis. Finally, I end by drawing out some limitations of the paper. (shrink)

In a recent paper,[3], Harold T. Walsh has argued that Whewell's commentators have in the past misunderstood his use of “necessary,” that Whewell's theory of necessary truth developed only gradually through thirty years of scholarly activity, finally finding a “mature” expression in Philosophy of Discovery, published in 1860, and that a proper understanding of Whewell's “mature” theory of necessary truth leads to a fundamental re-interpretation of the nature of the Ideas and of their role in scientific systems—that the meaning of (...) “necessity” as Whewell expresses it in Philosophy of Discovery leads, in short, to a new and more illuminating reading of his philosophy of inductive science. It is my view that the three propositions asserting Walsh's view are incorrect, expecially the two important and crucial ones and. In what follows, I shall state what seem to me to be the grounds for rejecting Walsh's view that Whewell's theory of necessity was not arrived at before 1860, and hence for rejecting his interpretation of some basic aspects of Whewell's philosophy of science. (shrink)

This short essay reviews Robert Allinson’s edited collection, Understanding the Chinese Mind: The Philosophical Roots. It begins with remarks on the hegemonic stance of Western philosophy in the arena of what ‘philosophy’ means. It then draws attention to the need for Chinese (and, more broadly, Asian) society to occupy a new position in global conversations, philosophical or otherwise. The review then turns to brief synopses of each of the articles that feature in the collection, returning the conversation to the (...) broader question of how to promote the dialogue for which Allinson’s volume calls. The reviewer suggests that, in addition to setting up collaborative organizations, Western philosophers should think more seriously about what and how to learn from their Eastern counterparts, and Eastern philosophers should begin writing ethical and political works which translate their pragmatic concerns into real conclusions about the values of our global culture. (shrink)