I've been seeking for some time a third alternative to the A and B Theories of time. Here is my current best effort. J. M. E. McTaggart introduced in 1908 a distinction between two theories of time, the A and B Theories. The A Theory can be defined in either of two ways, one entailing the other. Hence, there is actually a trichotomy of theories of time: strict A, strict B, and intermediate theories. The narrow or strict definition of A Theory requires that the theory designate a single moment of time as metaphysically privileged, as the absolute Present moment. The broader definition of A Theory requires only that there be a real passage of time: that is, that there exist some metaphysically fundamental Clock whose successive states mark out the passage of time. It is clear that any strict A Theory must also be a broad A Theory, since the movement of the absolute Present would be a metaphysical Clock of the kind required. However, as we shall see, there are alternative Clocks that could be posited. Similarly, strict B Theory rules out the existence of a metaphysical Clock, while broad B Theory requires only that there be no metaphysically privileged Present. Hence, there are three possible positions: strict A Theory, strict B Theory, and the Intermediate Theory (which posits a metaphysical Clock but no privileged Present). I think we must embrace the thesis that the copula itself must be tensed (Johnston 1987). As I mentioned above, ‘being’ is said in many ways. There are distinct modes of present/actual being, one for each B moment. Events (including substances and their accidents) have different modes of actual being, depending on when they exist. Consequently, if m is the mode of being corresponding to 100 B.C. and n the mode corresponding to 100 A.D., then the death of Caesar is_m possible-in-the-future, and it is_n necessary-in-the-past. If o is the mode corresponding to the moment of Caesar’s death, then that death is_o simpliciter. In addition to such temporal modes, there is a single mode of eternal being, e. All substances and accidents are_e simpliciter, but none are_e past or future. Eternal being is the focal meaning of ‘being’. There is now no contradiction in supposing that Caesar’s death is_m possible-in-the-future but is_n not possible-in-the-future, nor is_e it possible-in-the-future, since distinct modes of being are involved. The various temporal modes of being are causally ordered, as mentioned above. If m is prior to n, then that things are_n as they are is causally dependent on how things are_m. Suppose that the modes of being are not permanently attached to B moments of time but are in continuous motion through the B series. In other words, the mode of being m, which is the mode associated with the present moment, was once associated with 100 B. C. and will one day be associated with 2100 A.D. A function that relates modes of being to the B moments to which they belong would then constitute a metaphysical Clock, keeping track of the real passage of time without introducing a uniquely privileged Present. If we relate this to the Fregean idea of direct acquaintance with the present moment, we could imagine that all of my memories and all of my anticipations of the future involve the very same mode of being. I remember when this mode, say m, was associated with the year 1980, and I look forward to when it will be associated with the year 2030. Thus, the temporal phenomenology of the fleetingness of the present and of the inexorable forward motion of time would both be vindicated, if we think of my present consciousness as borne along by the same mode of being. This degree of dynamism can be squared with a rejection of strict A Theory, since there is a future self who remembers when he was_n a child, and a past self that looks forward to being a philosopher, where n and o are modes of being associated now with future and past times, modes with which I am not now acquainted. My present mode m is not metaphysically privileged, even though it does move through the B series.
1 Comment
Trevor Giroux
8/12/2022 03:32:07 pm
Hello Dr. Koons. On this theory would the eternal mode of being apply to both God and creatures? It seems that if God is identical to his act of being then he cannot share any mode of being with creatures.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorRob Koons, a professor of philosophy, trained in the analytic tradition at Oxford and UCLA. Specializing in the further development of the Aristotle-Aquinas tradition in metaphysics and the philosophy of nature. Archives
August 2022
Categories
All
|