--Burn the Bridges Down--
When we talk,
You never have anything new
To talk about.
It also seems like
We always have to call
‘Cause you claim you’re busy.
--Chorus A--
If you keep burning the bridges down,
We’ll be bitter enemies.
If you keep this up,
It all will come crumbling down.
If you keep burning the bridges down,
Saying there’s nothing new today.
If you keep this up,
No one would want to call you.
--Chorus B--
Keep burnin’ the bridges down,
Someday it will hurt you.
Keep burnin’ the bridges down,
It will come crumbling down.
Someday, you’ll see
You’re the one who is making
The mistake of burning it down.
It will hurt when it
Falls down due to you burning it down.
Chorus A
Chorus B
I’ll be there, in the end,
But will you be there, when it all falls down.
I’ll be there, in the end,
It all matters if you’re there.
Chorus B
Chorus A
Chorus B
If you keep on burning,
Burning the bridges down,
It all will crumble down.
If the bridges keep burning,
I’ll see you when it’s over.
If you keep on burning the bridges down,
It all will start crumbling down!
Monday, January 26, 2009
Broken Dreams
--Broken Dreams--
Since the dawn of time,
Everyone’s have had dreams that they’ve chased
For some, they have reached the mountain top
But for others, things haven’t worked out that way.
--Chorus--
Though this night, and throughout this day, though you’re broken dreams
I’ll succeed off my prior mistakes
And watch you fail for being so blind
Blind to all, in which are your broken dreams
Failure isn’t beautiful
I’ve looked failure in the eye
Than I spat at failure’s face, and said
‘Today’s the last day of my broken dreams.’
Chorus
Friends and foes alike will stand in amazement
When I fulfill my destiny
I’ll reach the epical mountain top, but
Will you be there to admire my accomplishments?
Chorus
From dusk to dawn, I dream about it constantly
I walked though my broken dreams
A place I wish not to go back
My broken dreams resembles hell to me
Chorus
Will you die in shame never facing your dreams?
Or will you go down in a blaze of glory, chasing everything you always wanted
Don’t let anybody hold you back
The end is here, judgment day is now, and it’s time to face your broken dreams
Chorus
Face your broken dreams like a gladiator like you are
Slay it down like a dragon your broken dreams are
If it’s hot ashes, broken glass, walk over it
In your last days, would you have any broken dreams?
Since the dawn of time,
Everyone’s have had dreams that they’ve chased
For some, they have reached the mountain top
But for others, things haven’t worked out that way.
--Chorus--
Though this night, and throughout this day, though you’re broken dreams
I’ll succeed off my prior mistakes
And watch you fail for being so blind
Blind to all, in which are your broken dreams
Failure isn’t beautiful
I’ve looked failure in the eye
Than I spat at failure’s face, and said
‘Today’s the last day of my broken dreams.’
Chorus
Friends and foes alike will stand in amazement
When I fulfill my destiny
I’ll reach the epical mountain top, but
Will you be there to admire my accomplishments?
Chorus
From dusk to dawn, I dream about it constantly
I walked though my broken dreams
A place I wish not to go back
My broken dreams resembles hell to me
Chorus
Will you die in shame never facing your dreams?
Or will you go down in a blaze of glory, chasing everything you always wanted
Don’t let anybody hold you back
The end is here, judgment day is now, and it’s time to face your broken dreams
Chorus
Face your broken dreams like a gladiator like you are
Slay it down like a dragon your broken dreams are
If it’s hot ashes, broken glass, walk over it
In your last days, would you have any broken dreams?
Friday, January 16, 2009
Leibniz’s Principle of Sufficient Reason from Monadology
Leibniz’s Principle of Sufficient Reason from Monadology
What is reasoning? How can a person use reasoning in their daily life? Could a person use sufficient reasoning? What are some interpretations of Leibniz’ Principle of Sufficient Reasoning? Leibniz came up with a principle for that, which Leibniz called it the “Principle of Sufficient Reason.” Leibniz introduced the Principle of Sufficient Reason from his Monadology. Leibniz went and defined the principle and went on and explained the principle. What I am going to do is to break down the Principle of Sufficient Reason and I will try to explain what Leibniz meant by his Principle.
What is the definition of the principle of sufficient reason? The Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR): For any true proposition p, there is “a sufficient reason why it thus and not otherwise (32).” With this, Leibniz can state that the world we live in is the best possible world and that God exist. How is our world the best possible world and how does God exist? Our world could be a lot worse off then what it currently is. Every country could be a dictatorship; every country could have a communist government running it. And why would God create anything other than the best possible world for us to live in?
Here are some interpretations of the Principle of Sufficient Reason:
(i) Every event occurs for some purpose.
(ii) Every event has a cause.
(iii) For every state of affairs, there is an explanation of why that state of affairs either is the cause or is not the case.
About the first interpretation, which states “every event occurs for some purpose.” This interpretation is pretty self-explanatory, but pretty much that everything that happens, was supposed to happen. Like if the Worlds Heavyweight Wrestling Champion Ric Flair defended his championship against his number one contender, Hulk Hogan. There must be a winner and someone will walk out as the Worlds Champ. Ric Flair will walk out the match victorious and still be the Worlds Heavyweight Champion (or lose by disqualification or count out, which would lead to a re-match, but he will, still, walk out as Worlds Heavyweight Champ) or if Hulk Hogan would defeat Ric Flair and walk out as the Worlds Heavyweight Champion. The second interpretation states “every event has a cause.” The second interpretation means that everything that happens has a reason behind it on why it happened. Like if Hulk Hogan defeating Ric Flair for the Worlds Heavyweight Wrestling Championship by pin fall or submission. Hogan defeated Flair within the rules of a title change, which is why he won the Worlds Heavyweight title off of Flair. The third interpretation states “for every state of affairs, there is an explanation of why that state of affairs either is the cause or is not the case.” The state of affairs is the cause of the event that just happened. If the state of affairs didn’t happen, that means the result of which wouldn’t of happened. Why else would the result happen if the state of affairs didn’t happen? Good question. To explain the third interpretation in other words, if Ric Flair defended his Worlds Heavyweight Wrestling Championship, and he lost his Worlds Heavyweight Championship, to say, Hulk Hogan, that means Hulk Hogan either pinned or made Ric Flair submit. So Hulk Hogan became the new Worlds Heavyweight Champion off of the state of affairs that he pinned or made Ric Flair submit. But if Hogan didn’t pin or made him submit, that would mean that Flair would still be the Worlds Heavyweight Champion. From the interpretations of the principle, let’s get into why Leibniz holds this view.
The reason why Leibniz holds the view of Sufficient Reason, in my opinion, is because we can apply it to a couple of different truths. We imply it to the truths of reasoning and truths of fact. “The truths of reasoning are necessary and their opposite is impossible; the truths of fact are contingent, and their opposite is possible (33).” When the truths of reasoning are necessary and their opposites are impossible means that if ‘A’ happens, not ‘A’ can’t happen. In other words, Ric Flair can’t be the Worlds Heavyweight Wrestling Champion and not be the Worlds Heavyweight Wrestling Champion. He only can be the Champ, or not be the Champ. Then for truths of fact, they’re contingent and their opposites could still happen. If Ric Flair is the Worlds Heavyweight Wrestling Champion, he could lose the match and still be the Champ. Ric Flair can only lose the championship by pin fall or submission, and he could get himself disqualified or counted out to keep the championship. So he lost the match, but didn’t lose the championship to his number one contender. That’s a truth of fact. Back to why I think Leibniz holds these principles as true. Well, for the truths of reasoning and truths of fact, to me, it just makes sense. I think that’s why Leibniz holds the principle as true as well. Now to the interpretations of the Sufficient Reason, every event does occur for a purpose, for good and evil. People get good grades because they studied hard and took many hours studying for their classes, and people get bad grades because they didn’t care enough to take time and study for that class. What about every event has a cause? If you do good, good will come back to you. It’s Karma. It’s just that easy. Then to there’s an explanation of why a state of affairs is either the case or not the case. It’s just as easy as its Saturday or it’s not Saturday. It’s the case that it’s Saturday, or it’s the case that it isn’t Saturday anymore. But all-in-all, I believe Leibniz holds the Principle of Sufficient Reason because it makes sense and you really can’t argue against it.
Leibniz goes on with this principle as a part of an argument for the existence of God. I’ve explained the Principle so far with Ric Flair as Worlds Heavyweight Wrestling Champion and having Hulk Hogan as his number one contender. I’ve used the Flair-Hogan-Worlds Championship example over the argument of God because not everyone believes in God, and we can easily prove who the Worlds Heavyweight Wrestling Champion is, and currently, neither Ric Flair or Hulk Hogan are the Worlds Champ, because Flair is currently retired and Hogan doesn’t compete actively. I could have used two current professional wrestlers, but Hogan is most well known professional wrestler around the world and Ric Flair is arguable the greatest professional wrestler, ever. How I implied the Principle of Sufficient Reason to the Worlds Heavyweight Wrestling Championship, you can easily take that out and put in God into the argument. With me using the Worlds Championship example, in my eyes, proves that the Principle of Sufficient Reason as true. So if we change out the Worlds Championship example and put in God, why wouldn’t the argument still be true?
To conclude Leibniz’s Principle of Sufficient Reason, I would have to agree with the principle because of what Leibniz said on “the truths of reasoning are necessary and their opposite is impossible; the truths of fact are contingent, and their opposite is possible (33).” After looking into the interpretations and into the truths of this principle, I can’t formulate any argument that is strong enough to go against it. With Leibniz’s interpretations of his principle, which was every event occurs for some purpose, every event has a cause, and for every state of affairs, there is an explanation of why that state of affairs either is the cause or is not the case. We can also imply the principle to two different truths. We imply it to the truths of reasoning and truths of fact. “The truths of reasoning are necessary and their opposite is impossible; the truths of fact are contingent, and their opposite is possible (33).” As a result, the Principle of Sufficient Reasoning that Leibniz has presented as an existence of God, and hopefully using the argument towards the existence of something else, you can imply that God does exist with this principle.
What is reasoning? How can a person use reasoning in their daily life? Could a person use sufficient reasoning? What are some interpretations of Leibniz’ Principle of Sufficient Reasoning? Leibniz came up with a principle for that, which Leibniz called it the “Principle of Sufficient Reason.” Leibniz introduced the Principle of Sufficient Reason from his Monadology. Leibniz went and defined the principle and went on and explained the principle. What I am going to do is to break down the Principle of Sufficient Reason and I will try to explain what Leibniz meant by his Principle.
What is the definition of the principle of sufficient reason? The Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR): For any true proposition p, there is “a sufficient reason why it thus and not otherwise (32).” With this, Leibniz can state that the world we live in is the best possible world and that God exist. How is our world the best possible world and how does God exist? Our world could be a lot worse off then what it currently is. Every country could be a dictatorship; every country could have a communist government running it. And why would God create anything other than the best possible world for us to live in?
Here are some interpretations of the Principle of Sufficient Reason:
(i) Every event occurs for some purpose.
(ii) Every event has a cause.
(iii) For every state of affairs, there is an explanation of why that state of affairs either is the cause or is not the case.
About the first interpretation, which states “every event occurs for some purpose.” This interpretation is pretty self-explanatory, but pretty much that everything that happens, was supposed to happen. Like if the Worlds Heavyweight Wrestling Champion Ric Flair defended his championship against his number one contender, Hulk Hogan. There must be a winner and someone will walk out as the Worlds Champ. Ric Flair will walk out the match victorious and still be the Worlds Heavyweight Champion (or lose by disqualification or count out, which would lead to a re-match, but he will, still, walk out as Worlds Heavyweight Champ) or if Hulk Hogan would defeat Ric Flair and walk out as the Worlds Heavyweight Champion. The second interpretation states “every event has a cause.” The second interpretation means that everything that happens has a reason behind it on why it happened. Like if Hulk Hogan defeating Ric Flair for the Worlds Heavyweight Wrestling Championship by pin fall or submission. Hogan defeated Flair within the rules of a title change, which is why he won the Worlds Heavyweight title off of Flair. The third interpretation states “for every state of affairs, there is an explanation of why that state of affairs either is the cause or is not the case.” The state of affairs is the cause of the event that just happened. If the state of affairs didn’t happen, that means the result of which wouldn’t of happened. Why else would the result happen if the state of affairs didn’t happen? Good question. To explain the third interpretation in other words, if Ric Flair defended his Worlds Heavyweight Wrestling Championship, and he lost his Worlds Heavyweight Championship, to say, Hulk Hogan, that means Hulk Hogan either pinned or made Ric Flair submit. So Hulk Hogan became the new Worlds Heavyweight Champion off of the state of affairs that he pinned or made Ric Flair submit. But if Hogan didn’t pin or made him submit, that would mean that Flair would still be the Worlds Heavyweight Champion. From the interpretations of the principle, let’s get into why Leibniz holds this view.
The reason why Leibniz holds the view of Sufficient Reason, in my opinion, is because we can apply it to a couple of different truths. We imply it to the truths of reasoning and truths of fact. “The truths of reasoning are necessary and their opposite is impossible; the truths of fact are contingent, and their opposite is possible (33).” When the truths of reasoning are necessary and their opposites are impossible means that if ‘A’ happens, not ‘A’ can’t happen. In other words, Ric Flair can’t be the Worlds Heavyweight Wrestling Champion and not be the Worlds Heavyweight Wrestling Champion. He only can be the Champ, or not be the Champ. Then for truths of fact, they’re contingent and their opposites could still happen. If Ric Flair is the Worlds Heavyweight Wrestling Champion, he could lose the match and still be the Champ. Ric Flair can only lose the championship by pin fall or submission, and he could get himself disqualified or counted out to keep the championship. So he lost the match, but didn’t lose the championship to his number one contender. That’s a truth of fact. Back to why I think Leibniz holds these principles as true. Well, for the truths of reasoning and truths of fact, to me, it just makes sense. I think that’s why Leibniz holds the principle as true as well. Now to the interpretations of the Sufficient Reason, every event does occur for a purpose, for good and evil. People get good grades because they studied hard and took many hours studying for their classes, and people get bad grades because they didn’t care enough to take time and study for that class. What about every event has a cause? If you do good, good will come back to you. It’s Karma. It’s just that easy. Then to there’s an explanation of why a state of affairs is either the case or not the case. It’s just as easy as its Saturday or it’s not Saturday. It’s the case that it’s Saturday, or it’s the case that it isn’t Saturday anymore. But all-in-all, I believe Leibniz holds the Principle of Sufficient Reason because it makes sense and you really can’t argue against it.
Leibniz goes on with this principle as a part of an argument for the existence of God. I’ve explained the Principle so far with Ric Flair as Worlds Heavyweight Wrestling Champion and having Hulk Hogan as his number one contender. I’ve used the Flair-Hogan-Worlds Championship example over the argument of God because not everyone believes in God, and we can easily prove who the Worlds Heavyweight Wrestling Champion is, and currently, neither Ric Flair or Hulk Hogan are the Worlds Champ, because Flair is currently retired and Hogan doesn’t compete actively. I could have used two current professional wrestlers, but Hogan is most well known professional wrestler around the world and Ric Flair is arguable the greatest professional wrestler, ever. How I implied the Principle of Sufficient Reason to the Worlds Heavyweight Wrestling Championship, you can easily take that out and put in God into the argument. With me using the Worlds Championship example, in my eyes, proves that the Principle of Sufficient Reason as true. So if we change out the Worlds Championship example and put in God, why wouldn’t the argument still be true?
To conclude Leibniz’s Principle of Sufficient Reason, I would have to agree with the principle because of what Leibniz said on “the truths of reasoning are necessary and their opposite is impossible; the truths of fact are contingent, and their opposite is possible (33).” After looking into the interpretations and into the truths of this principle, I can’t formulate any argument that is strong enough to go against it. With Leibniz’s interpretations of his principle, which was every event occurs for some purpose, every event has a cause, and for every state of affairs, there is an explanation of why that state of affairs either is the cause or is not the case. We can also imply the principle to two different truths. We imply it to the truths of reasoning and truths of fact. “The truths of reasoning are necessary and their opposite is impossible; the truths of fact are contingent, and their opposite is possible (33).” As a result, the Principle of Sufficient Reasoning that Leibniz has presented as an existence of God, and hopefully using the argument towards the existence of something else, you can imply that God does exist with this principle.
Descartes’ Deceiving God or “Evil Genius” Argument from the First Meditatio
Descartes’ Deceiving God or “Evil Genius” Argument from the First Meditation
How would you truly know if you are being deceived? If you found out that you were being deceived, would you then doubt all your beliefs and feel betrayed and start to believe what you once thought was false? But would God deceive me, or would it be an “Evil Genius” that would deceive me? These are the questions that Descartes tried to explain in his First Meditation in Meditations on the First Philosophy. With his views and opinions, Descartes’ views challenged the Aristotelian way of life in his day, such as the Aristotelian view of sensation and imagination can be explained mechanistically. To Aristotle, no, you can’t, because sensation and imagination are only faculties of the soul and to Descartes, yes, because sensation and imagination are explained in terms of motions in the brain and in the nerves. So Descartes’ views were quite controversial for his time, and I am going to look into his argument from his First Meditation, the argument of the Deceiving God or an “Evil Genius.”
To start out, I would like to try to explain what the argument for the Deceiving God/Evil Genius argument. Descartes wanted to go out and show that he could prove that God exists based solely on the contents of our own minds and the knowledge of God is more certain than our knowledge “of things of this world.” Descartes’ goal was to “find something firm and lasting in the sciences” of the world back then. Descartes wanted to find truth in what he knew was true and what he took as false.
Descartes’ premises for the Deceiving God/Evil Genius Argument are as follows:
(1) I can’t be certain that God or an evil genius is not deceiving me.
(2) If God/the Evil Genius is deceiving me, then everything I believe is false.
(3) If (1) and (2) are true, there is a reason for me to doubt everything I believe.
(4) If there is a reason for me to doubt everything I believe, then I can doubt all of my former beliefs.
(C) Therefore, I can doubt all of my former beliefs.
What premise one is talking about is Descartes couldn’t be certain if there was a God or an evil genius out there telling him lies about the world, himself, his life, everything. So Descartes would have to dig deeper into if God or an evil genius is deceiving him, which leads us into premise number two. Descartes states that if God or the Evil Genius is truly deceiving he, then everything that he once believed is false and everything he once believed to be false would be true. If the two premises were true, then there is a reason for Descartes to doubt everything that he once believed. Then to Descartes, if there is a reason for him to doubt everything he believes, then Descartes can doubt all of his former beliefs. With these premises that Descartes brought up, he drew the conclusion of that he can doubt all of his former beliefs. With these premises of the Deceiving God/Evil Genius argument, I will share my thoughts and opinions of the argument.
Descartes is trying to shed doubt on the beliefs of, if he believes if God or an “Evil Genius” is deceiving him, everything he once believed he will give up and doubt everything he once believed to be fact. My opinion of this argument is that this argument isn’t really that strong because in premise four, it is stated that if there is a reason for Descartes to doubt everything he believes in, then he will doubt all of his beliefs. If one of his beliefs is incorrect, that doesn’t mean that all of his beliefs are incorrect. But if he had a false belief that was the foundation of rest of his beliefs, let’s say like a certain religion, then yeah, I can see where he could doubt all of his beliefs. But if Descartes believed that Ric Flair (pro wrestling legend who is a record setting 16-time World Heavyweight Champion) is the current World Heavyweight Wrestling Champion, and he isn’t, that doesn’t mean the rest of what he once and currently believe is false. From trying to shed doubt that he is being deceived, Descartes explained his Cogito of “I think, therefore I exist.” I will explain Descartes’ reasoning thinking and existing.
Descartes explained his Cogito as “I think, therefore I exist.” What Descartes meant by this is that he is a thinking thing, which helped him to prove that he does exist before he went around on trying to decide if other things are true. It doesn’t make any sense to me to doubt that I exist, because I know every thought that goes thorough my head, every action I do, I hear every sound that I make, I am there for every experience I have, and I live through everything that I experience. It is one thing to doubt something that you haven’t seen, heard, tasted, felt, and so-on-and-so-forth, but to doubt yourself if you truly exist is just plan stupid, because you are there for everything that you do and you are the only person to know every thought that goes through your head. With the argument of the Deceiving God/Evil Genius, I will now give my thoughts on the argument.
My thoughts on this argument are: I think this argument is valid because all the premises are true, as well as the conclusion. I also think that the argument is sound. I can see where Descartes is coming from that if you believed in one thing, and were told that you were deceived, who might start to doubt your beliefs. In my eyes, I would do the same thing if that situation would ever happen to me, I am sure I would doubt my beliefs in it, whatever it might be. But I would not doubt my beliefs just because I have a reason to doubt and I would not give up on all of my beliefs if I found out that one of my beliefs came out to be false after believing that it was true. I would look into why I once believed it to be true and figure out why it isn’t anymore and get highly respected opinions from people who I hold high regard for.
As a result, Descartes’ argument for the Deceiving God/Evil Genius is based on the first premise, which is that he couldn’t be certain if God or an evil genius is deceiving him. If so, then everything that Descartes once believed would be false, which leads into if both are true, and then there would be a reason for Descartes to doubt everything he believes. And if Descartes had a reason to doubt the things he believed, then he can doubt all of his beliefs. With all these premises, Descartes could doubt all of his former beliefs if God or an Evil Genius was deceiving him. I really don’t agree with the argument because if you found out that you were being deceived by God, something must be wrong because religions with God in the center doesn’t believe that God would deceive them. But let’s say we were deceived, the argument could work. I can’t see someone reject all the things they once believed after finding out they were deceived. To conclude, I think Descartes’ Deceiving God/Evil Genius argument is a valid and sound argument, but I don’t agree with it.
How would you truly know if you are being deceived? If you found out that you were being deceived, would you then doubt all your beliefs and feel betrayed and start to believe what you once thought was false? But would God deceive me, or would it be an “Evil Genius” that would deceive me? These are the questions that Descartes tried to explain in his First Meditation in Meditations on the First Philosophy. With his views and opinions, Descartes’ views challenged the Aristotelian way of life in his day, such as the Aristotelian view of sensation and imagination can be explained mechanistically. To Aristotle, no, you can’t, because sensation and imagination are only faculties of the soul and to Descartes, yes, because sensation and imagination are explained in terms of motions in the brain and in the nerves. So Descartes’ views were quite controversial for his time, and I am going to look into his argument from his First Meditation, the argument of the Deceiving God or an “Evil Genius.”
To start out, I would like to try to explain what the argument for the Deceiving God/Evil Genius argument. Descartes wanted to go out and show that he could prove that God exists based solely on the contents of our own minds and the knowledge of God is more certain than our knowledge “of things of this world.” Descartes’ goal was to “find something firm and lasting in the sciences” of the world back then. Descartes wanted to find truth in what he knew was true and what he took as false.
Descartes’ premises for the Deceiving God/Evil Genius Argument are as follows:
(1) I can’t be certain that God or an evil genius is not deceiving me.
(2) If God/the Evil Genius is deceiving me, then everything I believe is false.
(3) If (1) and (2) are true, there is a reason for me to doubt everything I believe.
(4) If there is a reason for me to doubt everything I believe, then I can doubt all of my former beliefs.
(C) Therefore, I can doubt all of my former beliefs.
What premise one is talking about is Descartes couldn’t be certain if there was a God or an evil genius out there telling him lies about the world, himself, his life, everything. So Descartes would have to dig deeper into if God or an evil genius is deceiving him, which leads us into premise number two. Descartes states that if God or the Evil Genius is truly deceiving he, then everything that he once believed is false and everything he once believed to be false would be true. If the two premises were true, then there is a reason for Descartes to doubt everything that he once believed. Then to Descartes, if there is a reason for him to doubt everything he believes, then Descartes can doubt all of his former beliefs. With these premises that Descartes brought up, he drew the conclusion of that he can doubt all of his former beliefs. With these premises of the Deceiving God/Evil Genius argument, I will share my thoughts and opinions of the argument.
Descartes is trying to shed doubt on the beliefs of, if he believes if God or an “Evil Genius” is deceiving him, everything he once believed he will give up and doubt everything he once believed to be fact. My opinion of this argument is that this argument isn’t really that strong because in premise four, it is stated that if there is a reason for Descartes to doubt everything he believes in, then he will doubt all of his beliefs. If one of his beliefs is incorrect, that doesn’t mean that all of his beliefs are incorrect. But if he had a false belief that was the foundation of rest of his beliefs, let’s say like a certain religion, then yeah, I can see where he could doubt all of his beliefs. But if Descartes believed that Ric Flair (pro wrestling legend who is a record setting 16-time World Heavyweight Champion) is the current World Heavyweight Wrestling Champion, and he isn’t, that doesn’t mean the rest of what he once and currently believe is false. From trying to shed doubt that he is being deceived, Descartes explained his Cogito of “I think, therefore I exist.” I will explain Descartes’ reasoning thinking and existing.
Descartes explained his Cogito as “I think, therefore I exist.” What Descartes meant by this is that he is a thinking thing, which helped him to prove that he does exist before he went around on trying to decide if other things are true. It doesn’t make any sense to me to doubt that I exist, because I know every thought that goes thorough my head, every action I do, I hear every sound that I make, I am there for every experience I have, and I live through everything that I experience. It is one thing to doubt something that you haven’t seen, heard, tasted, felt, and so-on-and-so-forth, but to doubt yourself if you truly exist is just plan stupid, because you are there for everything that you do and you are the only person to know every thought that goes through your head. With the argument of the Deceiving God/Evil Genius, I will now give my thoughts on the argument.
My thoughts on this argument are: I think this argument is valid because all the premises are true, as well as the conclusion. I also think that the argument is sound. I can see where Descartes is coming from that if you believed in one thing, and were told that you were deceived, who might start to doubt your beliefs. In my eyes, I would do the same thing if that situation would ever happen to me, I am sure I would doubt my beliefs in it, whatever it might be. But I would not doubt my beliefs just because I have a reason to doubt and I would not give up on all of my beliefs if I found out that one of my beliefs came out to be false after believing that it was true. I would look into why I once believed it to be true and figure out why it isn’t anymore and get highly respected opinions from people who I hold high regard for.
As a result, Descartes’ argument for the Deceiving God/Evil Genius is based on the first premise, which is that he couldn’t be certain if God or an evil genius is deceiving him. If so, then everything that Descartes once believed would be false, which leads into if both are true, and then there would be a reason for Descartes to doubt everything he believes. And if Descartes had a reason to doubt the things he believed, then he can doubt all of his beliefs. With all these premises, Descartes could doubt all of his former beliefs if God or an Evil Genius was deceiving him. I really don’t agree with the argument because if you found out that you were being deceived by God, something must be wrong because religions with God in the center doesn’t believe that God would deceive them. But let’s say we were deceived, the argument could work. I can’t see someone reject all the things they once believed after finding out they were deceived. To conclude, I think Descartes’ Deceiving God/Evil Genius argument is a valid and sound argument, but I don’t agree with it.
The Theories of Presentism
The Theories of Presentism
0.1 Intro
There are many different kinds of theories defining time as being real and theories defining time as being nonexistent. One of the many theories defending time as being real is the theory of presentism. Presentism is the theory that only the present exists and the past and future are nonexistent. In meaning, only the here and now exists and our past experiences are nonexistent and our future plans, as like the past experiences, are nonexistent. In this paper, I will discuss more in-detail the theory of presentism, as well as discuss three of many different branches of presentism, Priorian Presentism, Point Presentism, and Cone Presentism. After doing which, I will point out the problems of which each branch of presentism I discussed has and state what they can do to fix such problems and give my opinion on each branch of presentism.
1.0 Presentism
1.1 …Definition…
What is presentism? Presentism is “…that only presently existing things exist… (Hinchliff 2000)” or in simpler terms, “Presentism is the doctrine that the only temporal items which exist are those which are present (Craig 2000, 208).” Presentism looks at time like only the present exist, and times that aren’t right now aren’t real and that things are the way they presently are right now (Hinchliff 2000). In which our previous experiences are nonexistent and the events that are in the future are nonexistent. We do have memories of what happened previously, but are only existent to that moment, and differs from every single changing moment, because they are in the past and are nonexistent. We can remember, for example, watching Ric Flair winning his eighth World Heavyweight Championship (be his first World Wrestling Federation [Entertainment] World Heavyweight Championship) in January 1992 when he won the vacated championship in a thirty-man over-the-top-tope battle royal called the Royal Rumble in Albany, New York.. But currently, it’s a memory, it’s in the past, and according to presentism, it never happened. We do have the memory of having it, but it’s almost seventeen years after the fact, so it’s more than yesterday’s news, to the presentist view, it’s only a memory that never happened.
Presentism also offers solutions to philosophical problems in such areas of metaphysics, language, and of mind (Hinchliff 2000). That’s also why presentism is widely accepted because it can easily answer difficult, philosophical questions, like philosophy of metaphysics, of language, and of the mind. For metaphysics, presentism answers the question on what’s real is what’s currently real now, like President-Elect Barack Obama will become our forty-fourth President of the United States come January. For the philosophy of language, it deals with the usage of language, and with the presentist standpoint, the only usage that matters is the one that exists, which is in the present moment. The philosophy of mind deals with the relationship between mind and the body, and with the presentist, the only relationship that matters are the one that it currently holding. After discussing the basic definition of Presentism, let’s dig into one of its branches, Priorian Presentism, which includes truthmakers.
1.2 …Priorian Presentism…
“The truth of our statements depends on the way the world is: contingent truths require truthmakers… But so long as we all agree that truths depend in some way on the contents of the world… (Bourne 2006).” So whatever contents of this world is present and true, then it’s a truthmaker, and if it’s a truthmaker, then everything is based upon that. But the key thing is, whatever is a truthmaker is what’s true presently. So when we agree on what is contingently true and what isn’t, there will be no doubt what we do consider to be truthmakers because a contingent truth is a truth that couldn’t have been any other way . And if the present is looked at in this way, that it couldn’t have been in any other way, and then the past and the future are nonexistent because it doesn’t line up with what’s true right currently, as well as the truth, it can’t be anything other than true. How can one contradict something that is contingently true? They can’t, and in return, only what is contingently true occurs in the present.
One may ask: aren’t there also incorrect truths, or false statements, in the current world? Yes, it is true that there are false statements in the present world, but the false statements do not make up what is contingently true to make truthmakers. But who really accepts the false statements to be true? Nobody does, in their right mindset, accept false statements to be truth. In which, false statements don’t go anywhere, and when they don’t go anywhere, only the truth statements are accepted and are believed. No one would doubt what is true over what is false because it is unreasonable and unjustified to do such. So yes, there are false statements out there in the present world and in the present moment, but there are incorrect in making truthmakers because they aren’t contingent truths. After discussing the Priorian branch of Presentism, let’s take a look at a version that deals with the past being present, the Point Presentism.
1.3 …Point Presentism…
“If the present is the here-now, there are events that are past that were never present (Hinchliff 2000).” Things are the way they are, right now, exists and things aren’t what they are now, like what was past and what will be future, are nonexistent. In other words, only the now exists and the past never existed because they were never present. The question is how can the past never be present if we lived through them? If things aren’t happening right at the current moment, right now, then it’s either in the past or it’s in the future. And for Point Presentism, it considers the past, which is nonexistent because it isn’t the present. So like what the name entails, Point Presentism is considered the most exact point that’s happening now, which is called the ‘present.’ So things that happened, like this year, 2008, never were present because it’s hard to say those 366 days this year (due to it being a leap year) happened all at the same time. It’s even hard to say that one particular day is happening all at once. Only the millisecond that we’re currently in is present and the previous “presents” that we had are nonexistent because they aren’t present right now.
“The objection is, in other words, that point presentism violates the ‘conceptual truth’ that what is past was present (Hinchliff 2000).” First, let’s define what a conceptual truth is. A conceptual truth is something that is true by definition, like an unmarried male is considered a bachelor. In Hinchliff’s eyes, point presentism tries to say that the past was once present. And depending on who you talk to, most people would agree with that statement, that the past was once present and the future will be present one day. But to presentism, and to point presentism, only the present moment exists and everything else simply doesn’t. So for Hinchliff and his thoughts on point presentism violating the ‘conceptual truth,’ point presentism states that the past were never present because in the present moment, the past isn’t in the present and is nonexistent. What is past is past because, obliviously, only the present is happening and exists. So only what’s happening at the current point that is called present is true we can only live in the moment that is happening. Coming from that the past was never present to only what is present is what I see from Point Presentism to Cone Presentism, respectively.
1.4 …Cone Presentism…
“…The present for an event E is to be identified with the surface of E’s past cone (Hinchliff 2000).” So event E only had one location, which we don’t know of until we have experienced event E until it is present. We can have a place of happening, the present, but with the light that is observed, it forms a shape of a cone. In essence, whatever the light makes around our previous presents is what our previous presents could have been. Let’s look at an ice cream cone. If we grab two ice cream cones and put the point ends together, and the vortex that the two cones make, let’s call that the “present.” With this reference, the extra space that the two cones have inside the walls is the possible path the past present and the future present can take. The bottom cone, let’s say, was the past. The empty space represents where the present was freely open to go to and that’s where your memories and previous experiences are. For the top cone, that’s the future. The present can freely move wherever it may it the top cone. With this view, our line of experiences, or at least to what our memory lies, can be zigzagged.
“One virtue of the view is that it captures the idea that what is present is what I am seeing now (Hinchliff 2000).” Let’s still use the two ice cream cone reference I was using above. Where one would put the end of the two cones could, and would, be called present because they come to one point where they touch. If you would have the sides touching each other, then there would be more than one specific spot that could be the present. So one can easily see that where the two cones meet up is what is called present. And if that is what is called present, one can easily imply that to the current moment, the present, and say that whatever we’re experiencing right now has to be the present because we don’t have a memory of it happening. We can also see that the bottom cone, being the past, is that farther and farther we move down the cone, we can see if we didn’t chose what we chose, it could of lead to a completely different road that we would of traveled down, and for the top cone, the future, we can see that the decisions that we make will lead us on an infinite number of roads we can travel down. In concentration, cone presentism makes most sense of all branches of presentism. Coming from the present is what you’re currently seeing, and all of presentism that only the present exists and the past and future are nonexistent, I’m going to discuss the problems that Presentism face and each branch that I discussed, what problems they face.
2.0 My Opinion on Presentism
2.1 …Definition…
To presentism, only the present exists and our memories of past experiences are real, but our past experiences are nonexistent and the future is nonexistent. For the past being nonexistent, that’s hard to believe because we obliviously have memories of past experiences and events. Granted that they aren’t present, if they were present, we wouldn’t have memories of what is going to happen, but if more than just one person has a memory for a certain event, let’s say a friend trying to pay for gas at the gas pump with his student I.D. card, the people who were there would remember the event and laugh about it for years to come. To say that the event never existed after it happened but the memory is true just doesn’t go well with one another. To say that your previous experiences are nonexistent and they never happened doesn’t make sense. Saying that the best times of your life never really happened when you’re in a nursing home talking to your grandchildren, what has your life become then and what was your life? It’s just hard to say that your life really means nothing because the current exists and the now will pass and will come to mean nothing.
One of the examples I used while describing the definition of presentism is “the Nature Boy” Ric Flair winning his eighth World Heavyweight Championship in January 1992 in the World Wrestling Federation (now World Wrestling Entertainment) which was his first WWE World Heavyweight Championship. To have a discussion with a fan that knows anything about Ric Flair and his pro wrestling career, they would probably think you’ve lost your mind if you say that Ric Flair’s career and all his title reigns never happened because he’s currently retired from the business. Any wrestling fan, or any person to that matter, would argue the point with a person defending presentism on the lines of the past existing. We lived through the past to get the most current present and we have memories and proof of times that were in the past. Also, we always call the moment we’re in as the most current present, so we either have one long present or we can’t agree on when we set present to be. So there’s a contradiction. If the Presentist wants to be able to defend their view, they need to consider that and try to figure out a way around that, such as setting a certain date and time to be “present” and all other times would be before present, that exact moment, be present, or the rest would be after present. After discussing the general problems of presentism, let’s look at some problems that some branches of presentism has, starting with Priorian Presentism.
2.2 …Priorian Presentism…
I brought up the question when discussing Priorian Presentism that: aren’t there also incorrect truths, or false statements, in the current world? I answered “yes” to that question that there are false statements in the world today. But the thing is, we have no way on telling what the truth statements are and what the false statements are. We do not know if there is a God that’s controlling everything in our daily lives or if there is an Evil Deceiver that’s controlling everything. Also there are many different religions out there in the world, from Christianity to Judaism to Buddhism to Hinduism to Islamism and every other religion that I’m not including claim to say that their truth is right. Only one of them, if any, is correct. Personally, Christianity is the correct truth because what other religion can say that their God died and came back alive again after being dead for three days? No other religions can say that, so obliviously there are now disputes on which religion is true and which one people should follow.
Obliviously talking about which religion is correct is a little controversial question and a question that gets underneath people’s skin, so let’s discuss something else that can be discussed about Priorian Presentism. Let’s say that at this past year’s WrestleMania, WrestleMania XXIV, that the Triple Threat Match for the WWE Championship, putting champion Randy Orton against Triple H and John Cena was the actual main event match instead of the World Heavyweight Championship match, putting champion Edge against challenger the Undertaker. People who didn’t watch WrestleMania XXIV could be mistaken by thinking and saying that the WWE Championship match was the last match because the WWE Title has been around longer in the WWE and has more value to it than the World Heavyweight Championship has, and knowing that Triple H is the son-in-law of the boss, why wouldn’t he be in the last match of the biggest card of the year? People could be mistaken of this truth. The World Heavyweight Championship match was, indeed, the last match of the card because of the Undertaker’s undefeated streak at WrestleMania, which is a record that is held by no other professional wrestler in the sport. But if we look it up on WWE’s website (http://www.wwe.com/shows/wrestlemania/), Google search it, or find someone with the DVD and watch it to find out that the World Heavyweight Championship is in the main event match of WrestleMania XXIV, not the WWE Championship match. So we could easily be mistaken on which Heavyweight Championship match was the last match of the card. From Priorian Presentism and contingent truths to the past never was present, let’s look at the problems Point Presentism makes.
2.3 … Point Presentism…
Hinchliff talked about conceptual truth, and what it is, in his article in 2000. Like defined earlier, a conceptual truth is something that is true by definition, like an unmarried male is a bachelor. But the thing is everybody has to agree on what makes up a conceptual truth. Everyone could be mislead on what truth is and what truth isn’t. Someone could have been brainwashed as a child to think that the United States isn’t the most powerful country in the world or could be lead to think that a horrible professional wrestler, let’s say Gillberg, is the greatest professional wrestler, hands down, over greats like Ric Flair, Hulk Hogan, the Rock, or “Stone Cold” Steve Austin. Even though Gillberg can say that he held the WWE’s Light Heavyweight Championship longer than anyone in history, around fifteen months long . But if you ask a fan of the business of professional wrestling, most likely, if they’re a hardcore fan, they can talk to you about Gillberg, but if not, they couldn’t, and most likely not know who you’re talking about when you bring up Gillberg. So people can be easily mistaken on what is truth and what isn’t. So if everyone can come to agreement, like an unmarried male is a bachelor, on what truth is, then we’ll get conceptual truth.
Hinchliff also mentioned in his article in 2000 that the past is nonexistent because it isn’t the present. If the past is nonexistent, then why do we have memories of it happening? But if we’re always in the present, how can the previous experiences are considered nonexistent if they’re in the present? These two questions can be explained. First, let’s discuss the previous memories of past experiences. This question can easily be answered in presentism language. Obliviously memories change daily and we’re always in the most current present. But the thing is, the present always changes. We don’t have a fixed present. There’s a down fall in presentism. If we don’t chose the present to be, let’s say, January 1st, 2009, to be the present, or any other date, then we can’t agree on what we call the present. But let’s use January 1st, 2009 as the set present. That means that this paper being turned in as a final draft is in the past and nonexistent. In addition, spring semester 2009 is in the future and also nonexistent because it isn’t present. This doesn’t make any sense. If we set a present to be a specific date, if we’re living before or after that date, we’re living in the nonexistent present. So what we’re experiencing isn’t true because it doesn’t exist. And to the question of: but if we’re always in the present, how can the previous experiences are considered nonexistent if they’re in the present? The thing is, if we’re in one constant present, then our previous experiences then exists and our future experiences exist. But that couldn’t be the case of us living in one constant present because that would mean that we’re experiencing everything all at the same time. And with this view, that just doesn’t make sense. From talking about conceptual truths to an event having a location on a cone, let’s go from Point Presentism to Cone Presentism.
2.4 … Cone Presentism…
The two ice cream cones, the “point,” touching each other, making the present, is the case I made for cone presentism to help define it and explain it. But let’s look more into the bottom cone, which I called the past, or the “Past Cone.” How the Past Cone be, very well, be the same if we would of made different choices, but there’s no guarantee on if you would of made different decisions, that it would of lead you to the same present as the cone would of have one assume. One can easily see that in the top cone, the “Future Cone,” that the decisions you make in the nonexistent future can easily go anywhere that’s up. But the “Future Cone” doesn’t matter, right now; the only cone that matters is the “Past Cone.” If the Cone Presentist would say that the “Past Cone” is just merely what events could of brought you to where you are right now in the present, would make sense. The biggest problem is trying to define the “Past Cone” in cone presentism.
Why the “Past Cone” has to be defined clearly is because people can easily tear it apart on how could the choices we make that are completely different from one another bring us all to the present that we’re experiencing right now. Let’s look at decisions of thinking about proposing to your girlfriend whom you’ve been dating for sixteen months or buying WrestleMania XXV tickets or even going to see your best friend do karaoke at Buffalo Wild Wings on a Wednesday night, I can’t see where it could lead us to where we’re at right now on our most current present. So decisions that has absolutely nothing to do with one another couldn’t have lead us all to the same point if we would have chosen them over what decisions we’ve made. Or even looking at the elections back in 2000, if Al Gore would have became the President of the United States instead of George W. Bush, we wouldn’t be where we’re at as a country as we are now, like the War in Afghanistan, the War on Terror, or even the War in Iraq. Now looking at the problems with Point Presentism, and the other branches that were discussed, the view of Presentism is that only the present exists and the past and the future are nonexistent because they aren’t current.
3.0 Conclusion
In conclusion, looking at Presentism, and at the different braches of it that was discussed, like Priorian Presentism, Point Presentism, and Cone Presentism, I believe that Presentism doesn’t make any sense, what-so-ever. If there’s any view that makes sense to me is the Open Future Theory, which states that both the past and future are existent, but the past is existence and real and the future. Why I don’t agree with Presentism because I don’t feel like denying the past and saying that it’s nonexistent makes sense because we obliviously have memories of the past and can remember the people that had an impact on our lives from the past. Saying that those memories and those people never existed, to me, is like a slap to the face to those events and to those people who lived life with you and it also seems like your life simply don’t matter because only what’s happening right now matters. If only the now matters, then why do we even work, pay bills, eat, have friends, etc. then? All-in-all, everything then doesn’t matter because if only the present exists, then we all should live out what we truly want and desire. But the real world doesn’t work like that; most people wouldn’t say that the past and the future are nonexistent. People make plans for the future, like doctor’s appointments, meeting up with family and friends, and discuss the past like it happened, like going to a concert or having lunch with your close friend. So I think the biggest problem with Presentism, like said, is saying that only the present exists and everything else simply doesn’t. I believe if Presentism wants to work and wants people to believe that this theory is true, I think they need to change that up for everything makes sense. As a result, I discussed Presentism and couple of the branches of which, and talked about the problems they face and possible ways to fix them.
…References…
Balashov, Yuri and Janssen, Michel. “Presentism and Relativity.” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science. Oxford, England. Oxford University Press. 1-30.
Bourne, Craig. “A Theory of Presentism.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy. Vol. 36. University of Calgary Press. March 2006. 1-24.
Craig, William. The Tensed Theory of Time. Dordrecht, the Netherlands. Klumer Academic Publishers. 2000.
Hinchliff, Mark. “A Defense of Presentism in a Relativistic Setting.” Philosophy of Science. Vol. 67. Chicago, IL. The University of Chicago Press. September 2000. 575-586.
Tomberlin, James E., “Actualism and Presentism.” Time, Tense, and Reference. 2003. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 449 – 464.
0.1 Intro
There are many different kinds of theories defining time as being real and theories defining time as being nonexistent. One of the many theories defending time as being real is the theory of presentism. Presentism is the theory that only the present exists and the past and future are nonexistent. In meaning, only the here and now exists and our past experiences are nonexistent and our future plans, as like the past experiences, are nonexistent. In this paper, I will discuss more in-detail the theory of presentism, as well as discuss three of many different branches of presentism, Priorian Presentism, Point Presentism, and Cone Presentism. After doing which, I will point out the problems of which each branch of presentism I discussed has and state what they can do to fix such problems and give my opinion on each branch of presentism.
1.0 Presentism
1.1 …Definition…
What is presentism? Presentism is “…that only presently existing things exist… (Hinchliff 2000)” or in simpler terms, “Presentism is the doctrine that the only temporal items which exist are those which are present (Craig 2000, 208).” Presentism looks at time like only the present exist, and times that aren’t right now aren’t real and that things are the way they presently are right now (Hinchliff 2000). In which our previous experiences are nonexistent and the events that are in the future are nonexistent. We do have memories of what happened previously, but are only existent to that moment, and differs from every single changing moment, because they are in the past and are nonexistent. We can remember, for example, watching Ric Flair winning his eighth World Heavyweight Championship (be his first World Wrestling Federation [Entertainment] World Heavyweight Championship) in January 1992 when he won the vacated championship in a thirty-man over-the-top-tope battle royal called the Royal Rumble in Albany, New York.. But currently, it’s a memory, it’s in the past, and according to presentism, it never happened. We do have the memory of having it, but it’s almost seventeen years after the fact, so it’s more than yesterday’s news, to the presentist view, it’s only a memory that never happened.
Presentism also offers solutions to philosophical problems in such areas of metaphysics, language, and of mind (Hinchliff 2000). That’s also why presentism is widely accepted because it can easily answer difficult, philosophical questions, like philosophy of metaphysics, of language, and of the mind. For metaphysics, presentism answers the question on what’s real is what’s currently real now, like President-Elect Barack Obama will become our forty-fourth President of the United States come January. For the philosophy of language, it deals with the usage of language, and with the presentist standpoint, the only usage that matters is the one that exists, which is in the present moment. The philosophy of mind deals with the relationship between mind and the body, and with the presentist, the only relationship that matters are the one that it currently holding. After discussing the basic definition of Presentism, let’s dig into one of its branches, Priorian Presentism, which includes truthmakers.
1.2 …Priorian Presentism…
“The truth of our statements depends on the way the world is: contingent truths require truthmakers… But so long as we all agree that truths depend in some way on the contents of the world… (Bourne 2006).” So whatever contents of this world is present and true, then it’s a truthmaker, and if it’s a truthmaker, then everything is based upon that. But the key thing is, whatever is a truthmaker is what’s true presently. So when we agree on what is contingently true and what isn’t, there will be no doubt what we do consider to be truthmakers because a contingent truth is a truth that couldn’t have been any other way . And if the present is looked at in this way, that it couldn’t have been in any other way, and then the past and the future are nonexistent because it doesn’t line up with what’s true right currently, as well as the truth, it can’t be anything other than true. How can one contradict something that is contingently true? They can’t, and in return, only what is contingently true occurs in the present.
One may ask: aren’t there also incorrect truths, or false statements, in the current world? Yes, it is true that there are false statements in the present world, but the false statements do not make up what is contingently true to make truthmakers. But who really accepts the false statements to be true? Nobody does, in their right mindset, accept false statements to be truth. In which, false statements don’t go anywhere, and when they don’t go anywhere, only the truth statements are accepted and are believed. No one would doubt what is true over what is false because it is unreasonable and unjustified to do such. So yes, there are false statements out there in the present world and in the present moment, but there are incorrect in making truthmakers because they aren’t contingent truths. After discussing the Priorian branch of Presentism, let’s take a look at a version that deals with the past being present, the Point Presentism.
1.3 …Point Presentism…
“If the present is the here-now, there are events that are past that were never present (Hinchliff 2000).” Things are the way they are, right now, exists and things aren’t what they are now, like what was past and what will be future, are nonexistent. In other words, only the now exists and the past never existed because they were never present. The question is how can the past never be present if we lived through them? If things aren’t happening right at the current moment, right now, then it’s either in the past or it’s in the future. And for Point Presentism, it considers the past, which is nonexistent because it isn’t the present. So like what the name entails, Point Presentism is considered the most exact point that’s happening now, which is called the ‘present.’ So things that happened, like this year, 2008, never were present because it’s hard to say those 366 days this year (due to it being a leap year) happened all at the same time. It’s even hard to say that one particular day is happening all at once. Only the millisecond that we’re currently in is present and the previous “presents” that we had are nonexistent because they aren’t present right now.
“The objection is, in other words, that point presentism violates the ‘conceptual truth’ that what is past was present (Hinchliff 2000).” First, let’s define what a conceptual truth is. A conceptual truth is something that is true by definition, like an unmarried male is considered a bachelor. In Hinchliff’s eyes, point presentism tries to say that the past was once present. And depending on who you talk to, most people would agree with that statement, that the past was once present and the future will be present one day. But to presentism, and to point presentism, only the present moment exists and everything else simply doesn’t. So for Hinchliff and his thoughts on point presentism violating the ‘conceptual truth,’ point presentism states that the past were never present because in the present moment, the past isn’t in the present and is nonexistent. What is past is past because, obliviously, only the present is happening and exists. So only what’s happening at the current point that is called present is true we can only live in the moment that is happening. Coming from that the past was never present to only what is present is what I see from Point Presentism to Cone Presentism, respectively.
1.4 …Cone Presentism…
“…The present for an event E is to be identified with the surface of E’s past cone (Hinchliff 2000).” So event E only had one location, which we don’t know of until we have experienced event E until it is present. We can have a place of happening, the present, but with the light that is observed, it forms a shape of a cone. In essence, whatever the light makes around our previous presents is what our previous presents could have been. Let’s look at an ice cream cone. If we grab two ice cream cones and put the point ends together, and the vortex that the two cones make, let’s call that the “present.” With this reference, the extra space that the two cones have inside the walls is the possible path the past present and the future present can take. The bottom cone, let’s say, was the past. The empty space represents where the present was freely open to go to and that’s where your memories and previous experiences are. For the top cone, that’s the future. The present can freely move wherever it may it the top cone. With this view, our line of experiences, or at least to what our memory lies, can be zigzagged.
“One virtue of the view is that it captures the idea that what is present is what I am seeing now (Hinchliff 2000).” Let’s still use the two ice cream cone reference I was using above. Where one would put the end of the two cones could, and would, be called present because they come to one point where they touch. If you would have the sides touching each other, then there would be more than one specific spot that could be the present. So one can easily see that where the two cones meet up is what is called present. And if that is what is called present, one can easily imply that to the current moment, the present, and say that whatever we’re experiencing right now has to be the present because we don’t have a memory of it happening. We can also see that the bottom cone, being the past, is that farther and farther we move down the cone, we can see if we didn’t chose what we chose, it could of lead to a completely different road that we would of traveled down, and for the top cone, the future, we can see that the decisions that we make will lead us on an infinite number of roads we can travel down. In concentration, cone presentism makes most sense of all branches of presentism. Coming from the present is what you’re currently seeing, and all of presentism that only the present exists and the past and future are nonexistent, I’m going to discuss the problems that Presentism face and each branch that I discussed, what problems they face.
2.0 My Opinion on Presentism
2.1 …Definition…
To presentism, only the present exists and our memories of past experiences are real, but our past experiences are nonexistent and the future is nonexistent. For the past being nonexistent, that’s hard to believe because we obliviously have memories of past experiences and events. Granted that they aren’t present, if they were present, we wouldn’t have memories of what is going to happen, but if more than just one person has a memory for a certain event, let’s say a friend trying to pay for gas at the gas pump with his student I.D. card, the people who were there would remember the event and laugh about it for years to come. To say that the event never existed after it happened but the memory is true just doesn’t go well with one another. To say that your previous experiences are nonexistent and they never happened doesn’t make sense. Saying that the best times of your life never really happened when you’re in a nursing home talking to your grandchildren, what has your life become then and what was your life? It’s just hard to say that your life really means nothing because the current exists and the now will pass and will come to mean nothing.
One of the examples I used while describing the definition of presentism is “the Nature Boy” Ric Flair winning his eighth World Heavyweight Championship in January 1992 in the World Wrestling Federation (now World Wrestling Entertainment) which was his first WWE World Heavyweight Championship. To have a discussion with a fan that knows anything about Ric Flair and his pro wrestling career, they would probably think you’ve lost your mind if you say that Ric Flair’s career and all his title reigns never happened because he’s currently retired from the business. Any wrestling fan, or any person to that matter, would argue the point with a person defending presentism on the lines of the past existing. We lived through the past to get the most current present and we have memories and proof of times that were in the past. Also, we always call the moment we’re in as the most current present, so we either have one long present or we can’t agree on when we set present to be. So there’s a contradiction. If the Presentist wants to be able to defend their view, they need to consider that and try to figure out a way around that, such as setting a certain date and time to be “present” and all other times would be before present, that exact moment, be present, or the rest would be after present. After discussing the general problems of presentism, let’s look at some problems that some branches of presentism has, starting with Priorian Presentism.
2.2 …Priorian Presentism…
I brought up the question when discussing Priorian Presentism that: aren’t there also incorrect truths, or false statements, in the current world? I answered “yes” to that question that there are false statements in the world today. But the thing is, we have no way on telling what the truth statements are and what the false statements are. We do not know if there is a God that’s controlling everything in our daily lives or if there is an Evil Deceiver that’s controlling everything. Also there are many different religions out there in the world, from Christianity to Judaism to Buddhism to Hinduism to Islamism and every other religion that I’m not including claim to say that their truth is right. Only one of them, if any, is correct. Personally, Christianity is the correct truth because what other religion can say that their God died and came back alive again after being dead for three days? No other religions can say that, so obliviously there are now disputes on which religion is true and which one people should follow.
Obliviously talking about which religion is correct is a little controversial question and a question that gets underneath people’s skin, so let’s discuss something else that can be discussed about Priorian Presentism. Let’s say that at this past year’s WrestleMania, WrestleMania XXIV, that the Triple Threat Match for the WWE Championship, putting champion Randy Orton against Triple H and John Cena was the actual main event match instead of the World Heavyweight Championship match, putting champion Edge against challenger the Undertaker. People who didn’t watch WrestleMania XXIV could be mistaken by thinking and saying that the WWE Championship match was the last match because the WWE Title has been around longer in the WWE and has more value to it than the World Heavyweight Championship has, and knowing that Triple H is the son-in-law of the boss, why wouldn’t he be in the last match of the biggest card of the year? People could be mistaken of this truth. The World Heavyweight Championship match was, indeed, the last match of the card because of the Undertaker’s undefeated streak at WrestleMania, which is a record that is held by no other professional wrestler in the sport. But if we look it up on WWE’s website (http://www.wwe.com/shows/wrestlemania/), Google search it, or find someone with the DVD and watch it to find out that the World Heavyweight Championship is in the main event match of WrestleMania XXIV, not the WWE Championship match. So we could easily be mistaken on which Heavyweight Championship match was the last match of the card. From Priorian Presentism and contingent truths to the past never was present, let’s look at the problems Point Presentism makes.
2.3 … Point Presentism…
Hinchliff talked about conceptual truth, and what it is, in his article in 2000. Like defined earlier, a conceptual truth is something that is true by definition, like an unmarried male is a bachelor. But the thing is everybody has to agree on what makes up a conceptual truth. Everyone could be mislead on what truth is and what truth isn’t. Someone could have been brainwashed as a child to think that the United States isn’t the most powerful country in the world or could be lead to think that a horrible professional wrestler, let’s say Gillberg, is the greatest professional wrestler, hands down, over greats like Ric Flair, Hulk Hogan, the Rock, or “Stone Cold” Steve Austin. Even though Gillberg can say that he held the WWE’s Light Heavyweight Championship longer than anyone in history, around fifteen months long . But if you ask a fan of the business of professional wrestling, most likely, if they’re a hardcore fan, they can talk to you about Gillberg, but if not, they couldn’t, and most likely not know who you’re talking about when you bring up Gillberg. So people can be easily mistaken on what is truth and what isn’t. So if everyone can come to agreement, like an unmarried male is a bachelor, on what truth is, then we’ll get conceptual truth.
Hinchliff also mentioned in his article in 2000 that the past is nonexistent because it isn’t the present. If the past is nonexistent, then why do we have memories of it happening? But if we’re always in the present, how can the previous experiences are considered nonexistent if they’re in the present? These two questions can be explained. First, let’s discuss the previous memories of past experiences. This question can easily be answered in presentism language. Obliviously memories change daily and we’re always in the most current present. But the thing is, the present always changes. We don’t have a fixed present. There’s a down fall in presentism. If we don’t chose the present to be, let’s say, January 1st, 2009, to be the present, or any other date, then we can’t agree on what we call the present. But let’s use January 1st, 2009 as the set present. That means that this paper being turned in as a final draft is in the past and nonexistent. In addition, spring semester 2009 is in the future and also nonexistent because it isn’t present. This doesn’t make any sense. If we set a present to be a specific date, if we’re living before or after that date, we’re living in the nonexistent present. So what we’re experiencing isn’t true because it doesn’t exist. And to the question of: but if we’re always in the present, how can the previous experiences are considered nonexistent if they’re in the present? The thing is, if we’re in one constant present, then our previous experiences then exists and our future experiences exist. But that couldn’t be the case of us living in one constant present because that would mean that we’re experiencing everything all at the same time. And with this view, that just doesn’t make sense. From talking about conceptual truths to an event having a location on a cone, let’s go from Point Presentism to Cone Presentism.
2.4 … Cone Presentism…
The two ice cream cones, the “point,” touching each other, making the present, is the case I made for cone presentism to help define it and explain it. But let’s look more into the bottom cone, which I called the past, or the “Past Cone.” How the Past Cone be, very well, be the same if we would of made different choices, but there’s no guarantee on if you would of made different decisions, that it would of lead you to the same present as the cone would of have one assume. One can easily see that in the top cone, the “Future Cone,” that the decisions you make in the nonexistent future can easily go anywhere that’s up. But the “Future Cone” doesn’t matter, right now; the only cone that matters is the “Past Cone.” If the Cone Presentist would say that the “Past Cone” is just merely what events could of brought you to where you are right now in the present, would make sense. The biggest problem is trying to define the “Past Cone” in cone presentism.
Why the “Past Cone” has to be defined clearly is because people can easily tear it apart on how could the choices we make that are completely different from one another bring us all to the present that we’re experiencing right now. Let’s look at decisions of thinking about proposing to your girlfriend whom you’ve been dating for sixteen months or buying WrestleMania XXV tickets or even going to see your best friend do karaoke at Buffalo Wild Wings on a Wednesday night, I can’t see where it could lead us to where we’re at right now on our most current present. So decisions that has absolutely nothing to do with one another couldn’t have lead us all to the same point if we would have chosen them over what decisions we’ve made. Or even looking at the elections back in 2000, if Al Gore would have became the President of the United States instead of George W. Bush, we wouldn’t be where we’re at as a country as we are now, like the War in Afghanistan, the War on Terror, or even the War in Iraq. Now looking at the problems with Point Presentism, and the other branches that were discussed, the view of Presentism is that only the present exists and the past and the future are nonexistent because they aren’t current.
3.0 Conclusion
In conclusion, looking at Presentism, and at the different braches of it that was discussed, like Priorian Presentism, Point Presentism, and Cone Presentism, I believe that Presentism doesn’t make any sense, what-so-ever. If there’s any view that makes sense to me is the Open Future Theory, which states that both the past and future are existent, but the past is existence and real and the future. Why I don’t agree with Presentism because I don’t feel like denying the past and saying that it’s nonexistent makes sense because we obliviously have memories of the past and can remember the people that had an impact on our lives from the past. Saying that those memories and those people never existed, to me, is like a slap to the face to those events and to those people who lived life with you and it also seems like your life simply don’t matter because only what’s happening right now matters. If only the now matters, then why do we even work, pay bills, eat, have friends, etc. then? All-in-all, everything then doesn’t matter because if only the present exists, then we all should live out what we truly want and desire. But the real world doesn’t work like that; most people wouldn’t say that the past and the future are nonexistent. People make plans for the future, like doctor’s appointments, meeting up with family and friends, and discuss the past like it happened, like going to a concert or having lunch with your close friend. So I think the biggest problem with Presentism, like said, is saying that only the present exists and everything else simply doesn’t. I believe if Presentism wants to work and wants people to believe that this theory is true, I think they need to change that up for everything makes sense. As a result, I discussed Presentism and couple of the branches of which, and talked about the problems they face and possible ways to fix them.
…References…
Balashov, Yuri and Janssen, Michel. “Presentism and Relativity.” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science. Oxford, England. Oxford University Press. 1-30.
Bourne, Craig. “A Theory of Presentism.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy. Vol. 36. University of Calgary Press. March 2006. 1-24.
Craig, William. The Tensed Theory of Time. Dordrecht, the Netherlands. Klumer Academic Publishers. 2000.
Hinchliff, Mark. “A Defense of Presentism in a Relativistic Setting.” Philosophy of Science. Vol. 67. Chicago, IL. The University of Chicago Press. September 2000. 575-586.
Tomberlin, James E., “Actualism and Presentism.” Time, Tense, and Reference. 2003. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 449 – 464.
The Reality of Tensed Time
The Reality of Tensed Time
0.1 Intro
There have been countless questions and debates over the existence of time. Many people wondered questions like: Is time real, and if so, how can we measure it? How about the memories that we have regarding the past experiences and events that we lived through, do they exist? There are countless other questions that are out there regarding the existence of time, wondering if time exists. In this paper, I’m going to criticize D. H. Mellor’s Argument in the article “The Unreality of Tense” from the book The New Theory of Time. In addition to discussing Mellor’s theory regarding tensed time, I will criticize Mellor’s argument and state what I believe on topics that Mellor discussed in his article, like his theory of change, the past, present, and future leading themselves to contradictions, and McTaggart’s Proof on time.
1.0 D. H. Mellor’s Argument
1.1 …Change…
In his article, Mellor tells us he discredited “the tensed idea of change (1981).” Mellor believes that tensed time isn’t real because using tensed expressions to describe past and future events lead to contradictions. Mellor discussed his thoughts on change. It is having a property at one moment and at another moment it is completely different. We observe change as situations change over duration of time. But the thing is we need time for us to observe change. Mellor believes that we can refer to the past and future events to how it relates to ‘now’ and relate change to what properties objects have at the present ‘now.’
“Change is still defined as variation through time… (1981).” Mellor believes that time, in reference in tense, leads to contradictions because it claims that time hold being past, present, and future all at once. Mellor believes that things can change; only referenced to itself from previous. Mellor stated that McTaggart believes that “time needs change and change needs changing tense… (1981).” Mellor said in his article that tense has a place in world today, and that place is in our minds, because if we try to make sense of it, it leads us nowhere. With being unable to use tense sentences to help describe what happened in the past or what will happen in the future, referencing to the past, the present, and the future will lead to contradictions.
1.2 …The Past, the Present, and the Future Are Contradictions…
Mellor did mention, according to A-theory of time, time moving from future to the present to the past is an illusion. A single event can not be present and future if it is past, or past and future if it is present, or past and present while being future. An event can’t have those three properties at the same time, which they can only have them successively, moving from future to present to past. So let’s talk about an event that I’m familiar with, such as professional wrestling legend Ric Flair winning his ninth out of sixteen World Heavyweight Championships. Before he started his career, the person that became known as Ric Flair never knew that he was going to win nine World Heavyweight Championships, more less sixteen before he finished his career, and when he did win his ninth World Championship, he didn’t know he was going to go on and win seven more before he ended his 36-year career. So, looking at Flair winning his ninth World Heavyweight Championship, it was later than Abe Lincoln being elected as the sixteenth President of the United States and earlier than George W. Bush being elected as our forty-fourth President of the United States. To be more exact, Ric Flair winning his ninth World Title in January 19th, 1992 was earlier than formal end of the Cold War between the USSR and the US on February 1st, 1992, and later than the collapse of the Soviet Union on December 25th, 1991 . So looking at Ric Flair’s ninth World Heavyweight Title reign in the beginning of 1992, we can relate things be being earlier and later than his championship reign. Along with change being entangled with time and the past, the present, and the future contradict each other, Mellor restated McTaggart’s proof of the unreality of tensed time.
1.3 ....McTaggart’s Proof…
Mellor restated McTaggart’s proof that the properties that make up the A-series are incompatible and time is just an illusion. Mellor described the past, present, and future as being unable to share the same property at the same time, meaning that any event being present can’t be past and future due in part that it is happening right now. As well as that, Mellor states that the A-series has the same positions that are past, present, and future (1981). But what I just described, those two things lead us to a contradiction and we can not apply them to reality. Therefore, “reality… must be tenseless: there are no tensed facts (1981).”
Mellor argues that absolutely nothing can have the properties of being past, present, and future all at the same time, due in part if applied at the same time; they’ll lead us to a contradiction. Let us use the example of me writing this paper, I can only refer me writing my paper to it being earlier than an event or after an event. Like the Presidential Elections for the United States on Tuesday, November 4th, 2008, I will be writing this paper earlier than the elections taking place, but me writing this paper is after Hurricane Katrina hitting southern U.S. in the summer of 2005. To Mellor and McTaggart, all three propositions of me writing this paper can be true at the same time. At the current time (of either me writing this paper or you reading this paper, depending on how you look at it) all three writings of this paper aren’t true. After discussing Mellor’s arguments, I’m going to criticize his arguments and state my opinions compared to his arguments.
2.0 My Attack on Mellor’s Argument
2.1 …Change…
Look at time, for instance, there is 31,536,000 seconds in a year, so there’s over 31 million times changes can occur. Time is continuous, meaning it can not be discontinuous and it can’t jump around. Time can’t jump from 12:38 pm on Wednesday to 8:52 am on Saturday. Time will be continuous from being 12:38 pm Wednesday to 8:52 am Saturday. When people sleep, time will remain continuous, as well as stay continuous when we’re in class, at work, or hanging out with friends on a Sunday afternoon watching the football game. Time will remain continuous no matter what event we’re attending or where our spouse or best friend’s at. The events you participate at change over time and are consecutive with one another. You’re not going to be at a million events over the year, or even in the tens of thousands of events during the period of twelve months, but the events you go to will change, like your transportation to such, your clothes, your hair style, etc.
As an example, with more and more words I put into this paper and more sentences and paragraphs I construct, my paper gets longer and longer. With the length of my paper, more time it takes me to write it and longer for you to read it and more time for it to be finished. Granted there’s going to be a space of when I finished with my paper to you reading it, but it’s going to be a continuous time in-between the two events, and there will be events during me finishing my paper and you reading my paper, so time is continuous during such interval. B-theorist can easily describe these events in B-terms, but to me, that doesn’t make sense because I’m used to talking about events being in the future, happening right now, or happened in the past. At the beginning of the semester, it was in the future of me writing this paper. On Sunday, November 2nd, 2008, I am currently working on the paper. Then on Thursday, November 6th and later dates, my paper being written would become past. This paper being written moves from being in the future to being all the way in the past in a continuous state, so it’s hard to say that the tensed expressions are incorrect. Time and change is something that we need to be able to discuss the past, the present, and the future.
2.2 …The Past, the Present, and the Future Are Contradictions…
In my opinion, if you try to compare everything to the current ‘now,’ it will be forever changing and never fully stationary. Let’s look at the case I used before, the case of Ric Flair winning his ninth World Heavyweight Championship, which would be his second World Wrestling Federation World Heavyweight Championship (now World Wrestling Entertainment [WWE]) in September 1992 , currently, yeah, it happened in the past, and we can easily reference it in B-terms and go on our marry way. But people don’t talk and reference events and experiences in B-terms in everyday language. Yes, September 1st, 1992, is gone, but yesterday compared to tomorrow; it is two totally different B-terms because the ‘now’ changes. But let’s talk about his ninth World Heavyweight Championship reign. He won it in September 1st, 1992 and lost it in October 12th of the same year, before hand, during, and after, was all continuous. Days, weeks, months, and years have gone by since Flair lost his ninth World Heavyweight Championship, in fact, sixteen years after the fact, but it was all one long continuous timeframe. Men decided how many hours are in a day, days in a week, weeks in a month, and months in a year, so easily we can reference Flair’s ninth title reign in B-terms. But I’m positive that you ask any typical wrestling fan, past who watched Ric Flair, or current wrestling fan, if asked, they all would talk about Ric Flair’s ninth World title reign in A-terms. It’s hard for me to view Mellor’s view point, especially trying to look at it in a stand point of an interest that I have, like the career of Ric Flair. I can’t view Flair’s whole career and the highlights of his career, like his sixteen World Heavyweight Championships in three different organizations, countless number of matches he’s partaken in that are considered to be the greatest matches, and reference them today and then reference them each passing day, and consider the time to be the same. In ten years, no one is really going to know who Ric Flair was or all the things he did for the business. So in time, the reference and relevance of Ric Flair will change. It’s hard for me to reference Flair’s sixteen World Title win in May of 2000 and his first World Title win in September 1981 . It was the past, the present, and the future that, in Mellor’s opinion, lead to contradictions. I’m going to contradict Mellor in explaining McTaggart’s Proof.
2.3 ....McTaggart’s Proof…
McTaggart’s proof consists of the B-series of time is real and A-series of time doesn’t because it leads to a contradiction due in part of the past, present, and future moving from future to past at a constant speed. B-series refers everything to earlier than or later than the current moment and don’t use the terms of past, present, or future because they lead to a contradiction when using the all at once. For me, you simply can’t apply the past, present, and future at the same time because it doesn’t make sense of looking at an event and thinking it’s in the future, it’s happening right now, and it already happened. Let’s look at the case I used to defend McTaggart’s proof above, the coming elections in United States.
The upcoming elections in the United States will decide who’s going to become forty-fifth President. The election is on Tuesday, November 4th, and on November 4th, beginning of the semester is past and the end of the semester is in the future. When this semester began, we had no clue which candidate is going to be elected. If, at that time, we looked at the elections of being in the future, this was being present, and being in the past, that just wouldn’t make sense. It wouldn’t make sense because most people don’t look at events of being in the future, happening right now, and being in the past. Time is continuous, from beginning of the Fall 2008 semester to the 2008 Presidential election to finals week to the semester being over. You can look at time being continuous as being an illusion, but what normal person looks at time not being continuous? No normal person would look at time that way. But all-in-all, time is a set at a constant, continuous speed moving from being future to being now to being in the past.
3.0 Conclusion
To conclude the paper, I believe that time is real from the experiences and events that we live through, in terms of tensed expressions. It’s hard to dispute the facts of the continuous state of time and its experiences that it brings upon us when it moves from future to present to past. As my examples from the paper, as me writing this paper to Ric Flair winning his ninth World Heavyweight Championship in September 1992 to there being 31,536,000 seconds in a year, it’s hard to look at these facts and talk about time with no reference of them being from the future, present, or the past. No matter how much proof one can have on the argument that time with tense expressions causes contradictions, everyday people talk like A-theory and talk with tense expression. I say that because we break our days into night and day with the earth’s rotation. We also break up our time awake to going to work, eating meals, hanging out with family and friends, etc. As a result, I’m at the conclusion that tensed time exists.
0.1 Intro
There have been countless questions and debates over the existence of time. Many people wondered questions like: Is time real, and if so, how can we measure it? How about the memories that we have regarding the past experiences and events that we lived through, do they exist? There are countless other questions that are out there regarding the existence of time, wondering if time exists. In this paper, I’m going to criticize D. H. Mellor’s Argument in the article “The Unreality of Tense” from the book The New Theory of Time. In addition to discussing Mellor’s theory regarding tensed time, I will criticize Mellor’s argument and state what I believe on topics that Mellor discussed in his article, like his theory of change, the past, present, and future leading themselves to contradictions, and McTaggart’s Proof on time.
1.0 D. H. Mellor’s Argument
1.1 …Change…
In his article, Mellor tells us he discredited “the tensed idea of change (1981).” Mellor believes that tensed time isn’t real because using tensed expressions to describe past and future events lead to contradictions. Mellor discussed his thoughts on change. It is having a property at one moment and at another moment it is completely different. We observe change as situations change over duration of time. But the thing is we need time for us to observe change. Mellor believes that we can refer to the past and future events to how it relates to ‘now’ and relate change to what properties objects have at the present ‘now.’
“Change is still defined as variation through time… (1981).” Mellor believes that time, in reference in tense, leads to contradictions because it claims that time hold being past, present, and future all at once. Mellor believes that things can change; only referenced to itself from previous. Mellor stated that McTaggart believes that “time needs change and change needs changing tense… (1981).” Mellor said in his article that tense has a place in world today, and that place is in our minds, because if we try to make sense of it, it leads us nowhere. With being unable to use tense sentences to help describe what happened in the past or what will happen in the future, referencing to the past, the present, and the future will lead to contradictions.
1.2 …The Past, the Present, and the Future Are Contradictions…
Mellor did mention, according to A-theory of time, time moving from future to the present to the past is an illusion. A single event can not be present and future if it is past, or past and future if it is present, or past and present while being future. An event can’t have those three properties at the same time, which they can only have them successively, moving from future to present to past. So let’s talk about an event that I’m familiar with, such as professional wrestling legend Ric Flair winning his ninth out of sixteen World Heavyweight Championships. Before he started his career, the person that became known as Ric Flair never knew that he was going to win nine World Heavyweight Championships, more less sixteen before he finished his career, and when he did win his ninth World Championship, he didn’t know he was going to go on and win seven more before he ended his 36-year career. So, looking at Flair winning his ninth World Heavyweight Championship, it was later than Abe Lincoln being elected as the sixteenth President of the United States and earlier than George W. Bush being elected as our forty-fourth President of the United States. To be more exact, Ric Flair winning his ninth World Title in January 19th, 1992 was earlier than formal end of the Cold War between the USSR and the US on February 1st, 1992, and later than the collapse of the Soviet Union on December 25th, 1991 . So looking at Ric Flair’s ninth World Heavyweight Title reign in the beginning of 1992, we can relate things be being earlier and later than his championship reign. Along with change being entangled with time and the past, the present, and the future contradict each other, Mellor restated McTaggart’s proof of the unreality of tensed time.
1.3 ....McTaggart’s Proof…
Mellor restated McTaggart’s proof that the properties that make up the A-series are incompatible and time is just an illusion. Mellor described the past, present, and future as being unable to share the same property at the same time, meaning that any event being present can’t be past and future due in part that it is happening right now. As well as that, Mellor states that the A-series has the same positions that are past, present, and future (1981). But what I just described, those two things lead us to a contradiction and we can not apply them to reality. Therefore, “reality… must be tenseless: there are no tensed facts (1981).”
Mellor argues that absolutely nothing can have the properties of being past, present, and future all at the same time, due in part if applied at the same time; they’ll lead us to a contradiction. Let us use the example of me writing this paper, I can only refer me writing my paper to it being earlier than an event or after an event. Like the Presidential Elections for the United States on Tuesday, November 4th, 2008, I will be writing this paper earlier than the elections taking place, but me writing this paper is after Hurricane Katrina hitting southern U.S. in the summer of 2005. To Mellor and McTaggart, all three propositions of me writing this paper can be true at the same time. At the current time (of either me writing this paper or you reading this paper, depending on how you look at it) all three writings of this paper aren’t true. After discussing Mellor’s arguments, I’m going to criticize his arguments and state my opinions compared to his arguments.
2.0 My Attack on Mellor’s Argument
2.1 …Change…
Look at time, for instance, there is 31,536,000 seconds in a year, so there’s over 31 million times changes can occur. Time is continuous, meaning it can not be discontinuous and it can’t jump around. Time can’t jump from 12:38 pm on Wednesday to 8:52 am on Saturday. Time will be continuous from being 12:38 pm Wednesday to 8:52 am Saturday. When people sleep, time will remain continuous, as well as stay continuous when we’re in class, at work, or hanging out with friends on a Sunday afternoon watching the football game. Time will remain continuous no matter what event we’re attending or where our spouse or best friend’s at. The events you participate at change over time and are consecutive with one another. You’re not going to be at a million events over the year, or even in the tens of thousands of events during the period of twelve months, but the events you go to will change, like your transportation to such, your clothes, your hair style, etc.
As an example, with more and more words I put into this paper and more sentences and paragraphs I construct, my paper gets longer and longer. With the length of my paper, more time it takes me to write it and longer for you to read it and more time for it to be finished. Granted there’s going to be a space of when I finished with my paper to you reading it, but it’s going to be a continuous time in-between the two events, and there will be events during me finishing my paper and you reading my paper, so time is continuous during such interval. B-theorist can easily describe these events in B-terms, but to me, that doesn’t make sense because I’m used to talking about events being in the future, happening right now, or happened in the past. At the beginning of the semester, it was in the future of me writing this paper. On Sunday, November 2nd, 2008, I am currently working on the paper. Then on Thursday, November 6th and later dates, my paper being written would become past. This paper being written moves from being in the future to being all the way in the past in a continuous state, so it’s hard to say that the tensed expressions are incorrect. Time and change is something that we need to be able to discuss the past, the present, and the future.
2.2 …The Past, the Present, and the Future Are Contradictions…
In my opinion, if you try to compare everything to the current ‘now,’ it will be forever changing and never fully stationary. Let’s look at the case I used before, the case of Ric Flair winning his ninth World Heavyweight Championship, which would be his second World Wrestling Federation World Heavyweight Championship (now World Wrestling Entertainment [WWE]) in September 1992 , currently, yeah, it happened in the past, and we can easily reference it in B-terms and go on our marry way. But people don’t talk and reference events and experiences in B-terms in everyday language. Yes, September 1st, 1992, is gone, but yesterday compared to tomorrow; it is two totally different B-terms because the ‘now’ changes. But let’s talk about his ninth World Heavyweight Championship reign. He won it in September 1st, 1992 and lost it in October 12th of the same year, before hand, during, and after, was all continuous. Days, weeks, months, and years have gone by since Flair lost his ninth World Heavyweight Championship, in fact, sixteen years after the fact, but it was all one long continuous timeframe. Men decided how many hours are in a day, days in a week, weeks in a month, and months in a year, so easily we can reference Flair’s ninth title reign in B-terms. But I’m positive that you ask any typical wrestling fan, past who watched Ric Flair, or current wrestling fan, if asked, they all would talk about Ric Flair’s ninth World title reign in A-terms. It’s hard for me to view Mellor’s view point, especially trying to look at it in a stand point of an interest that I have, like the career of Ric Flair. I can’t view Flair’s whole career and the highlights of his career, like his sixteen World Heavyweight Championships in three different organizations, countless number of matches he’s partaken in that are considered to be the greatest matches, and reference them today and then reference them each passing day, and consider the time to be the same. In ten years, no one is really going to know who Ric Flair was or all the things he did for the business. So in time, the reference and relevance of Ric Flair will change. It’s hard for me to reference Flair’s sixteen World Title win in May of 2000 and his first World Title win in September 1981 . It was the past, the present, and the future that, in Mellor’s opinion, lead to contradictions. I’m going to contradict Mellor in explaining McTaggart’s Proof.
2.3 ....McTaggart’s Proof…
McTaggart’s proof consists of the B-series of time is real and A-series of time doesn’t because it leads to a contradiction due in part of the past, present, and future moving from future to past at a constant speed. B-series refers everything to earlier than or later than the current moment and don’t use the terms of past, present, or future because they lead to a contradiction when using the all at once. For me, you simply can’t apply the past, present, and future at the same time because it doesn’t make sense of looking at an event and thinking it’s in the future, it’s happening right now, and it already happened. Let’s look at the case I used to defend McTaggart’s proof above, the coming elections in United States.
The upcoming elections in the United States will decide who’s going to become forty-fifth President. The election is on Tuesday, November 4th, and on November 4th, beginning of the semester is past and the end of the semester is in the future. When this semester began, we had no clue which candidate is going to be elected. If, at that time, we looked at the elections of being in the future, this was being present, and being in the past, that just wouldn’t make sense. It wouldn’t make sense because most people don’t look at events of being in the future, happening right now, and being in the past. Time is continuous, from beginning of the Fall 2008 semester to the 2008 Presidential election to finals week to the semester being over. You can look at time being continuous as being an illusion, but what normal person looks at time not being continuous? No normal person would look at time that way. But all-in-all, time is a set at a constant, continuous speed moving from being future to being now to being in the past.
3.0 Conclusion
To conclude the paper, I believe that time is real from the experiences and events that we live through, in terms of tensed expressions. It’s hard to dispute the facts of the continuous state of time and its experiences that it brings upon us when it moves from future to present to past. As my examples from the paper, as me writing this paper to Ric Flair winning his ninth World Heavyweight Championship in September 1992 to there being 31,536,000 seconds in a year, it’s hard to look at these facts and talk about time with no reference of them being from the future, present, or the past. No matter how much proof one can have on the argument that time with tense expressions causes contradictions, everyday people talk like A-theory and talk with tense expression. I say that because we break our days into night and day with the earth’s rotation. We also break up our time awake to going to work, eating meals, hanging out with family and friends, etc. As a result, I’m at the conclusion that tensed time exists.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)