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.