I believe that the notion that the present, or this exact moment, is considered to be the “favored” piece of time is untrue. This is a challenging concept to embrace because we have been conditioned to view time as a linear entity since birth, with everyday experiences seeming to corroborate the idea that time moves in one direction, that all that is real is contained within the experience of the current moment. Instead, time is more of a homogenous space. The present moment is nothing more than an arbitrary point where we rest, sort of like a cosmic “you are here” sign. In the following paper I will show how eternalism, the idea that all time is existing at all moments in the same way, is the true way in which time functions, where presentism, …show more content…
To go about proving the true nature of eternalism, I have chosen four topics that I feel refute the fallacy of presentism. The ideas will be presented as follows: 1) The definition of the “present” 2) Simultaneity and the Andromeda paradox 3) Brain evolution of the perception of time makes presentism seem the most intuitive (time dilation) 4) Contradictions created in objective truth at two different presents; existence of photographs.
The first objection I want to bring against the idea of presentism has to do with the most fundamental aspect of the philosophy: the definition of the present. In order for presentism to be functional, there must be a clear and defined present in order for us to understand what is real. According to the philosophy only this singular moment is real, once it becomes the past it is immediately nonexistent. Herein lies a problem, there is no universal consensus for an objective definition of the present. The present could
…show more content…
If eternalism is the true nature of time, and all moments of all time are always existing together, then there is no free will because every event must already be predetermined to allow for the past, present, and future to all be existing simultaneously. Many people are strong proponents of free will, and make their own choices in life, so eternalism can’t be correct because free will exists and is observable in everyday life. This is a valid objection to eternalism, because the two ideas do seem to be incompatible. However, even if all the events in the past and future have already been determined and are happening simultaneously, this knowledge does not enable us to move from characters in the present to the future. Regardless of the nature of time, humans as a species are still only able to perceive time in a linear fashion, where we have chosen our past actions which put us on a path to the present, and our actions now will lead to the future. Additionally, even if all time is existing at the same time, all time must have had some point of genesis when all time that has ever happened and ever will happen began. At this point when all time was created, there had to have been an instant of free will that established the way all time would exist forever, and in that instant you could have made all
Douglas L. Wilson addresses his idea of presentism differently than that of Paul Finkelman. Wilson sees presentism (regarding Thomas Jefferson) as a problem due to the fact that Jefferson was born into a time period in which slavery was normal. Jefferson’s concern extended beyond his own morality to the well-being of his slaves (Wilson). Even though he did own slaves, it was simply a norm for his time. In Finkelman’s eyes, Jefferson was extremely hypocritical. He agrees with the idea of presentism, stating that Jefferson wanted all people to be free, yet owned several slaves during the time of which the Declaration of Independence was written. Jefferson knew slavery was wrong, but he did little to end slavery or to dissociate himself from his role as the master of Monticello (Finkelman).
If you have ever read Einstein's Dreams, you can appreciate my dilemma. If you have not yet had the opportunity to experience this wonderful novel by Alan Lightman, I guarantee that after you read it you will expand your perception of the nature of time and of human activity. The novel is enchanting. It is a fictional account of what one of the greatest scientific minds dreams as he begins to uncover his theory of relativity.
Depending upon your definition of the present, it is hard to distinguish when the present time really is. Trying to pinpoint the exact time of “now” seems to be impossible because when we actually finish saying “now” it is already in the past. It is believed by many people that when a human dies for example, they cease to exist. In this essay I will be looking at two key concepts that relate to the topic of existence and the present time. These concepts are ‘Presentism’ and ‘Eternalism’. I will begin the essay by outlining what ‘Eternalism’ is and how its followers may see the present in a different way because of it. From here I will propose some of its weaknesses followed by objections to these weaknesses. The second main concept will be ‘Presentism’ which will be the opposing argument that suggests that things only exist in the present time instead of the past, present and future. After giving this argument, I will also be giving objections and counters to it. I, myself believe that there is a present time and existence, as we I find it difficult to believe that something exists in the same way once it has died and decomposed.
Opposed to this view of the persistence of objects through time is three dimensionalism. Three dimensionalism appears to be more in line with our common everyday sense of how objects persist through time; one in which we believe in, as Chisholm puts it, “the concept of one and the same individual existing at different times” (143). In contrast to the four dimensionalist, then, the three dimensionalist maintains that objects persist by being “wholly present” at each point at which they exist. Ultimately, Chisholm uses his arguments against temporal parts in order to support his general theses concerning personal identity over time. However, it is not within the scope of this paper to explore the underlying reasons Chisholm might have had for arguing against the four dimensionalist: that topic is best left to a more extensive project on the subject of the persistence of objects through time. For now, we will just take a look at three criticisms that Chisholm proposes for the temporal parts theorist: (1) that the so-called spatial analogy is not accurate, (2) that the doctrine of temporal parts does not solve the Phillip drunk/ Phillip sober puzzle, and (3) that the doctrine is of no use in solving various other metaphysical puzzles.
Eastern philosophy, on the other hand, might view time as a circle, a spiral, a figure eight. Time has no sharp corners, no harsh edges, no start and no finish. It is fluid. If it's spirituality and true understanding of the self that one seeks, perhaps this softer outlook is the right road. Consider standing at the top of a circle. But which way is the top? Or the bottom? Or the side for that matter? One must look around oneself to determine where one is. One must pay attention to the senses and environment. Walking on a spherical path makes it much easier to stay in touch with the past while preparing for the future. The circle never ends, thus the past is always clinging but the future never has a dearth of possibilities.
John McTaggart in his essay “Time” presents a radical argument that claims time is unreal. While the argument is interesting and has attracted much attention for his arguments, I remain unconvinced of the argument he makes. This paper will lay out McTaggart’s argument that time in unreal, critically analyze why I believe McTaggart’s argument fails and present an alternative idea about time, utilizing aspects of McTaggart’s argument.
There are a lot of different things that come to mind when somebody thinks of the phrase Free Will, and there are some people who think that free will does not exists and that everything is already decided for you, but there are also people who believe in it and think that you are free to do as you please. An example that explains the problem that people have with free will is the essay by Walter T. Stace called “Is Determinism Inconsistent with Free Will?”, where Stace discusses why people, especially philosophers, think that free will does not exist.
The 'doctrine of recollection' states that all true knowledge exists implicitly within us, and can be brought to consciousness - made explicit - by recollection. Using the Platonic concepts of 'Forms', 'particulars', 'knowledge' and 'true opinion', this essay explains what can or cannot be recollected, why all knowledge is based on recollection, and why the doctrine does not prove the soul to be immortal.
My first claim is, if God is all knowing, he knows where we will end up in life. Secondly, I believe when our consciousness comes into existence, God knows if we go to Heaven or Hell. Thirdly, no matter what choices we make throughout our lives, the end result will always be what it was meant to be before our existence. Therefore, no amount of free will during our time on earth, will change our end result which means our free will is
Imagine starting your day and not having a clue of what to do, but you begin to list the different options and routes you can take to eventually get from point A to point B. In choosing from that list, there coins the term “free will”. Free will is our ability to make decisions not caused by external factors or any other impediments that can stop us to do so. Being part of the human species, we would like to believe that we have “freedom from causation” because it is part of our human nature to believe that we are independent entities and our thoughts are produced from inside of us, on our own. At the other end of the spectrum, there is determinism. Determinism explains that all of our actions are already determined by certain external causes
In this short story, Dr. Yu Tsen, a Chinese spy for the German army, realizes that he is soon to be murdered by a Captain Madden and that he must pass on information of paramount importance to “the Chief” before his death. Reflecting upon his impending doom, Tsen remarks that “everything happens to a man precisely, precisely now. Centuries of centuries and only in the present do things happen; countless men in the air, on the face of the earth and the sea, and all that really is happening is happening to me…” (The Garden of the Forking Paths, 40). This immediately smacks of Borges theories on time, namely his point that time is like an ever-rotating sphere, which appears in “A New Refutation of Time.” Essentially, all the actions that have occurred and will occur take place in what is perceived as the present, and this is the moment our protagonist chooses to live
Time is and endless phenomenon that has no beginning or end, therefore making it infinite. Emily Dickinson proves this point in her poem, Forever – is Composed of Nows, referring to “nows” as more significant than the future (Wilbur 80).
One of the many reasons why time is not tangible is due to the fundamental properties of time.There are 3 main properties associated with time and these are a present moment that is special; some kind of flow or passage; and an absolute direction. These
THE POWER OF THE MOMENT: The ability to stay in the present is a virtue. Most people are always living either in the past or in the future. So they are either worrying about the past, worrying about the past pains, the past results, the past failures, past relationships, past struggles, or they are ruminating about the future fears, the future impossibilities, the future achievements, future possibilities. Worrying about the past or future would not benefit you as you are putting yourself in a position of disadvantage.