Skip to main content

A Book on the Philosophy of Time I

Image result for lund university sweden

Last summer, Valdi Ingthorsson, of Lund University in Sweden, released a book on the philosophy of time, with the title McTaggart's Paradox.

 https://rdingthorsson.wordpress.com/summary-of-mctaggarts-paradox/ 

I will provide some background material on the subject he is discussing, in Part I of this two-part discussion. In the second,which I hope to have ready by this coming Thursday, I'll speak to what Ingthorsson brings to this table.

But let's start, as Ingthorsson does, with John M. E. McTaggart, a philosopher who flourished a century ago and who in 1908 published a landmark essay on the subject of time.

http://www.ditext.com/mctaggart/time.html

"McTaggart's paradox" is a key argument of his for the unreality of time.  If I understand it the gist is this: in order for time to be real, the past and future have to exist in parity with each other (and with the present). Yet that can only be the case if time is not real, that is, if events of the past, of the present, and of the future, stand in timeless relations to one another. The postulation of the reality of time, then, undermines itself, leading to the necessity of timelessness. That's my characterization of his argument -- I bear sole responsibility for it. If it is cock-eyed, both McTaggart and Ingthorsson are blameless.

Another point: McTaggart saw this argument not as a stand-alone conjuring of a startling inference, but as part of his broader idealistic philosophy.  He was a Hegelian, though one of a unique sort. He thought many of the specifics in Hegel's work (and in the work of other revisionists in that tradition for that matter) were badly flawed, but he thought the dialectical method of reasoning was a sound one, and could lead us to an understanding of ultimate reality. When he applied that method himself, Ultimate Reality turned out to be: a lot of distinct and mutually interdependent minds, among themselves imagining a world into existence.

Many people find it an oddity that McTaggart was both an atheist and a believer in human immortality. He thus severed two beliefs that, in western circles at any rate, are generally accepted or rejected as a package. From his point of view, of course, there is no oddity -- this network of interdependent immortal minds of which you and I are each a part is Absolute enough: we need postulate nothing higher!

I won't attempt to discuss Hegelianism here, its British 19th century variant, or McTaggart's early 20th century variant of that. I bring it all up here only to say that McTaggart himself didn't think his critique of the idea of time was a stand-alone matter. It was part of his Big Picture. Still, as it has echoed down through history it has become: a stand-alone matter.

That's enough for now. Within days (assuming time is real), I'll write something about what Ingthorsson has to say about (a) McTaggart, and (b) the philosophy of time.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

England as a Raft?

In a lecture delivered in 1880, William James asked rhetorically, "Would England ... be the drifting raft she is now in European affairs if a Frederic the Great had inherited her throne instead of a Victoria, and if Messrs Bentham, Mill, Cobden, and Bright had all been born in Prussia?"

Beneath that, in a collection of such lectures later published under James' direction, was placed the footnote, "The reader will remember when this was written."

The suggestion of the bit about Bentham, Mill, etc. is that the utilitarians as a school helped render England ineffective as a European power, a drifting raft.

The footnote was added in 1897. So either James is suggesting that the baleful influence of Bentham, Mill etc wore off in the meantime or that he had over-estimated it.

Let's unpack this a bit.  What was happening in the period before 1880 that made England seem a drifting raft in European affairs, to a friendly though foreign observer (to the older brother…

Cancer Breakthrough

Hopeful news in recent days about an old and dear desideratum: a cure for cancer. Or at least for a cancer, and a nasty one at that.

The news comes about because investors in GlaxoSmithKline are greedy for profits, and has already inspired a bit of deregulation to boot. 

The FDA has paved the road for a speedy review of a new BCMA drug for multiple myeloma, essentially cancer of the bone marrow. This means that the US govt has removed some of the hurdles that would otherwise (by decision of the same govt) face a company trying to proceed with these trials expeditiously. 

This has been done because the Phase I clinical trial results have been very promising. The report I've seen indicates that details of these results will be shared with the world on Dec. 11 at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology. 

The European Medicines Agency has also given priority treatment to the drug in question. 

GSK's website identifies the drug at issue as "GSK2857916," althou…

Francesco Orsi

I thought briefly that I had found a contemporary philosopher whose views on ethics and meta-ethics checked all four key boxes. An ally all down the line.

The four, as regular readers of this blog may remember, are: cognitivism, intuitionism, consequentialism, pluralism. These represent the views that, respectively: some ethical judgments constitute knowledge; one important source for this knowledge consists of quasi-sensory non-inferential primary recognitions ("intuitions"); the right is logically dependent upon the good; and there exists an irreducible plurality of good.

Francesco Orsi seemed to believe all of these propositions. Here's his website and a link to one relevant paper:

https://sites.google.com/site/francescoorsi1/

https://jhaponline.org/jhap/article/view/3

What was better: Orsi is a young man. Born in 1980. A damned child! Has no memories of the age of disco!

So I emailed him asking if I was right that he believed all of those things. His answer: three out of …