more from this thinker | more from this text
Full Idea
If past moments are seen as abstract (rather than concrete) it doesn't follow that because past objects no longer exist that therefore past times do not exist. The abstractionist needs to say which times are concretely realised.
Gist of Idea
For abstractionists past times might still exist, althought their objects don't
Source
Baron,S/Miller,K (Intro to the Philosophy of Time [2019], 1.7.2)
Book Ref
Baron,S/Miller,K: 'Introduction to the Philosophy of Time' [Polity 2019], p.31
A Reaction
Abstractionists see times as representations of change, rather than as substances.
| 314 | Heavenly movements gave us the idea of time, and caused us to inquire about the heavens [Plato] |
| 5103 | Time is not change, but requires change in our minds to be noticed [Aristotle] |
| 5698 | We can only sense time by means of movement, or its absence [Lucretius] |
| 5978 | I know what time is, until someone asks me to explain it [Augustine] |
| 2101 | If everything in the universe happened a year earlier, there would be no discernible difference [Leibniz] |
| 5535 | That times cannot be simultaneous is synthetic, so it is known by intuition, not analysis [Kant] |
| 5560 | The three modes of time are persistence, succession and simultaneity [Kant] |
| 8591 | There could be no time if nothing changed [McTaggart] |
| 21581 | We never experience times, but only succession of events [Russell] |
| 22993 | For abstractionists past times might still exist, althought their objects don't [Baron/Miller] |
| 23001 | The error theory of time's passage says it is either a misdescription or a false inference [Baron/Miller] |