display all the ideas for this combination of texts
5 ideas
14406 | Presentists say that things have existed and will exist, not that they are instantaneous [Merricks] |
Full Idea: Presentists deny that everything is instantaneous; they think that many objects not only exist, but also have existed and will exist. | |
From: Trenton Merricks (Truth and Ontology [2007], 6.I) | |
A reaction: The second half is because presentists are committed to the truth of tensed existence claims (despite a lack of any theory as to how they work). Does anyone hold a theory of Instantaneousism? |
14407 | Presentist should deny there is a present time, and just say that things 'exist' [Merricks] |
Full Idea: I think presentists should deny that there is anything at all that is the present time, just as they should deny that there are past times or future times. They should say that existing at the present time is just 'existing'. | |
From: Trenton Merricks (Truth and Ontology [2007], 6.I) | |
A reaction: The whole context is needed to understand Merrick's interesting claim. If there is no present, when can events happen? |
14411 | Maybe only presentism allows change, by now having a property, and then lacking it [Merricks] |
Full Idea: Maybe presentism alone allows for genuine change, by permitting the direct having of a property by something and then, later, the absolute lacking of that property by that same thing. | |
From: Trenton Merricks (Truth and Ontology [2007], 6.IV n23) | |
A reaction: Four-dimensionalism (perdurantism) is the view which is most often charged with not explaining change, and that tends to be associated with eternalism. Are there just two coherent packages of views here? |
14405 | How can a presentist explain an object's having existed? [Merricks] |
Full Idea: I am not sure what account presentists should give of an object's having existed. | |
From: Trenton Merricks (Truth and Ontology [2007], 6.I) | |
A reaction: Personally I am pretty puzzled by the eternalist and growing-block accounts of an object having existed, so we are all up a gum tree here. The best bet is to pull truth and existence apart, but heaven knows what that implies. See Idea 14399. |
13779 | The natural offspring of a lion is called a 'lion' (but what about the offspring of a king?) [Plato] |
Full Idea: It seems to me that it is right to call a lion's offspring a 'lion' and a horse's offspring a 'horse' (I'm talking about natural offspring, not some monster). ...but by the same argument any offspring of a king should be called a 'king'. | |
From: Plato (Cratylus [c.377 BCE], 393b) | |
A reaction: The standard modern difficulty is whether all descendants of dinosaurs are still called 'dinosaur', which they are not. |