, Volume 74, Issue 1, pp 37–52 | Cite as

There’s No Future in No-Futurism

  • Jonathan Tallant
Original Article


In two recent papers Button (Analysis 66:130–135, 2006, Analysis 67:325–332, 2007) has developed a particular view of time that he calls no-futurism. He defends his no-futurism against a sceptical problem that has been raised (by e.g. Bourne in Aust J Phil 80:359–371, 2002) for a similar “growing block” view—that of Tooley (Time, tense, and causation, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1997). If Button is right, then we have an important third option available to us: a half-way house between presentism and eternalism. If, on the other hand, the criticism of Tooley-style “Growing-Block” views holds, then we are left with just presentism and eternalism. In this paper I show that Button’s defence fails.


Sentence Type Grammatical Category Tensed Theory Escape Route Tensed Verb 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



I’m very grateful to Ross Cameron, Mark Jago, Carrie Jenkins, Daniel Nolan and Neil Sinclair. The paper has improved in light of conversations I’ve had with each of them. I’m also very grateful to three referees for this journal. One referee, in particular, gave extremely extensive and helpful comments that have helped me to radically improve the paper.


  1. Bigelow, J. (1996). Presentism and properties. Noûs, 30, Supplement: Philosophical Perspectives, 10, Metaphysics, pp. 35–52.Google Scholar
  2. Bourne, C. (2002). When am I? A tense time for some tense theorists? Australian Journal of Philosophy, 80, 359–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Braddon-Mitchell, D. (2004). How do we know it is now now? Analysis, 64, 199–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Button, T. (2006). There’s no time like the present. Analysis, 66, 130–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Button, T. (2007). Every now and then, no-futurism faces no sceptical problems. Analysis, 67, 325–332.Google Scholar
  6. Cameron, R. Truthmaking for presentists. Oxford Studies in Metaphysics, 6. (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  7. Craig, W. L. (2000). The tensed theory of time. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  8. Declerck, R. (1991). Tense in English: Its structure and use in discourse. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Fine, K. (2000). Neutral relations. The Philosophical Review, 109, 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fine, K. (2005). Modality and tense. Oxford: OUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Goodman, N. (1955). Fact, fiction, and forecast. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP.Google Scholar
  12. Huddleston, R. (1984). Introduction to the grammar of English. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
  13. Hudson, R. A. (1971). English complex sentences. Oxford: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  14. Keefe, R. (2008). Supervaluationism. Philosophical Compass, 3, 315–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Langedoen, D. T. (1970). Essentials of English grammar. London: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  16. Liggins, D. (2006). Is there a good epistemological argument against Platonism? Analysis, 66, 135–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lowe, E. J. (1998). The possibility of metaphysics. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  18. Lyons, J. (1985). Semantics (Vol. 2). Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
  19. Merricks, T. (2007). Truth and ontology. Oxford: Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Oaklander, L. N., & White, A. (2007). B-time: A response to Tallant. Analysis, 67, 332–340.Google Scholar
  21. Radford, A. (2009). Analysing english sentences. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
  22. Sider, T. (2001). Four dimensionalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sider, T. (2003). What’s so bad about overdetermination? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 67, 719–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Tallant, J. (2007). There are (now), have been and will be times like the present in the hybrid view of time. Analysis, 67, 83–86.Google Scholar
  25. Tooley, M. (1997). Time, tense, and causation. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  26. Williamson, T. (1985). Converse relations. The Philosophical Review, 94, 249–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of NottinghamNottinghamUK

Personalised recommendations