, Volume 78, Issue 1, pp 219–227

Presentism and Eternalism

Original Article


How is the debate between presentism and eternalism to be characterized? It is usual to suggest that this debate about time is analogous to the debate between the actualist and the possibilist about modality. I think that this suggestion is right. In what follows I pursue the analogy more strictly than is usual and offer a characterization of what is at the core of the dispute between presentists and eternalists that may be immune to worries often raised about the substantiality of the debate. I suggest that the debate be characterized in Lewisean terms and define positions I call *Lewisean* eternalism and anti-*Lewisean*’ presentism (analogous to Lewisean possibilism and anti-Lewisean actualism). I explain some advantages of the proposal and discuss some objections. I conclude that pursuing the analogy strictly offers the prospect of giving clear sense to a controversy which otherwise seems to many deeply obscure.


  1. Crisp, T. (2004). On presentism and triviality. In D. Zimmerman (Ed.), Oxford studies in metaphysics (Vol. 1). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Hume, D. (1978). A treatise of human nature. In: L. A. Selby Bigge (Ed.), 2nd ed. revised by P. H. Nidditch. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  3. Lewis, D. (1986). On the plurality of worlds. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  4. Sider, T. (2001). Four dimensionalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Sider, T. (2006). Quantifiers and temporal ontology. Mind, 115, 75–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of NottinghamNottinghamUK

Personalised recommendations