Philosophical Studies

, Volume 142, Issue 3, pp 325–344 | Cite as

Truth-conditions, truth-bearers and the new B-theory of time

Article

Abstract

In this paper I consider two strategies for providing tenseless truth-conditions for tensed sentences: the token-reflexive theory and the date theory. Both theories have faced a number of objections by prominent A-theorists such as Quentin Smith and William Lane Craig. Traditionally, these two theories have been viewed as rival methods for providing truth-conditions for tensed sentences. I argue that the debate over whether the token-reflexive theory or the date theory is true has arisen from a failure to distinguish between conditions for the truth of tensed tokens and conditions for the truth of propositions expressed by tensed tokens. I demonstrate that there is a true formulation of the token-reflexive theory that provides necessary and sufficient conditions for the truth of tensed tokens, and there is a true formulation of the date theory that provides necessary and sufficient conditions for the truth of propositions expressed by tensed tokens. I argue that once the views are properly formulated, the A-theorist’s objections fail to make their mark. However, I conclude by claiming that even though there is a true formulation of the token-reflexive theory and a true formulation of the date theory, the New B-theory nonetheless fails to provide a complete account of the truth and falsity of tensed sentences.

Keywords

Tense B-theory Time 

References

  1. Castañeda, H. -N. (1967). Indicators and quasi-indicators. American Philosophical Quarterly, 4, 85–100.Google Scholar
  2. Craig, W. L. (2000). The tenseless theory of time: A critical examination. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  3. Davidson, D. (1967). Truth and meaning. Synthèse, 7, 304–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dyke, H. (2002). Tokens, dates and tenseless truth conditions. Synthèse, 131, 329–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dyke, H. (2003). Tensed meaning: A tenseless account. Journal of Philosophical Research, 28, 65–81.Google Scholar
  6. Garcia-Carpintero, M. (1998). Indexicals as token-reflexives. Mind, 107, 529–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kaplan, D. (1989). Demonstratives. In J. Almog, J. Perry, & H. Wettstein (Eds.), Themes from Kaplan (pp. 481–563). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Le Poidevin, R. (1995). Review of Quentin Smith’s Language and time, The Philosophical Review, 104, 333–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Le Poidevin, R. (2003). Why tenses need real times. In A. Jokic & Q. Smith (Eds.), Time, tense and reference (pp. 305–324). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  10. Lewis, D. (1979). Attitudes De Dicto and De Se. The Philosophical Review, 88, 513–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lewis, D. (1986). On the plurality of worlds. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
  12. Mellor, D. H. (1981). Real time. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Mellor, D. H. (1998). Real time II. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Oaklander, L. N. (1994). A defense of a new tenseless theory of time. In L. N. Oaklander & Q. Smith (Eds.), The new theory of time (pp. 57–68). New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Paul, L. A. (1997). Truth-conditions of tensed sentence-types. Synthèse, 111, 53–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Perry, J. (1979). The problem of the essential indexical. Noûs, 13, 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Quine, W. V. O. (1960). Word and object. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.Google Scholar
  18. Smart, J. J. C. (1963). Philosophy and scientific realism. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  19. Smart, J. J. C. (1980). Time and becoming. In P. van Inwagen (Ed.), Time and cause Boston: Reidel.Google Scholar
  20. Smith, Q. (1993). Language and time. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Smith, Q. (1999). The ‘Sentence-Type’ version of the tenseless theory of time. Synthèse, 119, 233–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Soames, S. (1999). Understanding truth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of Massachusetts AmherstAmherstUSA

Personalised recommendations