In his review of The Ontology of Time, Thomas Crisp (Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews, 2005a) argues that Oaklander's version of McTaggart's paradox does not make any trouble for his version of presentism. The aim of this paper is to refute that claim by demonstrating that Crisp's version of presentism does indeed succumb to a version of McTaggart's argument. I shall proceed as follows. In Part I I shall explain Crisp's view and then argue in Part II that his analysis of temporal becoming, temporal properties and temporal relations is inadequate. Finally, in Part III, I shall demonstrate that his presentist ontology of time is susceptible to the paradox he so assiduously sought to avoid.
KeywordsMcTaggart Presentism Time Ersatz B-relations Temporal becoming
I wish to thank V. Alan White and Joshua Mozersky for the very helpful discussions I had with them, and two anonymous referees for their constructive comments.
- Craig, W. L. (2000). The tensed of time: A critical examination. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
- Crisp, T. (2007). Presentism and the grounding objection. NOÛS, 41(1), 90–109.Google Scholar
- Crisp, T. (2005a). Review L. Nathan Oaklander, The ontology of time. Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews, http://ndpr.nd.edu/review.cfm?id=2201.
- Oaklander, L. N. (2004a). Craig on McTaggart's Paradox and the Problem of Temporary Intrinsics, in The Ontology of Time (pp. 77-83). Amherst: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
- Oaklander, L. N. (2004b). Presentism, ontology, and temporal experience. The Ontology of Time, 83–101.Google Scholar
- Oaklander, L. N. (2004c). Presentism: a critique. The Ontology of Time, 101–117.Google Scholar
- Oaklander, L. N. (2004d). McTaggart's paradox defended. The Ontology of Time, 51–62.Google Scholar
- Tooley, M. (1997). Time tense and causation. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
- Tooley, M. (2010). Farewell to McTaggart’s argument? Philosophia.Google Scholar