I recently heard about this new philosophy called Presentism. It does have a few interesting points to make.
For example, Presentism states that the past and future do not exist. I can sort of attest to this. If you travelled back in a time machine, most would assume you are living the past, right? But the past would then be erased as the present, which you would be currently in, would it not?
Basically, the past and future are always lived out by present moments. So, for anything that is living, it is in the present. For anything that is past, or in the future, we can assume it has no existed and is dead (in a sense). There are many controversies and false assumptions surrounding this, so I was just wondering your opinions.
I hold that presentism is false and that the present, past, and future are all equally real or existent. Contrary to presentism, this view is called "eternalism. "The present" acts as an indexical for the moment now.
If the past doesn't exist, then you have this problem: nothing happened in history. Murderers aren't guilty for their crimes, because they didn't commit any crimes. Caesar never crossed the Rubicon, and you were never born. No future exists, either. So there is no tomorrow, no getting up in the morning, and no more work. So you don't need to worry about anything yet to come because nothing will.
Furthermore, every moment you cease to exist, and then someone else springs into existence since there is no continuity of identity through time since time does not exist.
All of these consequences sound pretty counterintuitive to me.
---------- Post added 04-29-2010 at 03:22 AM ----------
sometime sun;154604 wrote:
Doesn't this 'Presentism' do away with time?
You might say that, actually. Things just come into and go out of existence. There's no "flow" of time, that's for sure. No duration, only simultaneity.
---------- Post added 04-29-2010 at 03:29 AM ----------
I don't understand what it's trying to say. Of course the past and the future don't exist. The past existed and the future will exist.
That's contradictory, actually. Speaking in future and past tense would be illusory if the only the present exists. If the past and future don't exist, then the past does not
does the future. So every moment you cease to exist and someone else springs into existence. That's presentism.