Philosophy Forum

Read Topic
Reply

Presentism. An interesting concept.

Philosophy Forum
» MetaPhilosophy
» Presentism. An interesting concept.

Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page

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.

@Diogenes phil,

Wel it is interesting, but imma have to call faulty logic on this one. This is through the perspective of the time traveler. It also assumes time is linear, which it is not, but human consciousness can only experience it so.

@Diogenes phil,

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.

@Diogenes phil,

Diogenes;140448 wrote:

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.

the past is the past , nothing can be done to change this

the now is the now , the future , with thought though , can be planed

@north,

north;144983 wrote:

the past is the past , nothing can be done to change this

the now is the now , the future , with thought though , can be planed

True. that's how i go about it.

Quote:

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.

Exactly. haha i guess these guys have some pretty basic cognitive abilities screwed up.

In response to both, some peopl just can't akwnoledge the past and present while simultaneously working fo the future.

@Diogenes phil,

For the past and future to not exist (and assuming that anything does) that means that a moment must exist. But how long is now? For how long do we exist in this moment? If a moment does not exist then we can only exist in the past, moving into the future.

@Diogenes phil,

I'm into Stuffism. I believe there is stuff and that the stuff that exists is real.

@Khethil,

Khethil;145121 wrote:

I'm into Stuffism. I believe there is stuff and that the stuff that exists is real.

Hahahhaahaha very wel put. Im pretty Stuffist myself.

@Diogenes phil,

Diogenes;140448 wrote:

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.

Very good point. This goes back at least to Hegel, actually. He says that man is time, because man (the human part of him) is concept (and the desire for recognition) and time is impossible except by means of concept. For as you imply, the future and the past exist in the present only as concepts.

We can imagine the present as spatial reality, sensation and emotion. The future and the past would be memories, projects, fears, etc. All of these existing as thoughts. Of course there are emotions involved in our ideas of the past and future, and this is why man is described as the Future penetrating the Present by Hegel and his commentator Kojeve. You might say that man is the future penetrating the present by means of the past, because our ideas of what the future should and shouldn't be are made out of ideas of the past. For instance, we invent a plane because we remember seeing birds fly. That sort of thing. Or we avoid stepping in fire because we remember getting our foot burned once.

@Reconstructo,

I once thought the Universe was re-created continuously; with every breath or hart beat things started again. I must have been 15 or so and no-body understood what I wanted to say. My grandmother thought it was blasphemy to even think this. The concept was interesting though...

@Diogenes phil,

Diogenes;140448 wrote:

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.

Presentism nicely isolates the doubt of things temporal without at the same time doubting things spacial. That is to say that Presentism calls time an illusion and yet stops short of calling space an illusion. Usually if we allow ourselves to be skeptical to this degree we doubt both time and space. Presentism doubts and denies only time. Interesting.

@Diogenes phil,

I believe in Presentism. that present only exist, past is gone and future has to come.

We cannot use time machine back in time but we can repeat things that happens in the past by repeating it in present.

@Diogenes phil,

Diogenes;140448 wrote:

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.

What is the present? If light takes time to travel to my eyes, isn't that the past?

@mister kitten,

Doesn't this 'Presentism' do away with time?

@Diogenes phil,

I feel like Presentism is an attempt by someone to make something more complicated and "fancy-sounding" than it actually is. The idea that the past and future don't exist is based on your definition of existence, is it not? If the past manifests itself in my thoughts as a memory, does it not exist as whatever neurons firing in my brain as I recall that memory? And the future may not have happened yet, but I can postulate as to what it might entail, or I can plan for it. And if I do so, doesn't it exist in my brain, the same way the memory did?

I feel like just the fact that you can talk about the past and future, or just the fact that you can think about them, makes them exist in some way...

but then again, I might be wrong...

@Diogenes phil,

I do believe in Presentism but I also believe in Basil Icecream cause it's so yummy!

@Diogenes phil,

Diogenes;140448 wrote:

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 ----------

Jebediah;144981 wrote:

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 exist, nor does the future. So every moment you cease to exist and someone else springs into existence. That's presentism.

@Jebediah,

Jebediah;144981 wrote:

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.

Yes. . That is a speciality of some philosophers: to make the trivial sound profound.

Philosophy Forum
» MetaPhilosophy
» Presentism. An interesting concept.

Read Topic
Reply

Philosophy Forum

Presentism. An interesting concept.

Quick Links

My Account

able2know