Replies to Cameron, Wilson and Leininger
Ross Cameron thinks that MST-Supertime, MST-Supertense and MST-Time are defective as versions of the moving spotlight theory and goes on to describe what he thinks they are missing. But I don’t think they are defective; and what Cameron says is missing from these theories is actually present in a ve...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Other Authors: | |
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Oxford University Press (OUP)
2020
|
| Online Access: | https://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/125187 |
| _version_ | 1826194917505892352 |
|---|---|
| author | Skow, Bradford |
| author2 | Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Linguistics and Philosophy |
| author_facet | Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Linguistics and Philosophy Skow, Bradford |
| author_sort | Skow, Bradford |
| collection | MIT |
| description | Ross Cameron thinks that MST-Supertime, MST-Supertense and MST-Time are defective as versions of the moving spotlight theory and goes on to describe what he thinks they are missing. But I don’t think they are defective; and what Cameron says is missing from these theories is actually present in a version of MST-Time that appears in the book.
Cameron thinks that MST-Supertime, to start with, is inconsistent, and so the worst of the lot. He thinks McTaggart’s argument shows it to be inconsistent. But the theory is not inconsistent. We can draw a picture of what reality is like according to the theory, and the picture doesn’t confuse us the way M. C. Escher's pictures of inconsistent situations do. Figure 1 contains such a picture: the arrows... |
| first_indexed | 2024-09-23T10:04:12Z |
| format | Article |
| id | mit-1721.1/125187 |
| institution | Massachusetts Institute of Technology |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-09-23T10:04:12Z |
| publishDate | 2020 |
| publisher | Oxford University Press (OUP) |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | mit-1721.1/1251872022-09-30T18:43:04Z Replies to Cameron, Wilson and Leininger Skow, Bradford Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Linguistics and Philosophy Ross Cameron thinks that MST-Supertime, MST-Supertense and MST-Time are defective as versions of the moving spotlight theory and goes on to describe what he thinks they are missing. But I don’t think they are defective; and what Cameron says is missing from these theories is actually present in a version of MST-Time that appears in the book. Cameron thinks that MST-Supertime, to start with, is inconsistent, and so the worst of the lot. He thinks McTaggart’s argument shows it to be inconsistent. But the theory is not inconsistent. We can draw a picture of what reality is like according to the theory, and the picture doesn’t confuse us the way M. C. Escher's pictures of inconsistent situations do. Figure 1 contains such a picture: the arrows... 2020-05-12T18:34:13Z 2020-05-12T18:34:13Z 2018-01 2019-11-06T13:50:48Z Article http://purl.org/eprint/type/JournalArticle 0003-2638 1467-8284 https://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/125187 Skow, Bradford. "Replies to Cameron, Wilson and Leininger." Analysis 78, 1 (January 2018): 128-138 © 2018 The Author en http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/analys/anx158 Analysis Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ application/pdf Oxford University Press (OUP) MIT web domain |
| spellingShingle | Skow, Bradford Replies to Cameron, Wilson and Leininger |
| title | Replies to Cameron, Wilson and Leininger |
| title_full | Replies to Cameron, Wilson and Leininger |
| title_fullStr | Replies to Cameron, Wilson and Leininger |
| title_full_unstemmed | Replies to Cameron, Wilson and Leininger |
| title_short | Replies to Cameron, Wilson and Leininger |
| title_sort | replies to cameron wilson and leininger |
| url | https://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/125187 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT skowbradford repliestocameronwilsonandleininger |