Independent Account of McTaggart’s Paradox and the R-theory of Time

2020 ◽  
pp. 119-144
Author(s):  
L. Nathan Oaklander
Keyword(s):  
Mctaggart's Paradox ◽  
Independent Account

Locke's review of the Principia

1965 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 152-161 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual History ◽  
Western Europe ◽  
John Locke ◽  
Periodical Press ◽  
Physical Sciences ◽  
Political Exile ◽  
French Speaking ◽  
History Of ◽  
Independent Account

The publication in July 1687 of Newton’s Principia mathematica gave rise to only four reviews in the European periodical press. The first was Edmond Halley’s pre-publication notice in the Philosophical Transactions (1). Then a year elapsed before the Bibliothèque Universelle (2), the Acta Eruditorum (3), and the Journal des Sçavans (4), approached the book. Of these reviews that which appeared in Jean Leclerc’s widely read Bibliothèque Universelle has received least attention from historians. This is unfortunate because, of several merits, two in particular are important for the intellectual history of the period: it was written specifically for the large and growing intellectual class (5) of western Europe who for the most part were interested in the new physical sciences, but were untrained in the mathematics necessary to understand many of the newest advances in them. And the author of this review, which was the first independent account of Newton’s book to reach this Continental (largely French-speaking) audience, was John Locke, then a voluntary political exile in Holland (6).

scholarly journals McTaggart’s paradox and its consequences

2015 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 226-242
Author(s):  
Strahinja Djordjevic
Keyword(s):  
Time Series ◽  
21St Century ◽  
History Of Philosophy ◽  
Temporal Relations ◽  
Philosophy Of Time ◽  
Human Understanding ◽  
Contrary View ◽  
History Of ◽  
Mctaggart's Paradox

McTaggart?s explanation of the human understanding of time, which uses the time series, is a significant moment in the history of philosophy, and his attempt to prove time?s unreality had strong but diverse reactions. The majority of thinkers who wrote after him agree that time is indeed real, but the intellectual division that was created around the question of which part of the paradox in dispute will dominate philosophy of time in the 20th and 21st century. It can be concluded that both major theories within this field have an undeniable influence on the division of time series which McTaggart made. After analyzing the paradox, the focus will be on clarifying the debate between tensed and tenseless theorists. The former dispute the claim that the A-series is contradictory and argue that the tensed time is the proper determination of events in time, while the latter claim that the B-series is independent and that time can be determined only by temporal relations. By recognizing the differences between these two lines of thought, it will become easier to understand the nature of their relationship to the time series, namely by considering the ways in which they defend their own and attack the contrary view.

McTaggart’s Paradox

2000 ◽  
pp. 169-217
Author(s):  
William Lane Craig
Keyword(s):  
Mctaggart's Paradox

Presentism, Ontology and Temporal Experience

2002 ◽  
Vol 50 ◽  
pp. 73-90 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. Nathan Oaklander
Keyword(s):  
Recent Article ◽  
Philosophical Argument ◽  
Ontological Status ◽  
Temporal Experience ◽  
The Past ◽  
William Lane Craig ◽  
Deep Trouble ◽  
Differential Experience ◽  
Mctaggart's Paradox ◽  
Basic Beliefs

In a recent article, ‘Tensed Time and Our Differential Experience of the Past and Future,’ William Lane Craig (1999a) attempts to resuscitate A. N. Prior's (1959) ‘Thank Goodness’ argument against the B-theory by combining it with Plantinga's (1983) views about basic beliefs. In essence Craig's view is that since there is a universal experience and belief in the objectivity of tense and the reality of becoming, (that he identifies with ‘the presentist metaphysic’) ‘this belief constitutes an intrinsic defeater-defeater which overwhelms the objections brought against it.’ (1999a, 519) An intrinsic defeater-defeater is a belief that enjoys such warrant for us that it simply overwhelms the defeaters brought against it without specifically rebutting or undercutting them. Thus, Craig claims that an effete philosophical argument like McTaggart's paradox is nothing more than ‘an engaging and recalcitrant brain teaser whose conclusion nobody really takes seriously.’ (1999a, 532) It is difficult to reconcile this statement with Craig's own writings elsewhere. For Craig has vigorously argued in at least two other articles that 'hybrid A-B theorists like McCall, Schlesinger, and Smith [who give ontological status to both A-properties and B-relations] are in deep trouble’ (1998, 127) since they are all effectively refuted by McTaggart's Paradox (cf. Craig 1997). It is not Craig's inconsistency regarding the significance of McTaggart conundrum that I want to draw attention to, however. Rather I wish to raise a different issue.

scholarly journals McTaggart's paradox and Smith's tensed theory of time

Synthese ◽  
1996 ◽  
Vol 107 (2) ◽  
pp. 205-221 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. Nathan Oaklander
Keyword(s):  
Mctaggart's Paradox ◽  
Tensed Theory

Validity of Bartram’s Painted Vulture (Aves: Cathartidae)

Zootaxa ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 3613 (1) ◽  
pp. 61-82 ◽  
Author(s):  
NOEL F. R. SNYDER ◽  
JOEL T. FRY
Keyword(s):  
New Species ◽  
20Th Century ◽  
Intraspecific Variation ◽  
Strong Case ◽  
William Bartram ◽  
A New Species ◽  
Independent Account

William Bartram described the Painted Vulture (Vultur sacra) as a new species in his 1791 book on travels in Florida and other southeastern states. However, no specimen of this bird survives, and it has not been reported by any subsequent or-nithologist. Bartram’s detailed description is not presently endorsed by the American Ornithologists’ Union and has been widely regarded as a myth, a misdescribed King Vulture Sarcoramphus papa (Linnaeus), a misdescribed Northern Carac-ara Caracara cheriway (Jacquin), or a garbled mixture of species. In fact, his description bears almost no resemblance to a Northern Caracara, but it does match the King Vulture in all important respects except tail color (which is uniform dark brown in all ages and sexes of King Vultures but was white with a dark brown or black tip in Bartram’s description). Most 20th century ornithologists commenting on Bartram’s bird have been reluctant to accept his description because of the tail-color discrepancy. Only McAtee (1942) concluded that his description could be fully accurate as written, indicating a bird closely related to, but different from, a typical King Vulture. Paralleling Bartram’s description is an apparently independent account and painting of a vulture of uncertain geo-graphic origin by Eleazar Albin (1734). Details of Albin’s description, including tail color, are very similar to those of Bartram’s description. The only discrepancies are minor differences in color of softparts and tail that seem explicable as intraspecific variation. Available evidence suggests that Bartram knew nothing of Albin’s description, and if so, Albin’s bird provides quite persuasive support for the validity of Bartram’s bird. Equally important, none of the arguments offered historically against the validity of the Painted Vulture is persuasive when examined closely. Together, these and other fac-tors make a strong case for acceptance of Bartram’s Painted Vulture as a historic resident of northern Florida and likely other adjacent regions.

McTaggart's Paradox: Two Parodies

Philosophy ◽  
1981 ◽  
Vol 56 (217) ◽  
pp. 333-348 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenneth Rankin
Keyword(s):  
Point Of View ◽  
Similar Argument ◽  
Logical Principle ◽  
Mctaggart's Paradox

To be truly provocative and outrageous the superior philosophical sophistry will commonly possess four somewhat adventitious features. I shall rate it as classic if it has all four. First, and least adventitiously, the argument will be crisp and initially seductive. Second, by the standard the sophistry sets direct rebuttal will be laborious and diffuse. Third, the recipe for the latter will prescribe that we pick out some hitherto unarticulated logical principle (e.g. ‘Existence is not a real predicate’) such that if the principle be true then the sophistical argument must be invalid, and then, on the strength of that consequence assume the principle to be true. Consequently and fourth, as an antidote parody is supreme. With a persuasive absence of fuss and bias we can turn the tables if we show that, if the sophistical argument were really valid, then some structurally similar argument would prove just as consummately far too much. In short, from the rhetorical point of view at least, Gaunilo is more lethal than Kant. Even if the similarity is defective, the sophist will lose some of his adventitious and insufferable poise, if he ventures to show why.

CFTC adopts amendments to position limit aggregation rules

2017 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 31-35
Author(s):  
J.P. Bruynes ◽  
Jason Daniel ◽  
Libbie Walker
Keyword(s):  
Design Methodology ◽  
Final Position ◽  
Limited Time ◽  
Futures Trading ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Final Rule ◽  
Commodity Futures Trading Commission ◽  
Practical Guidance ◽  
Trading Program ◽  
Independent Account

Purpose To explain the final position limit aggregation rules and exemptions pertaining to derivative positions in nine agricultural commodities adopted by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission on December 5, 2016 and effective February 14, 2017, the notice filing deadline with respect to which was extended by the CFTC by limited time no-action relief until August 14, 2017. Design/methodology/approach Explains the position limit aggregation rules and exemptions pertaining to equity interests in owned entities, ownership or equity interests in pooled accounts or positions, positions of an “eligible entity” in connection with client positions carried by an “independent account controller,” positions held by futures commission merchants (FCMs) in discretionary accounts or customer trading program accounts, equity interests of underwriters based on unsold allotments of securities in distributions, broker-dealers if the equity interest is acquired in the normal course of business and positions for which information cannot be collected without risk of violating a law. Findings Unless an exemption from aggregation is available, all positions in accounts for which any person controls the trading or holds a 10 per cent or greater ownership or equity interest must be aggregated with positions held, and trading done, by such person. The final rule adds several new exemptions, including for persons with a 10 per cent or greater ownership or equity interest in an entity so long as certain conditions establishing independence are met. The final rule requires notice filing to take advantage of most exemptions from aggregation. Originality/value Practical guidance from experienced lawyers specializing in securities, funds, and investment management.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document