Philosophical presentism

Philosophical presentism is a metaphysical theory of time and philosophy that only the present exists or is real. Anything beyond the present does not exist, be it the past or the future. Presentism stands in contrast to eternalism, which states that the past and future all exist. In presentism, the future does not exist; therefore, it may or may not occur. Only those things that are in the moment exist, and they exist only for that moment in time. Opponents of philosophical presentism question how time can pass if the past and present are not real. When defining presentism, philosophers will sometimes compare to something it is not in order to provide a more understandable definition to the unfamiliar.

Background

The idea of contemplating existence is a philosophical manner is often traced back to the ancient Greeks. They were the first culture to use logic and reason in an attempt to explain the universe. The philosopher Heraclitus, who lived about 500 BCE, wrote that fire was the foundational element behind the creation of the universe, and that the world and everything in it existed because of fire. One of his contemporaries, Parmenides, believed that existence was eternal. To Parmenides, the universe could not have had a beginning, because he felt it was impossible for anything to have been born from “nothing.”

The philosopher Plato, who lived in the late fifth and early fourth centuries BCE, thought that everything in reality, from concrete object to abstract concepts, existed as an unchanging heavenly form. The earthly existence of objects and thought was merely a mirror image of this invisible form.

Overview

To define presentism, philosophers often first explore the definition of time. The Greek philosopher Aristotle, who was a student of Plato, believed time did not having a beginning because having a beginning would mean there had a be a starting moment in time. From a metaphysical standpoint, time is a subset of philosophy that questions reality from a temporal point of view. Philosophical presentism is a concept that is difficult to prove and simultaneously hard to disprove. In presentism, the present time is considered to be privileged because, according to the presentism theory, it is the only time to exist in actuality. Presentism is also primarily an ontological doctrine and one component within the philosophy of time. Ontology itself is a theory that explores objects and their relationships to the world around them. This can include abstract versus concrete objects, independent versus dependent objects, and existent versus nonexistent objects.

Generally speaking, ontology does not deal with the existence of things in a material sense. Instead, it deals with how or where they exist and whether or not they are real. A basic definition argues that if there is a connection between two things, then both must exist in the current state or present time. Presentism is considered a type of A-theory because it distinguishes between the past, present and future, the present being the only state in which anything exists or is real. However, it is sometimes also included with B-theory. Situated in metaphysics, A-theory and B-theory are both theories of time that were addressed in the early-1900s by philosopher John McTaggart and used to order event and/or position time.

According to McTaggart, the A-theory is more essential than the B-theory. In the A-theory, focus is placed on the present, while B-theory includes more movement though time, including the past. According to philosopher Daniel Deasy, A-theory shows an absolute and objective present instant, while B-theory says there is no absolute or objective present interest. A-theory can be further divided according to how someone answers the question as to whether past or future things exist. Philosophical presentists would answer no to both of the posed questions. Other responses would reveal alternate theories.

Time is not simply something that a clock reveals. The metaphysics of time make a person question their lived reality and what is real and not real. A-theorists, subscribing to the growing block theory, privilege the past and present and stand in opposition to the B-theorists who support the past, present, and future, but see none as existing in an actual sense. The past, present, and future are matters of perspective. Current trends lean more toward supporting B-theorists and arguments.

The presentist philosophy argues only that which is in the present is real or exists in actuality. Anyone who has already lived, such as Aristotle and Plato, are not viewed as real or as existing. Future citizens of the world do not exist because they are situated in the future. As mentioned, these arguments are simultaneously challenging to prove and disprove. The difficulty surrounding the concept intensifies when one includes the term non-presentism. Non-presentism posits that although there are objects that are not present at the current time, they still exist.

A classic example used to illustrate the theory of philosophical presentism involves a simple headache. In order for a headache to exist, there must be pain. It cannot exist without the pain. Therefore, headaches can only exist in the present. However, if one is to ignore the key components of presentism, one can acknowledge past headaches. However, past headaches (because they were in the past and not in the present) do not hurt. If past headaches do not hurt, how can they exist? The answer: They cannot. Therefore, if there is no pain, how can a headache be acknowledged as existing? It cannot; nor can a future headache. The pain is an integral part of a headache, thus “proving” presentism.

One objection to presentism is only that which exists can be considered true. When an entity ceases to exist, the information or knowledge surrounding it does as well. However, those that subscribe to the presentist school of thought see presentism as a commonsensical viewpoint. Some Buddhist philosophers are also said to have prescribed to presentist thought, though the abandonment of the past or future can be debated. What are easier to connect are the Buddhist teachings that encourage living in the present.

Bibliography

Bourne, Craig. “A Theory of Presentism.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy, vol. 36, no. 1, March 2006, pp. 1–24, www.jstor.org/stable/40232271?seq=11#metadata‗info‗tab‗contents. Accessed 31 Oct. 2022.

Deng, Natalja. “Time, Metaphysics of.” Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2018, www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/time-metaphysics-of/v-3. Accessed 31 Oct. 2022

Ingram, David, and Jonathan Tallant. “Presentism.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 1 Feb. 2022, plato.stanford.edu/entries/presentism/. Accessed 31 Oct. 2022.

Kim, Jongjin. “The Buddha Versus Popper: When to Live?” Journal of Buddhist Ethics, vol. 27, 2020, https://blogs.dickinson.edu/buddhistethics/files/2020/02/Kim‗Parikh‗20‗Final.pdf. Accessed 31 Oct. 2022.

Markosian, Ned. “A Defense of Presentism.” Arguing About Metaphysics, edited by Michael Rea. Routledge, 2009, pp. 127–150.

McDaniel, Kris. “John M. E. McTaggart.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 7 Apr. 2020, plato.stanford.edu/entries/mctaggart/. Accessed 31 Oct. 2022.

“Presentism.” Theopedia, www.theopedia.com/presentism. Accessed 31 Oct. 2022.