In this paper, we articulate a version of non-standard A-theory—which we call Flow Fragmentalism—in relation to its take on the issue of supervenience of truth on being. According to the Truth Supervenes on Being (TSB) Principle, the truth of past- and future-tensed propositions supervenes, respectively, on past and future facts. Since the standard presentist denies the existence of past and future entities and facts concerning them that do not obtain in the present, she seems to lack the resources to accept (...) both past and future-tensed truths and the TSB Principle. Contrariwise, positions in philosophy of time that accept an eternalist ontology (e.g., B-theory, moving spotlight, and Fine’s and Lipman’s versions of fragmentalism) allow for a “direct” supervenience base for past- and future-tensed truths. We argue that Flow Fragmentalism constitutes a middle ground, which retains most of the advantages of both views, and allows us to articulate a novel account of the passage of time. (shrink)

Philosophical debates about the metaphysics of time typically revolve around two contrasting views of time. On the A-theory, time is something that itself undergoes change, as captured by the idea of the passage of time; on the B-theory, all there is to time is events standing in before/after or simultaneity relations to each other, and these temporal relations are unchanging. Philosophers typically regard the A-theory as being supported by our experience of time, and they take it that the B-theory clashes (...) with how we experience time and therefore faces the burden of having to explain away that clash. In this paper, we investigate empirically whether these intuitions about the experience of time are shared by the general public. We asked directly for people’s subjective reports of their experience of time—in particular, whether they believe themselves to have a phenomenology as of time’s passing—and we probed their understanding of what time’s passage in fact is. We find that a majority of participants do share the aforementioned intuitions, but interestingly a minority do not. (shrink)

In this paper I will present three arguments (based on the notions of constitution, metaphysical reality, and truth, respectively) with the aim of shedding some new light on the structure of Fine’s (2005, 2006) ‘McTaggartian’ arguments against the reality of tense. Along the way, I will also (i) draw a novel map of the main realist positions about tense, (ii) unearth a previously unnoticed but potentially interesting form of external relativism (which I will label ‘hyper-presentism’) and (iii) sketch a novel (...) interpretation of Fine’s fragmentalism (which I contrast with Lipman’s 2015, 2016b, forthcoming). (shrink)

Purpose. The purpose of research consists in that: having plunged into depths of primitive consciousness, to reveal contradiction of the European thought in Ancient Greek thought and show resources of mythological thinking on the way of overcoming of these contradictions. Methodology. All methodological installations, using possibilities, borderlines and effects of non-classical consciousness, have appeared insufficiently effective for adequate understanding of essence of the person. The generalised method, which is used by us, leans on deep resources of high-energy consciousness and on (...) decoding of possibilities of anthropological time that it presumes to open new horizons of human existence. Originality. Addressing to modern representations about the changed conditions of consciousness, we have tried to see the historically generated discursive practices of understanding reality by the consciousness. Thus, using the consistently conducted destruction we are aimed at reaching the first sources of consciousness and revealing the deep historical mechanisms of temporal consciousnesses formation. Conclusions. It is shown that the use of the basic ideas of Ancient Greek thought leads scientific consciousness to deadlocks of contradictions, which were consistently revealed during subsequent history of philosophy and culture. The analysis of ancient mythological texts allows concluding, that the Greek thought is not a source of modern scientific thought. That is to understand the scientific thought one should address to the more ancient archaic thinking. Thus, to overcome the contradictions of modern scientific and philosophical thought it is necessary to search new alternative sources of understanding of the historical reality, first of all, connected with deepening into ancient thought. (shrink)