Replies to Cameron, Wilson and Leininger
Name
analysis-replies.pdf
Description
Accepted version
Size
95.36 KB
Format
Adobe PDF
Checksum (MD5)
2ba445e68e1c3294aaa6b1455d0a6311
Author(s)
Skow, Bradford
Date Issued
January 2018
Journal
Analysis
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Citation
Skow, Bradford. "Replies to Cameron, Wilson and Leininger." Analysis 78, 1 (January 2018): 128-138 © 2018 The Author
Version
Author's final manuscript
Abstract
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...
MIT Department
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Linguistics and Philosophy
Terms of Use
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike
Persistent DSpace Link
DOI of Published Version
https://doi.org/10.1093/analys/anx158
