Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that McTaggart's A-series generates contradictions precisely because 'now' shifts, meaning B-simultaneity cannot fix A-simultaneity without vicious regress.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
The regress objection assumes 'now' requires metaphysical grounding in B-relations, but 'now' may be purely indexical without generating contradiction.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
B-series can consistently describe temporal order without the A-series; McTaggart conflates the metaphysical necessity of A-properties with their coherence.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The contradiction McTaggart identifies may reflect a semantic confusion about tense rather than a genuine logical impossibility in temporal reality.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
The A-series requires 'now' to be an objective, privileged moment that continuously changes position in the sequence of events.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
B-relations (earlier/later) are static and cannot account for the dynamic passage that 'now' supposedly exhibits without additional explanation.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Any attempt to explain 'now's' shift via B-relations merely relocates the problem rather than solving it, creating vicious circularity.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.