Phil 417 - The Metaphysics of Time

Questions on the Ontology of Time

Henry Molaison suffered seizures from his youth until his twenties. In an attempt to cure him of the worsening seizures, his parents took him to numerous doctors, including a neurosurgeon named William Scoville. At the age of 27, Henry underwent an experimental operation to remove parts of his brain. His seizures significantly decreased in temperament and frequency, but at a high cost – he lost the ability to recall and would be stuck in the present moment for the rest of his life (Corkin, 2013). To ponder what it must be like to have no ability to recall would be to ponder what life might be like if one had no concept of time. While Henry would physically change, to him, his life experience would be perpetually stuck in the present moment. For the average person, however, the ability to remember allows her to seemingly experience time and with it the perception that it flows and passes.

Philosophical conversation on time has existed as long as the dialogue of philosophy itself. Some have argued that time flows, while others argue it is a static structure and is not real. Questions relating to the ontology of time are: does it flow, or does it follow some other construct? Do things exist only in the present or can they exist in the future and past? Many philosophers have pondered these questions and have advanced theories to explain time. This paper will review and explain the earliest debates on these questions between Heraclitus and Parmenides to show the long-standing nature of this examination (Bardon & Dyke (Eds.), 2013).  It will then review modern perceptions of time concerning A-Theory and B-Theory as explained by J.M.E McTaggart and how these ideas relate to the ideas of Presentism, Growing Block Theory and Moving Spotlight Theory (A-Theories) and Eternalism (B-Theory) (Markosian, 2002 and Bardon & Dyke (Eds.), 2013).

Ancient Discussions on Time

Heraclitus

Flux is a Heraclitan idea. One of his fragments claims all existence is in a constant state of change and that a person cannot step in the same river twice (Graham, 2019). At first glance, the idea of not being able to step into the same river twice is confusing. When a person steps into a stream of water in the morning while on a hike, and then crosses that same stream again, in his mind, he is stepping into the same thing. However, Heraclitus is being more specific in saying that the creek and the water molecules and the way the water flows and the minerals the water molecules have acquired (Bardon & Dyke (Eds.), 2013) – all of those features of the creek have changed between the first time the hiker stepped in it and the second time he crossed it. Precisely speaking, the creek is not the same from one moment to the next.

With this focus on flux and constant change, Heraclitus further noticed that despite the perpetual variation, things seemingly remained constant through cycles. However, he is unambiguous in noting that things do change from one moment to the next and this marking of change denotes time passed. Stated differently, Heraclitus noted the flux of everything both is and is not. This flux of things, if observed long enough, turns out to be opposites: day and night, winter and summer, war and peace, and satiety and hunger (2013, p. 13). In brief, Heraclitus would claim what was past existed and was real, and it changes to the present which also exists and is real and eventually things change again and still be real.

Parmenides

Parmenides took a different tact regarding the explanation of reality and refused to embrace the idea of flux – that existence both is and is not. Rather, he believed that everything just is. He explained this by way of a poem, in which a mortal meets a goddess, and she explains to the mortal the way of truth. She explains that there is one route called “it is” and there is another route called “it is not” and there is even a third route called “it is, and it is not” (2013, p. 17). The second and third routes are dead ends, and there is only one route: it is. This reality of existence does not change, for change is simply the mortal’s perspective. Furthermore, how can something which exists, not exist? This is contradictory and mortals are “deaf and blind at once” (Palmer, 2016) for not admitting and comprehending this contradiction. Parmenides simply concludes there is no flux, but everything simply exists and is the One. To Parmenides, Heraclitus would have been on the second route and his ideas would be contradictory. And since flux does not exist, the passage of time also does not exist and therefore time does not exist – it is simply human misunderstanding.

The philosophical discourse between Heraclitus and Parmenides continues to this day. The manner of looking at reality and time splits into differing factions of thought.

Modern Discussions on Time

Many theories regarding the metaphysics of time fall under two camps: A-Theory and B-Theory. These two theories stem from the philosopher J.M.E. McTaggart who noted two types of series in time and then argued that time does not exist (McDaniel, 2009). In one series, events can be ordered earlier than or later than one event in relation to another; he called these B-series. He also described a second series of events in which one event is noted as the present moment, and this event changes, first by being future, then being present, then being past, as it moves position in a series; he called these events the A-series.

From these two types of series emerge notions of A-Theory and B-Theory. In brief, A-Theory ideas contend time is real, especially the present moment, and that all time is viewed as either past, present, or future. (Bardon & Dyke (Eds.), 2013). However, B-Theory ideas argue that time is not real and that events simply have relations that are either earlier-than or later-than (2013). In a review of the theories of time, one podcaster explained the key difference between the two theories as being the determination of the present either being real (A-Theory) or the present not being real (B-Theory) (Macherla). Also, while A-Theory is committed to the idea of time being linear or growing, B-Theory contends there is simply existence and things only occupy a particular space-time coordinate.

A-Theories: Presentism, Growing Block, and Moving Spotlight

Most peoples’ paradigm of time aligns with A-Theory ideas. Three of these theories are Presentism, Growing Block, and Moving Spotlight. Before describing each one, it may be helpful to frame the idea of time as a block of cheese, and the present moment is represented as a slice of cheese from the block.

In the theory of Presentism, the only thing that is real is the present, viewed as a slice of cheese. Whatever exists now is real, but nothing in the past or future is considered real and therefore, the past and the future do not exist (Markosian, 2002). A comprehensive list of things that exist in the present moment could be produced, but nothing from the past, such as dinosaurs, or nothing from the future, such as a time machine, would be on that list of things in the present, therefore dinosaurs and time machines do not exist and are not real.

In the Growing Block theory, only the past and the present are real, but the future does not exist (2002). An observer might strongly contend that things in the past were just as real as the present. Therefore, time is like a growing block of cheese, where the present moment is the slice of cheese that grows and acts as the edge of time. The future, however, is beyond the block and does not exist.

Lastly is the Moving Spotlight theory, named by C.D. Broad (2002), contends that all past, present, and future are real, but differs from the B-Theory in contending that time exists, and the present is not only real, but also unique since there is a metaphorical light on the present moment. This light constantly moves and illuminates the present, hence there is a sense of flow. All time is laid out, but light only shines on the present moment.

B-Theory: Eternalism

Continuing with the block of cheese example for explaining time, the B-Theory of Eternalism contends that all moments in time equally exist and that the past, present, and future are not real (2002), and all that exists is the block of cheese. The universe simply exists in all time and space, and things only occupy some space-time coordinate. Indeed, things may serially exist before another thing much like page 7 exists at a space-time coordinate which simply precedes page 8 which exists at an adjacent space-time coordinate, but all pages equally exist – there is nothing unique about page 7.

Discussion on Time

While I find the practical nature of time useful, such as being prompt to a meeting or having the ability to recall the anniversary date of my marriage, nevertheless, it is odd that we spend a lot of thought on this subject. By way of relation, I wonder why we don’t spend as much effort on discussing the nature of a kilometer, meter, or centimeter. After all, isn’t time simply an attempt at keeping the score on a change?

After having the opportunity to research and write this essay, I realize I fall in the B-Theory camp and align my views with those of Spinoza. In reviewing Spinoza’s ideas on the metaphysics of time, Waller (2012) offers a clear analogy to explain why the B-Theory makes better sense. Suppose Bob completes the paperwork for a loan at 10:30am and then signs the loan at 10:31am and shakes the hand of the loan officer. However, at 10:35am when Bob receives the loan check, he claims he is not the same Bob who signed the form – that Bob is past Bob, while this Bob is present Bob. This way of thinking is incoherent!  Bob is Bob whether in the past, present, or future. To return to the block of cheese analogy, indeed slices do exist (Bob being a different slice at different times), but a clearer way of comprehending the entirety of the idea is to admit all the slices are the same cheese.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the age-old philosophical discourse on time centers around whether it flows or is static. From Heraclitus and Parmenides to moderns such as McTaggart and Broad, this debate continues today under A-Theory and B-Theory ideas. A-Theory ideas claim time is real to varying degrees, but B-Theory ideas claim time is not real and that there is only existence.

References

Bardon, A., & Dyke, H. (Eds.). (2013). A companion to the philosophy of time. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated.

Corkin, S. (2013). Permanent present tense: The unforgettable life of the amnesic patient, h. m.. Basic Books.

Graham, D. W. (2019, September 3). Heraclitus (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Stanford.edu. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/heraclitus/ 

Markosian, N. (2002, November 25). Time (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Stanford.edu. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/time/

Macherla, R. (2021, March 21). Philosophy of Time. In The Human Condition. Spotify for Podcasters. https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/the-human-condition0/episodes/Philosophy-of-Time-e1cm8qr/a-a77506j

McDaniel, K. (2009). John M. E. McTaggart (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Stanford.edu. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mctaggart/ 

Palmer, J. (2016). Parmenides (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Stanford.edu. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/parmenides/ 

Waller, J. (2012). Persistence through time in Spinoza. Lexington Books/Fortress Academic.

Letters from a Stoic 62 - On Good Company

On Good Company

Point 1 - stop making excuses

"I don't have time to read or study philosophy!  I have too many things to do!"

Seneca replies,

We are deceived by those who would have us believe that a multitude of affairs blocks their pursuit of liberal studies; they make a pretence of their engagements, and multiply them, when their engagements are merely with themselves.

Point 2 - take back your independence!

If you prioritize what is most important (in the case of Seneca, it's the study and living of philosophy), then you will have a mind to do that first and then allow other interests to have time as you see fit.

my time is free; it is indeed free, and wherever I am, I am master of myself. For I do not surrender myself to my affairs, but loan myself to them, and I do not hunt out excuses for wasting my time. And wherever I am situated, I carry on my own meditations and ponder in my mind some wholesome thought.

When you pursue what is most important, you will only "loan" out your time for lower-value time commitments.

Point 3 - spend time with people worthy of it

I can almost hear Seneca say, "I don't always spend time with people, but when I do, I prefer to spend it with Demetrius."

As the footnote states, "Demetrius of Sunium, the Cynic philosopher, who taught in Rome in the reign of Caligula and was banished by Nero.  He ... achieved the Stoic ideal of independence of all external control; he is a king and has all things to bestow upon others, but needs nothing for himself."

It seems that Seneca quite admires the Cynic Demetrius; while Epictetus adored the Cynic Diogenes.

Point 4 - "The shortest cut to riches is to despise riches"

This part reminds me of the story of the businessman and the fisherman.  Here is a link to the 'Brazilian version of it.'

Letters from a Stoic 42 - On Values

On Values

This letter resonates deeply with me.  I'm in my mid-40's as I write this commentary.  Over half my career is behind me.  Many people experience what is called a mid-life crisis at this age.  I think it stems from the fact that one feels the pressing weight of time beginning to bear down on them.  And if they've not achieved their goals which they've set for themselves while they were in their 20's, they begin to feel they have a chance to start over and accomplish them.  Some wish to re-gain their youthful vigor through exercise regimens, plastic surgery or new friends, while others strive to preserve what they already gained.  Regardless the approach, the one common denominator is time.  The older one gets, the more acutely aware he is of this precious commodity.  Seneca discusses time and other important values, which too many of us trade cheaply.

But before we get to that, Seneca starts off the letter by warning Lucilius of people who say they are good men.  This is a red flag.  He observes:

it is impossible in so short a time for one either to become good or be known as such. ...  if he knew what it meant to be "a good man," he would not yet believe himself such ... In the case of many men, their vices, being powerless, escape notice ... These men simply lack the means whereby they may unfold their wickedness.

Therefore, be weary of people who say they are good and to 'follow me.'  The truly good man is exceptionally rare.  I presume Seneca is referring to the sage, and that sages are as rare as the phoenix.

For one of the first class perhaps springs into existence, like the phoenix, only once in five hundred years. And it is not surprising, either, that greatness develops only at long intervals; Fortune often brings into being commonplace powers, which are born to please the mob; but she holds up for our approval that which is extraordinary by the very fact that she makes it rare.

In the second half of the letter, Seneca analyzes value.  Have you thought about this?  What do we value and how do we value it?

Just the other night, the world observed Saturn and Jupiter align almost perfectly, making the appearance of a 'new star.'  Honestly, it wasn't much to behold if you are used to seeing the night sky - all the celestial bodies are simply glittering lights in the dark sky.  But because these two planets had not aligned like this for 800 years, people were awash with anxiety to see it.  If you missed it, and you're fairly young, don't worry; you'll see them this close in the year 2080.

But what about with regard to the indifferents we pursue in life?  Are there hidden costs?  Do we not see the other values lost when we pursue them?

with regard to the objects which we pursue, and for which we strive with great effort, we should note this truth; either there is nothing desirable in them, or the undesirable is preponderant. Some objects are superfluous; others are not worth the price we pay for them. But we do not see this clearly, and we regard things as free gifts when they really cost us very dear.

Don't think of 'buying' only in terms of hard cash.  Rather, think of the aspects of your very self that you spend in pursuit of objects.

we are eager to attain them at the cost of anxiety, of danger, and of lost honour, personal freedom, and time; so true it is that each man regards nothing as cheaper than himself.

This is where I worry most at my age.  It feels as though I'm constantly analyzing the cost-benefit analysis of all my activities.  Am I really getting benefit out of this activity?  Is this work useful and a wise expenditure of time?  Am I wasting away myself in a certain pursuit?

There was a time, when I was younger, when I would never leave a meeting until it ended.  But now, when I think of all the work I have to accomplish and the time wasted by people blathering on about nothing important, I feel the sting of time slipping out of my hands.  Sometimes I do quietly leave a meeting and never regret it.  But I also feel the sting of broken relationships.  These are largely built on time; simply talking and getting familiar with each other.  Therefore, I have to find a balance.

I think the key point Seneca is trying to make, is for each of us to consider our time, anxiety, danger, honor and freedom when we are deciding how to live.  I've focused a lot on time, as I think it is the most precious.  But we can also consider freedom, which is closely related to time.

Consider a person who moves upwards through the corporate ranks and acquires wealth, expensive cars, prestige, a large home, a vacation home and so forth.  At some point, they have really acquired golden handcuffs.  At some point, they lose real freedom.  They don't have much say in the matter of how they spend their time.  Their choices are limited and they are no better off than a slave.

Have you ever seen the couple who has so much wealth, that the children expect it to be given to them?  The children's growth is stunted as they've been given everything.  The parents begin to resent their children who won't stand on their own, as the kids hold out their hands for more.  The whole relationship is a sad state of affairs.

I believe there is a medium that many can achieve.  We don't have to be paupers or slaves.  But we also don't have to be executives.  We can also help our kids holistically by striving for wisdom, rather than ease.

Seneca offers some advice when deciding if our very selves are worth the expense.  We should be stingy with our time as if we were stingy with our money if a "huckster" approached us trying to sell us something.

Let us therefore act, in all our plans and conduct, just as we are accustomed to act whenever we approach a huckster who has certain wares for sale; let us see how much we must pay for that which we crave. Very often the things that cost nothing cost us the most heavily; I can show you many objects the quest and acquisition of which have wrested freedom from our hands. We should belong to ourselves, if only these things did not belong to us.

The same goes for things that we may lose!  If we lose money, or home, or other possessions, we should also not spend our anxiety or time by wringing our hands over a loss.  There is always a silver lining to look for, if you but look.  If you lose money, then you will have less worry; if you lose influence, you will have less envy.

Look about you and note the things that drive us mad, which we lose with a flood of tears; you will perceive that it is not the loss that troubles us with reference to these things, but a notion of loss. No one feels that they have been lost, but his mind tells him that it has been so. He that owns himself has lost nothing. But how few men are blessed with ownership of self!

Letters from a Stoic 1 - On Saving Time

On Saving Time

Seneca describes the problem - we are wasting our most precious resource: time.

pay close heed to the problem, you will find that the largest portion of our life passes while we are doing ill, a goodly share while we are doing nothing, and the whole while we are doing that which is not to the purpose.

Regarding how precious this resource is:

What fools these mortals be! They allow the cheapest and most useless things, which can easily be replaced, to be charged in the reckoning, after they have acquired them; but they never regard themselves as in debt when they have received some of that precious commodity, – time! And yet time is the one loan which even a grateful recipient cannot repay.

What are we to do?  What if most of our life has already past?  What do we do now?

I do not regard a man as poor, if the little which remains is enough for him. I advise you, however, to keep what is really yours; and you cannot begin too early.

The answer is, we have enough time, now.  We must seize the day and make the most of the time while we have it.

What else can you do, to ensure you don't waste your time?

What I've learned from any others is that planning is big.  Plan your day, set goals and establish systems to live your life by.  If you are aimless, then the first task at hand is to aim.  Find out what you want in life - what you want to be, where you want to go and live, what do you want to do.  Make a plan to acquire real, usable skills which will enable you to earn a living.  Be sure the skills you learn are sustainable and that they are something others are willing to pay you for.

This establishes "a base" for you.  This gets you up and working and contributing to society.  This also buys you more time to work on higher value activities.  Also know, that very little is needed to get you 'up and working' as it were.  Thoreau's Walden proves this - read it if you must.  In today's post-modern society, any person with a healthy body and brain can make a living if they manage their wants and desires.

Once your base is established, work to grow it and try to find ways to be more efficient at it.  All the while, you should be finding and understanding your unique, core values - what makes you happy and what your unique contribution to society is or will be.

And always be sure to set aside time, every day, to work on understanding your philosophy and to live it.  Read Marcus Aurelius, Seneca, Epictetus and other philosophers.  Think about it, talk about it, embody it.

Commentary on Meditations: B1.12

12. From Alexander the Platonist: rarely, and never without essential cause, to say or write to anyone that 'I am too busy'; nor to use a similar excuse, advancing 'pressure of circumstances', in constant avoidance of the proprieties inherent in our relations to our fellows and contemporaries.

It seems that Marcus learned to avoid the excuse of “I am too busy” when it comes to spending time with people in our important relationships.

My wife and I used to have a running joke about making each other feel a little guilty every time we had to decide between carrying out a duty and spending time with family.  Whenever one of those conflicts would come out, we'd sing "and the cat's in the cradle and the silver spoon ..."  if you don't understand that reference, then you can search on-line for the song entitle “Cats’ in the Cradle” by Harry Chapin. The gist of the song is that the dad is too busy to spend time with his kid and then eventually, when the kid is all grown up, the dad wants to spend time with the kid and the kid is too busy for the dad. It's a sad song and it's meant to give us all a major guilt trip. Without too much sappiness and guilt, the message is clear: make time with those closest to you; invest in your most important relationships; and don't let busy-ness be an excuse.