To persist is simply to exist… in the now.
Introduction
In the January 2020 edition of Philosophy Now an interesting article by Dustin Gray concludes that continuing to exist isn’t as simple as one might think.
He asks the question as to what it means to say that we and other things persist through time.
Note he is talking about objects and living things,
including human beings and not abstractions such as formulations in
mathematics.
A simple example he talks about is that of a filthy car whose dirt, grime and prolonged wear and tear renders it a far cry from its original sparkling new state. The question is as to what extent does the car (or anything for that matter) persist despite becoming barely recognizable? The argument goes as it maintains a degree of sameness, described as a concrete particular and mostly this proposition, is considered a matter of common sense.
Endurance & Perdurance
Endurantists maintain a sameness, claiming
that at any one time an object or person remains a certain identity at any
other time it exists. Hence the rusty old car always remains a car until it becomes
scrap metal.
Similarly ‘the John of today’ and ‘the John of
yesterday’ are referring to one concrete particular whose spatial parts are
wholly present at any given time throughout Jack’s existence. The endurantist claims an object’s spatial parts are the only genuine
parts of it.
Perdurantism
In contrast, perdurantism claims
that along with a thing’s spatial parts,
it also has temporal parts.
Perdurantists argue in addition of the 3 dimensions of space, a 4th dimension of temporal parts
exist; so that John yesterday, John today, and John tomorrow, are different
parts of John.
Its persistence through time consists of an
aggregate of different temporal parts present at different times. The temporal
parts are real as spatial parts: since temporal parts have properties – the
property of ‘being John last week’. So, along with having spatial extension – the
perdurantist will claim additional to the concrete particular is the temporal
extension. By way of for example, John yesterday, John today and John tomorrow.
There are also temporal parts of temporal parts- John this morning is a
temporal part of John today.
He cites the example of the bearded John is an
additional temporal parts of John, just as is John with a clean shave.
But all of this boils down to a rather elaborate
explanation that doesn’t sound very convincing.
Another Possible Answer
Rather, Gray advocates the idea of presentism, which tells us that what
is real is only what exists now. To the presentist the past and future simply
don’t exist. Reality is not temporally extended. The present is the only real
time. “To be real and to be present, the presentist wants to say, are one and
the same thing”
In summary he finds no objections in giving a clear
account of events that have transpired – with the fundamental qualification
that those events no longer exist. At the same that applies to events that
might take place in the future. Those events may be predicted, but they are not
real, yet. Until an event
is happening in the present moment, no degree of reality is ascribed to it by
the presentist.
He gives an example of - ‘George Washington had
false teeth’- whereas that expression could be verified as a true proposition.
The presentist responds by saying that it’s a true proposition about conditions
that used to exist but no longer do.
Conclusion
To describe events accurately, he asserts we must
use accurate tenses, saying that events in the past existed and events in the
future will exist. When we
do so, his claim is that the only real time is now holds water, and he
maintains it also effectively describe
past and future events.
In that strictest sense, he points out we do not persist through time. The only
real time is now, so I can do nothing but persist. Therefore, all that is necessary for me and
other things to persist through time, is to be. To persist is simply to exist… in the now.
In fact I believe living in the Now’s, without past regrets is the key to living a good life. But what do you think?
No comments:
Post a Comment