Static vs. Process view of time, revisited
Looking again at my essay, two years on, I see more and more to correct or qualify. On the static view of time I was getting quite desperate to find a decisive argument the day before the deadline. Fortunately for me, William Lane Craig enumerates four in his reponse to the other authors' criticisms. Unfortunately, the following is quite typical of his arguments:The static theory entails perdurantism, the doctrine that objects have
spatiotemporal parts, a view that is metaphysically counterintuitive, is
incompatible with moral accountability and entails the bizarre counterpart
of transworld identity. (William Lane Craig, in God and Time: Four Views, p.180)
I asked a few lecturers about this sentence but none had much more idea than I about its meaning. Hence, I came up with the illustration of the cricket bat. Thinking about it now though, I don't think my illustration takes it any further than saying it's 'the view of common sense' - although it does help me to understand it better. But I think the atemporalist would just view time as the fourth dimension of space and overcome it that way. I still don't agree though.
posted by Rowland @ Friday, July 29, 2005
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home