Anti-Metaphysicalism, Necessity, and Temporal Ontology
Balaguer (Mark)
Source: Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, vol. 92 (January 2016), pp. 145-167
Paper - Abstract

Paper StatisticsColour-ConventionsDisclaimer

Author’s Abstract

  1. This paper argues for a certain kind of anti-metaphysicalism about the temporal ontology debate, i.e., the debate between presentists and eternalists over the existence of past and future objects.
  2. Three different kinds of anti-metaphysicalism are defined — namely, non-factualism, physical-empiricism, and trivialism. The paper argues for the disjunction1 of these three views.
  3. It is then argued that trivialism is false, so that either non-factualism or physical-empiricism is true.
  4. Finally, the paper ends with a discussion of whether we should endorse non-factualism or physical-empiricism. An initial reason is provided for thinking that non-factualism might be true, but in the end, the paper leaves this question open.
  5. The paper also argues against a certain kind of necessitarianism about the temporal ontology debate; but this isn’t an extra job — the falsity of this necessitarian view falls out of the other arguments as a sort of corollary.


For the full text, see Balaguer - Anti-Metaphysicalism, Necessity, and Temporal Ontology.

Text Colour Conventions (see disclaimer)

  1. Blue: Text by me; © Theo Todman, 2020
  2. Mauve: Text by correspondent(s) or other author(s); © the author(s)

© Theo Todman, June 2007 - Oct 2020. Please address any comments on this page to File output:
Website Maintenance Dashboard
Return to Top of this Page Return to Theo Todman's Philosophy Page Return to Theo Todman's Home Page