Yuval Dolev

Abstract:The notions "retinal images" and "retinal projection" are ubiquitous in both the scientific and philosophical literature on perception. However, this article argues that they belong to the former and should be kept out of the latter. In the context of the empirical investigation of perception, projections play a crucial role, and help articulate pressing research problems. But, as part of the phenomenological and conceptual analysis of perception, projections give rise to untenable models and to avoidable conundrums, such as the much discussed issue of perceptual constancy. Why are projections and retinal images so prevalent in the philosophical literature? The author conjectures that the reason has to do with conceptual fallouts of the effort to give a geometric representation to changes of perspective, a mission more daunting than it initially appears to be, and one that leads to the problematic insertion of projections into phenomenology. He suggests that correcting this shows perceptual constancy to be a starting point rather than a challenge for phenomenology.

This book examines the many faces of philosophy of time, including the metaphysical aspects, natural science issues, and the consciousness of time. It brings together the different methodologies of investigating the philosophy of time. It does so to counter the growing fragmentation of the field with regard to discussions, and the existing cleavage between analytic and continental traditions in philosophy. The book’s multidirectional approach to the notion of time contributes to a better understanding of time's metaphysical, physical and phenomenological aspects. It helps clarify the presuppositions underpinning the analytic and continental traditions in the philosophy of time and offers ways in which the differences between them can be bridged.

This paper claims that, to the extent that temporal direction figures in physics at all, it is found there as part of the extra-scientific language science employs. The asymmetry between “before” and “after” is not captured by the mathematics of any theory, nor can it be derived from the laws of any theory. This, I argue, is true even of theories whose laws are not time reversal invariant. Recognizing that physics does not yield temporal direction but receives it from the background in which physics develops and operates does not, however, expose any hitherto unknown limitations or deficiencies of physics. The claim is not about physics, but about metaphysical stances regarding physics, specifically, physicalism, which requires from physics to deliver more than it does, or should. Once the place of temporal direction in physics is understood, infamous difficulties can be addressed in a novel way. Issues emerging from the 2nd law of thermodynamics, such as the minimum problem, and the worry that the law generates outlandish predictions, are removed. A side benefit is the recognition that the past hypothesis is superfluous. A final conclusion of the paper is that the relationship between physics and everyday language, far from being a source of difficulties, is healthy and beneficial to both.

My analysis of temporal direction begins by establishing that time-reversal scenarios, scenarios in which the direction of time itself is reversed, whether locally or globally, are incoherent. Building on this conclusion, I argue that temporal directionality cannot be defined or explicated in terms of processes in time, such as the movements of celestial bodies, biological evolution or radioactive decay. In other words, while it is easy to imagine any process occurring in reverse, one cannot define the "earlier"/"later" relation by appeal to the stages of a process, for example, the consecutive stages of radioactive decay. The second section of the paper turns to a study of our firsthand experiences, and qualifies this result by arguing that experiences constitute the one class of events that cannot so much as be conceived as reversed in time. In the third section I suggested that our firsthand experiences figure as a standard by means of which temporal direction is given to us. I further argue that, despite the pivotal role played by experience in this scheme, we are fully warranted in being realists with respect to temporal directionality.

THE TENSELESS THEORY OF TIME has enjoyed a great revival in the twentieth century. Prominent philosophers such as Russell, Ayer, Goodman, Quine, and Smart and, more recently, Mellor and Parfit, have turned their philosophical efforts and talents to its defense. It is proper to refer to their work as a “revival,” for under different names, the view has been at the center of the philosophical preoccupation with time for centuries. A version of the view can be found in Augustine’s Confessions, which presents the essentials of the view in terms that are surprisingly familiar to a student educated in contemporary philosophical thought and jargon.

THE TENSELESS THEORY OF TIME has enjoyed a great revival in the twentieth century. Prominent philosophers such as Russell, Ayer, Goodman, Quine, and Smart and, more recently, Mellor and Parfit, have turned their philosophical efforts and talents to its defense. It is proper to refer to their work as a “revival,” for under different names, the view has been at the center of the philosophical preoccupation with time for centuries. A version of the view can be found in Augustine’s Confessions, which presents the essentials of the view in terms that are surprisingly familiar to a student educated in contemporary philosophical thought and jargon.

Dolev's ambitious project is to show that the traditional debate in the philosophy of time between the so-called ‘tensed’ and ‘tenseless’ theorists is not a sustainable one. The key to the negative portion argument is that both the tensed and tenseless view of time can be understood only from within their respective ontological frameworks. Moreover, that there is only really an appearance of understanding within these frameworks, since neither framework furnishes us with the wherewithal to genuinely understand temporal language. Moving past these frameworks is the goal Dolev sets us. The positive aspect of the text tries to teach us how to transcend this merely ontological dispute and engage in phenomenological considerations of time itself. The conclusion to the positive project is that we cannot postulate an adequate metaphysical system of time, though we can understand what time is if we treat it as the time of our experiences in everyday life.The prospect that we might be able to move past the existing debate into fresh philosophical terrain is exciting. But I am not quite persuaded by the arguments that are intended to motivate the move to pastures new. First, on occasion Dolev seems to slightly …

The idea that the present is "ontologically privileged" can be traced back to texts as early as St. Augustine's Confessions and Aristotle's Physics. The issue of the ontological status of tense continues to set the agenda in contemporary philosophy of time, which is dominated by two views. Proponents of the Tenseless View argue that all events are, in the timeless sense of 'are', equally real. Defenders of the rival Tensed View maintain that only present events are real, and that the reality of tense is the essence of time. The first two chapters of the dissertation are devoted to the presentation and study of these, on the face of it, mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive metaphysical theories of time. The aim of the analysis is, on the one hand, to highlight the insights that are motivating these theories and that are captured by them; on the other, it is to establish that neither theory can be squared with features of the language which it presupposes, and that, therefore, both have to be rejected. ;Uncovering and undermining the metaphysical prejudices shared by both views, in particular, the supposition that 'Real or not?' is the right question to pose with respect to tense, paves the way to the central thesis that occupies the second part of the dissertation. Crudely put, it is that the ingredients for the construction of a philosophically adequate conception of time are found, not among the products of metaphysical doctrines, but in the everyday uses we make of temporal notions. In the third chapter, a discussion of the indispensability of contexts for the use of temporal terms constitutes the beginning of the argument in support of this thesis. In chapter four an analysis of the philosophical role of tense-based biases in our attitudes concludes the argument, and yields a list of the main tools with which one can construct a conception of time out of everyday situations and the language employed in them. Chapter five consists of a demonstration of the application of these tools for the elucidation of notions such as 'the openness of the future', 'the fixity of the past' and 'time's passage' . Among the conclusions of this discussion is the suggestion that notions with which to further develop and enrich our conception of time may be obtained by the formation and participation in practices created for this end

Dolev's ambitious project is to show that the traditional debate in the philosophy of time between the so-called ‘tensed’ and ‘tenseless’ theorists is not a sustainable one. The key to the negative portion argument is that both the tensed and tenseless view of time can be understood only from within their respective ontological frameworks. Moreover, that there is only really an appearance of understanding within these frameworks, since neither framework furnishes us with the wherewithal to genuinely understand temporal language. Moving past these frameworks is the goal Dolev sets us. The positive aspect of the text tries to teach us how to transcend this merely ontological dispute and engage in phenomenological considerations of time itself. The conclusion to the positive project is that we cannot postulate an adequate metaphysical system of time, though we can understand what time is if we treat it as the time of our experiences in everyday life .The prospect that we might be able to move past the existing debate into fresh philosophical terrain is exciting. But I am not quite persuaded by the arguments that are intended to motivate the move to pastures new. First, on occasion Dolev seems to slightly …

In this paper I discuss an unconventional form of presentism which, I claim, captures better than all other versions of the doctrine the fundamental notion underpinning it, namely, the notion that 'only what is present is real'. My proposal is to take this maxim as stating, not the rather uncontroversial view that past things are not real now, but the more radical idea that they never were. This rendition of presentism is, I argue, the only one that is neither trivial nor absurd. I examine this proposal by considering it against a sceptical hypothesis that bears similarities to it, viz., the hypothesis that the world was created five minutes ago. On this hypothesis, the past, all but five minutes of it, is unreal, in precisely the sense in which the presentism I discuss claims it is. I show that, assuming semantic externalism, this sceptical hypothesis cannot be sustained, but that a somewhat weaker hypothesis, the Creationist hypothesis that the world is 5,768 years old, cannot be refuted. Together, these conclusions enable a demarcation of those presentist intuitions that language and thought tolerate and those they do not.

In this paper, I argue that context sensitivity is crucial for a proper exegesis of Wittgenstein's remark that one can say of the standard metre rod neither that it is one metre long nor that it is not one metre long. I discuss cases in which we can meaningfully assert that the rod in question is one metre long and explain why these cases do not conflict with Wittgenstein's insight. I analyse Pollock's recent defence of Wittgenstein's remark, as well as Kripke's objections to it, and show that, while their commentaries are helpful, blindness to context renders them unsatisfactory.

In this paper I argue that physics is, always was, and probably always will be voiceless with respect to tense and passage, and that, therefore, if, as I believe, tense and passage are the essence of time, physics’ contribution to our understanding of time can only be limited. The argument, in a nutshell, is that if "physics has no possibility of expression for the Now", to quote Einstein, then it cannot add anything to the study of tense and passage, and specifically, cannot add anything to the debate between deniers and affirmers of the existence or reality of tense and passage. Since relativity theory did not equip physics with a new language with which to speak of tense and passage, I draw the further conclusion that relativity theory has not generated the revolution to our conception of time that is attributed to it. In the last section I discuss the motivations behind the continued but misguided attempts to integrate tense into a relativistic setting, and assess the manners in which relativity theory has nevertheless enhanced, albeit indirectly, our understanding of tense and passage.

In this paper I claim that as bitter as the eternalist/presentist rivalry is, as far as both camps are concerned, a third position—which I defend—is more disturbing. The reason is that what eternalists and presentists agree on is more fundamental than what they disagree about. They agree that time carves, to use Orilia’s term, “ontological inventories.” This in a way answers the “fundamental question”—what is time? They disagree about the contents of the inventories, but that, I suggest, is a secondary issue. Thus, an argument against what they agree about would be more detrimental to their joint project—analyzing tense in ontological terms—than the internal disagreement they are engaged in. I develop this thesis by responding to Orilia’s paper “Two Metaphysical Perspectives on the Duration of the Present”. I criticize the specialized use Orilia makes of the notion of an “ontological inventory” in the context of the metaphysics of time, but also Quine’s approach to ontology, on which Orilia’s account relies. The gist of my criticism is that it is question begging to rely on the notion of an “ontological inventory” for giving content to the presentism/eternalism debate, and for arguing that there can’t be an alternative.