1/4
Module Syllabus
The Metaphysics of Time
Semester
Number of Credits
Time and Location
Instructors
Contact
Office
Office hours
Fall, 2015-16
2
Tuesdays, 9:00-10.40am, location tbc.
Philip Goff and Peter Rauschenberger
goffp@ceu.edu
Zrinyi u. 14, R. 307
TBC
Description
We will explore the central debates in the philosophy of time:
1. Presentism (the view that only the present moment is real) versus eternalism (all moments in
time are equally real).
2. Four-dimensionalism (objects are four-dimensional ‘spacetime worms’ stretched out across
the four dimensions of space and time) versus three-dimensionalism (an object has only three
dimensions and is wholly present at each moment of its existence).
We will explore in detail a number of familiar challenges to presentism, including:
1. If the past does not exist, how could it be that there are truths about the past, e.g. ‘There used
to be dinosaurs’? What makes such truths true if past events are unreal?
2. There seems to be a prima facie clash between presentism (which seems to imply a privileged
present moment) and special relativity (which seems to imply that there is no privileged
present moment).
Course Goals
The aims of this module are twofold: first, to provide an understanding of the various
metaphysical theories of the nature of time, and second, to develop the knowledge and
philosophical skills required to critically assess the arguments for/against each position.
Learning outcomes
By the end of the course, students will gain:
 an understanding of various metaphysical theories of time.
 a basic grasp on the special theory of relativity and its possible implications for the
metaphysics of time
 the ability to deploy the philosophical techniques and argumentative strategies that
can be used to discuss those problems
 the ability to explain the strengths and weaknesses of different positions in this area
of metaphysics
 the transferable skill of formulating and evaluating arguments for and against various
philosophical positions, both orally and in writing
2/4
Weekly schedule and compulsory readings
Week 1 – Introduction
Week 2 – Presentism and truthmaking
Week 3 – Presentism and truthmaking
Week 4 – Time and consciousness
Week 5 – Time and consciousness
Week 6 – Four-dimensionalism versus threedimensionalism
Week 7 – Four-dimensionalism versus threedimensionalism
Week 8 – Presentism and special relativity:
introducing the idea of relativity
In the first class Philip will give an online of the
various positions we will be covering in the
course. No reading is required.
Rhoda, A. R. 2009. ‘Presentism, truthmakers and
God,’ Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 90: 1, 41–
62.
Baron, S. Forthcoming. ‘Tensed truthmaker
theory,’ Erkenntnis.
Dainton. B. 2011. ‘Time and Temporal
Experience’, in Bardon, A (Ed.) The Future of the
Philosophy of Time, New York: Routledge.
Lee, G. ‘Temporal experience and the temporal
structure of experience,’ Philosophers' Imprint
14: 3, 2014.
Extract from David Lewis On the Plurality of
Worlds and commentary in Beebee & Dodd
(Eds.) Reading Metaphysics 2007, Blackwell
Publishing, 204-214.
Sally Haslanger, ‘Endurance and Temporary
Intriniscs’ & David Lewis ‘Tensing the Copula’
and commentaries in Beebee & Dodd (Eds.)
Reading
Metaphysics
2007,
Blackwell
Publishing, 214-33.
Albert Einstein, Relativity: The Special and the
General Theory, Henry Holt and Co. 1920. Part I:
The Special Theory of Relativity
William Lane Craig, ‘The metaphysics of special
relativity: three views’, in Craig and Quentin
Smith (eds.), Einstein, Relativity and Absolute
Simultaneity. Routledge 2008.
Week 9 – Presentism and special relativity:
The relativity of simultaneity: Possible
interpretations of the Lorentz invariance of
the laws of nature
Week 10 – Presentism and special relativity Kurt Gödel, ‘A Remark about the Relationship
Week 12 – Presentism and special relativity
Week 12 – Final debate
between Relativity and Idealistic Philosophy’ in
Schilp, P. (ed.) 1949. Albert-Einstein:
Philosopher-Scientist. LaSalle, Illinois: Open
Court.
Dennis Dieks, ‘Becoming, Relativity and Locality’
in Dieks (ed.) The Ontology of Spacetime.
Amsterdam: Elsevier 2006.
Dieks (see week 10)
Howard Stein ‘On Einstein-Minkowski SpaceTime’, Journal of Philosophy, 1968.
In the final session each student will decide
which of the positions we have discussed they
think is right and defend it. The position with the
most support at the end at the end of the
session will be declared true.
3/4
Requirements
Regular attendance, carefully completing the assigned readings before class, and active participation
in discussions will be expected from all students, whether registered for audit or taking the class for
credit.
Each session will begin with a presentation by one student. This will be strictly timed at 15-20 minutes.
If the students takes longer than 20 minutes they will be simply cut off. The aim of the presentation is
not to tell the class what was said in the reading, as the other students will have already read this.
Rather the presenter will tell the class what they thought of the reading, and/or of the topic of the
week more generally. The presenter must prepare either a handout or a powerpoint presentation (or
both). After the presentation, the presenter will field questions on her/his opinion for 5-10 minutes.
Following this, Philip Goff will speak for 10-15 minutes, which will lead into a general discussion for
the remaining hour.
Each student must submit a half page (if it’s more than one page resubmission will be requested) essay
plan by the end of week 9, explaining what they will argue for in their essay assignment.
Assessment
For students taking the class for credit there will be an essay assignment of 2,000 words due at the
end of the semester. Students are to formulate their own essay questions based on anything relevant
to the topics covered in the module.
Though the class grade is based on the final paper, all course requirements must be completed in a
satisfactory manner in order to earn a grade for the class. Should the final essay receive a borderline
mark, the student’s overall mark will be adjusted in light of the student’s in-class performance and
participation.
Grading criteria for final papers
Quantity:
Avoid going 10% over or under the required length. Writing clearly and succinctly within a word limit
is an important philosophical skill. Grades will thus be partly determined in light of the student’s ability
to stick closely to the word limit. The word count should include all references and footnotes (if any),
but exclude the bibliography.
Quality:
To earn a B+, the paper must clearly and concisely address the question and must be written in good
academic English. Insofar as these are relevant, the paper must demonstrate a solid understanding of
the arguments from readings in the course as well as in-class presentations and discussions. Important
principles and concepts should be clearly explained. The views of others should, where necessary, be
accurately, charitably, clearly and succinctly reconstructed, and properly cited with a bibliography. The
paper must show that you have analyzed and independently organized the material yourself in
response to the question, rather than simply following the organization of in-class presentations or
parts of the literature.
To earn an A-, the assignment must demonstrate all the above plus evidence of genuine progress as a
result of your own independent thinking, such as your own substantive evaluation and critique of the
validity and soundness of the arguments of others, or your own original positive argument. If there
are any problems with the exposition or arguments in the paper, these will be minor. Any obvious
objections to your argument will have been anticipated and answered.
4/4
Papers that earn an A will demonstrate all the above virtues to the extent that they are nearly flawless
in writing style, organization, exposition and soundness of arguments. While remaining entirely
relevant to the question, such a paper will be relatively ambitious in scope and will demonstrate an
exceptional degree of understanding and of the topic.