Arthur Prior and Augustine’s Alleged Presentism

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an interesting paper, that takes up the task of a close reading of Augustine's confessions, with a view to sorting out what view he had of time, and whether Prior (and subsequent philosophers) are right to say that he was a presentist. The paper is interesting, historically speaking. Since I am not an historian I am not well placed to determine whether the author is correct in what they say regarding Augustine's views. 

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewers,

Thank you all for your comments. They are appreciated and have helped me write a much better article. Before turning to your specific comments individually, I would like to make a few general notes: 

After applying your comments regarding my insufficient language and clarity, I sent the article to a professional (university-educated in English and literature) who went through the whole article. Changes have been made in almost every pericope. 

All Latin and German have been translated. My article no longer presupposes any education in this area. I have also consistently written the relevant Latin words in parentheses when it is a single word or, at most, something like “nec sunt”. Otherwise, they are all included in the footnotes just as the quotes were in the previous version.

The treatments of Augustine have been abbreviated by three and a half pages. As one reviewer pointed out, the argument could be sufficiently made with less. I have written more about how Prior and Augustine relate thereby making them, to some extent, more integrated. 

Finally, I have clarified why this rather historical article is relevant to the current debate. While philosophers ought to define the concepts they apply the fact remains that presentism often goes undefined even though it has come to include a wide spectrum of divergent views. Whether the doctrine is defended or attacked, awareness of its historical (both theological and philosophical) roots demonstrates the necessity of a clear definition for analytic philosophy to actually be analytical.

 

Specifically to your review: 

I appreciate that you found my article interesting. As you have no specific complaints I believe the abovementioned comments will suffice. 

Kind regards!

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the present state, the manuscript is not publishable. First and foremost, the manuscript seems to be of mere exegetical interest. Secondly, the arguments don't seem to be very precise and clear, for the author spends too much time telling the reader what their interpretation of Augustine's and Prior's work is, instead of arguing more carefully for how they relate.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The author would have to thoroughly edit the manuscript for it to be publishable anywhere. The author is very inconsistent when it comes to providing translations of expressions in other languages (Latin and German) that are used throughout the paper. Furthermore, various sentences could be clearer, as they are quite convoluted.

Here are some examples of stylistic comments from the beginning of the paper:

1.      The expressions ‘former’ and ‘latter’ are misused in the abstract, for the author hasn’t mentioned any two parts of the paper. They should be replaced by ‘first’ and ‘second’.

2.     The first sentence of the paper is hard to read. Does the author mean that ‘praesens’ contains the meaning of ‘existing’?

3.     When the author says ‘quite often presents an inadequate understanding of Augustine himself’, they presumably mean an inadequate understanding of Augustine’s philosophy.

4.     Similarly, in the next sentence, the author presumably means that Prior made use of the theses employed by the relevant medieval and ancient philosophers and theologians.

5.     I couldn’t understand this sentence: “Due to this, the presentism of Prior’s tense logic is estimated differently”.

6.     “Moving from a language of space-time to substance it was possible to criticize tenseless property descriptions as “being green in August” ascribed to a leaf.” – this sentence read awkwardly to me.

7.     Is there a reason why “past” is cut out in the second attempt at definition on page 3 by Prior?

8.     Is there a reason why sometimes the author translates from Latin, and other times they do not in the presentation of Augustine’s view?

9.     Similarly, why are there sentences in German that are not translated?

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewers,

Thank you all for your comments. They are appreciated and have helped me write a much better article. Before turning to your specific comments individually, I would like to make a few general notes: 

After applying your comments regarding my insufficient language and clarity, I sent the article to a professional (university-educated in English and literature) who went through the whole article. Changes have been made in almost every pericope. 

All Latin and German have been translated. My article no longer presupposes any education in this area. I have also consistently written the relevant Latin words in parentheses when it is a single word or, at most, something like “nec sunt”. Otherwise, they are all included in the footnotes just as the quotes were in the previous version.

The treatments of Augustine have been abbreviated by three and a half pages. As one reviewer pointed out, the argument could be sufficiently made with less. I have written more about how Prior and Augustine relate thereby making them, to some extent, more integrated. 

Finally, I have clarified why this rather historical article is relevant to the current debate. While philosophers ought to define the concepts they apply the fact remains that presentism often goes undefined even though it has come to include a wide spectrum of divergent views. Whether the doctrine is defended or attacked, awareness of its historical (both theological and philosophical) roots demonstrates the necessity of a clear definition for analytic philosophy to actually be analytical.

 

Specifically to your review: 

Comments 1: “First and foremost, the manuscript seems to be of mere exegetical interest.”

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. Though this was not my intention, I agree that this was the case and have therefore made it explicit both in the abstract and conclusion why (as mentioned above) I believe historical awareness reminds us of the importance of definitions, which is especially important regarding presentism. Finally, I have made it explicit how the invention of tense logic is proof that thorough engagement with history may change the current philosophical debates radically.

 

Comments 2: “Secondly, the arguments don't seem to be very precise and clear, for the author spends too much time telling the reader what their interpretation of Augustine's and Prior's work is, instead of arguing more carefully for how they relate.”

Response 2: I have written more specifically about how Prior applied Confessiones and how it impacted his thinking. The two should now be more integrated. Focussing more on signposting has made the arguments more precise and clear. Likewise, summaries are used to make the relationship between Prior and Augustine more explicit.

 

Comments 3: “The author would have to thoroughly edit the manuscript for it to be publishable anywhere. The author is very inconsistent when it comes to providing translations of expressions in other languages (Latin and German) that are used throughout the paper. Furthermore, various sentences could be clearer, as they are quite convoluted.”

Response 3: I agree that consistency was an issue and various sentences problematic. This issue is addressed in the general comments above.

 

Comments 4: “1. The expressions ‘former’ and ‘latter’ are misused in the abstract, for the author hasn’t mentioned any two parts of the paper. They should be replaced by ‘first’ and ‘second’.”

Response 4: “Former" and “latter” have been replaced with “first” and “second”. In fact, the whole abstract has been thoroughly revised. 

 

Comments 5: “2. The first sentence of the paper is hard to read. Does the author mean that ‘praesens’ contains the meaning of ‘existing’?”

Response 5: The sentence has been replaced by the following: “Praesens,” the Latin word for present, is the present participle of “praeesse,” which contains the root word “esse” (to be).

 

Comments 6: “3. When the author says ‘quite often presents an inadequate understanding of Augustine himself’, they presumably mean an inadequate understanding of Augustine’s philosophy.”

Response 6: Yes! His philosophy of time. This has been rewritten. Thanks!

 

Comments 7: “4. Similarly, in the next sentence, the author presumably means that Prior made use of the theses employed by the relevant medieval and ancient philosophers and theologians.”

Response 7: I have changed it to the following: “In developing his tense logic, however, Prior engaged thoroughly with ancient and medieval sources because these earlier scholars perceived things and offered insights modern logicians did not (1962, 140; 152; 1967, 16). A specific example of this is Prior’s opinion that his presentism embodied the logic in Augustine’s view that the non-existing past and future must be understood in relation to the actually existing present.”

 

Comments 8: “5. I couldn’t understand this sentence: “Due to this, the presentism of Prior’s tense logic is estimated differently”.”

Response 8: It now reads: “One of the reasons why contemporary presentism contains the abovementioned plurality is Prior’s lack of a precise definition. This has resulted in Prior’s own view being evaluated differently and thus offers considerable leeway in the interpretation of his work.”

 

Comments 9: “6. “Moving from a language of space-time to substance it was possible to criticize tenseless property descriptions as “being green in August” ascribed to a leaf.” – this sentence read awkwardly to me.”

Response 9: It has been reformulated the following way: “Moving from a language of space-time to a language of substances, it was possible to criticize tenseless property descriptions such as “being green in August” ascribed to a leaf.”

 

Comments 10: “7. Is there a reason why “past” is cut out in the second attempt at definition on page 3 by Prior?”

Response 10: The reason is that this is a literal copy of Prior’s note. To avoid confusion I have now written “pa[st]”.

 

Comments 11: “8. Is there a reason why sometimes the author translates from Latin, and other times they do not in the presentation of Augustine’s view?”

Response 11: My original reason was to keep the quotes where a minimal knowledge of Latin was sufficient for understanding the citations. In light of your (and another reviewer’s) comments, I realized this was a mistake that made my article inconsistent in language and less accessible for philosophers. 

 

Comments 12: “9. Similarly, why are there sentences in German that are not translated?”

Response 12: I have either eliminated or translated all German quotes and words. 

 

Thank you for taking the time to comment on my article. The new version is better because of it. 

Kind regards!

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

My review is uploaded below (review of prior and augustine.docx).

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

These are included in the Comments and Suggestions for Authors.

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewers,

Thank you all for your comments. They are appreciated and have helped me write a much better article. Before turning to your specific comments individually, I would like to make a few general notes: 

After applying your comments regarding my insufficient language and clarity, I sent the article to a professional (university-educated in English and literature) who went through the whole article. Changes have been made in almost every pericope. 

All Latin and German have been translated. My article no longer presupposes any education in this area. I have also consistently written the relevant Latin words in parentheses when it is a single word or, at most, something like “nec sunt”. Otherwise, they are all included in the footnotes just as the quotes were in the previous version.

The treatments of Augustine have been abbreviated by three and a half pages. As one reviewer pointed out, the argument could be sufficiently made with less. I have written more about how Prior and Augustine relate thereby making them, to some extent, more integrated. 

Finally, I have clarified why this rather historical article is relevant to the current debate. While philosophers ought to define the concepts they apply the fact remains that presentism often goes undefined even though it has come to include a wide spectrum of divergent views. Whether the doctrine is defended or attacked, awareness of its historical (both theological and philosophical) roots demonstrates the necessity of a clear definition for analytic philosophy to actually be analytical.

 

Specifically to your review: 

As your comments are quite extensive I only copy an extraction of them as you will easily be able to remember your point. On that note: Thank you sincerely for your very thorough and substantial review! I understand that this part has to be anonymous, but you ought to be thanked by name when the article is published. I appreciate your work and was not expecting to be provided with eight pages of comments and alternative sentences where my language struggled. 

 

Comments 1: “… awkwardness of language …”

Response 1: As mentioned above I have used a professional to go through the article and help me rewrite passages. Both language and communication are in better shape now. 

 

Comments 2: “… the very first sentence …”

Response 2: Absolutely! I have used your sentence (thanks!) and have also made a footnote about the meaning of “praesum”. As Prior is very much engaged in discussing language when arguing for presentism, and as Augustine uses the Latin word frequently, I do think this “linguistic excavation” provides a good entrée to the article. Should you disagree, I will be happy to change it. 

 

Comments 3: “The second sentence …”

Response 3: This now reads: “That this is not just a linguistic accident, but reflects a deep metaphysical connection between existing and being present, is an insight shared by Augustine of Hippo (354-430) and Arthur Norman Prior (1914-1969).” — which is what you wrote adding their lifespan and changing “isn’t” to “is not”. 

 

Comments 4: “… the third sentence …”

Response 4: I have used your formulation. 

 

Comments 5: “Fourth sentence …”

Response 5: Again, I have used your suggestion.

 

Comments 6: “… the last two sentences …”

Response 6: I have reformulated the sentences as the views should not sound “unexceptional and anodyne”. Your comment highlighted the need to formulate explicitly why it was immensely challenging to the contemporary debate — both at the time of Prior and today. It now reads: “In developing his tense logic, however, Prior engaged thoroughly with ancient and medieval sources because these earlier scholars perceived things and offered insights modern logicians did not (1962, 140; 152; 1967, 16). A specific example of this is Prior’s opinion that his presentism embodied the logic in Augustine’s view that the non-existing past and future must be understood in relation to the actually existing present. By doing so, he challenged the most dominant conception of time amongst his contemporary philosophers: eternalism or, as Prior calls it, “the tapestry view of time” (1999, 266).”

 

Comments 7: “The stakes need to be clearer … what goal … anticipated payoff …”

Response 7: Great comment! Both here and in the abstract I have made it explicit that the payoff is not only of historical interest but contains three additional points: It explains the diversity in presentism today, it demonstrates why clearly defining presentism is of major importance, and it shows how historical interest was paramount to the invention of tense logic, wherefore historical interest likewise can have crucial consequences for the current debate about time and tense.

 

Comments 8: “Section-by-section comments: 2. Prior’s Presentism. First sentence …”

Response 8: I have pushed this sentence to the paragraph right before and changed it into “… there are reasons why presentism has come to include a wide spectrum of divergent views.”

 

Comments 9: “First sentence, second paragraph … isn’t logically equivalent …” 

Response 9: I agree. I have reread Prior’s passage and changed it to “logical connection”. Moreover, I have changed what I wrote to make it explicit that the logical connection is about tenses and the truth-value of propositions. From this the rest of the paragraph makes sense, and it also highlights the importance of Prior being inspired by ancient and medieval views of propositions — Augustine included. 

 

Comments 10: “Second to last paragraph … denote …”

Response 10: Yes, denote is the wrong word. It now reads: “The past and future are needed to signify the present similar to how the real can be signified by the merely possible. That is, having to define what “being present” means, we need to relate it to the past and future.”

 

Comments 11: “Concluding comment … best attempt at a summary statement … boil it down to a single sentence?”

Response 11: This comment was extremely helpful. I have written my best attempt and included a conclusion and signpost: “While the above discussion demonstrates how Prior grappled with a precise definition of presentism and offers a glimpse of the interpretive struggles of successive generations of scholars, we must, for the purpose of this paper, attempt to define Priorian presentism in the following way: The present is fundamental and conveys what is true, real, and the case, thereby being a local perspective, which, contrary to the past and future, need no qualifying prefix like “now” or “presently”. Prior’s work on tense logic and presentism, then, clearly offers valuable insights into the nature of presentness and its relation to truth, but how does it relate to the Augustinian conception of time? In order to confront that question, we must now turn to a detailed analysis of the eleventh book of Confessiones.”

 

Comments 12: “The Eleventh Book … Beginning of second paragraph … justify the journey?”

Response 12: You are right that this foreshadows the conclusion ahead. However, it is not enough to base a full interpretation of “Augustine’s Neoplatonic degrees-of-reality metaphysics” on. A number of points are made through the interpretation of his broader corpus that are necessary for sufficiently demonstrating why I call certain interpretations misinterpretations. You later raise the question of whether less could suffice, which I have taken into account by erasing 3.5 pages of my earlier draft about Augustinian temporality. 

 

Comments 13: “End of second paragraph … this isn’t the fallacy Augustine identifies …”

Response 13: You are correct that this is not the fallacy Augustine addresses here. This is one of the sentences I have cut. This also puts less emphasis on “incomparabilis”, which you (later) argue was overemphasized. 

 

Comments 14: “Section 3 … need a summary …”

Response 14: Yes, absolutely! I took the liberty of combining this with your next comment: “… begin this section with a summary of apparent similarities …”. In this way, the scene is set to provide “evidence that commonalities between Prior’s and Augustine’s views of time aren’t accidental”. This also gives a much smoother transition from Confessiones XI to Prior’s utilization. 

 

Comments 15: “4. Prior’s utilization … The agenda …”

Response 15: cf. “Response 14” above.

 

Comments 16: “First paragraph … what significance …”

Response 16: I have written in the updated version that it is significant because it proves that the very first time Prior wrote on entertaining the idea of a non-existent past and future in contrast to an actually existing present he does so in direct reference to Augustine. I have also changed “incorrect” to “imprecise” and made it explicit why it is so. 

 

Comments 17: “… Prior’s notation … ‘x future’, in fact, …”

Response 17: I have made additional sentences to explain, for example, what “‘x future’, in fact, = (x present) future” means. This should make it more accessible. 

 

Comments 18: “… “long time” … insufficiently equipped …”

Response 18: I have added explanations of what Prior means and how this is related to Augustine’s discussion of a long time. The most thorough revision is the addition of the following: “Augustine demonstrated the present moment as razor-thin and non-extended by focussing on the human experience of reality. Prior’s focus on logic and language reveals the present as something fundamental in which our past and future tense statements are grounded. A past-tensed fact, for example, is true by being abiding from moment to moment, while it can be explained how it was not a fact before the given change actually occurred in the thing. In this way, a proposition about the past can be true by abiding from moment to moment even though the moment when it happened no longer exists.” 

 

Comments 19: “Section 4’s conclusion …”

Response 19: You mention changing “was of inspiration to” to “inspired”, which I have done. The rest of the conclusion has been completely rewritten. 

 

Comments 20: “Sections 5-8 … It isn’t clear how all the points touched on in these sections are relevant …”

Response 20: I have come to agree and have, therefore, removed a lot from these pages. It was kind of you to mention the points you found most relevant to my overall argument. I think these pages are now much more in line with the purpose of the article. You also mention “… at least an apparent tension …” which I will address in “Response 21”.

 

Comments 21: “This strikes me as a one-sided account … suggests a subjective dimension … back to the passages from The Confessiones …”

Response 21: This was an immensely valuable comment! Bringing the discussion back to Confessiones provided me with the opportunity to make sure my reading of Augustine had reached a full circle. The sections on Augustine’s broader corpus now end with more than half a page that demonstrates a reading where the “subjective dimension” of time is held together with his not knowing, his belief in time, and his description of created and historical time. By doing so, Gale and Power receive fairer treatment. 

 

Comments 22: “9. Augustine’s Proto-Presentism … a bit of a jumble …”

Response 22: In light of your comment, I have erased the first paragraph and moved directly to the conclusion. 

 

Comments 23: “Regarding methodology … speak across this divide …”

Response 23: You are correct that readers ought to know that Augustine and Prior differed in methodology. I also believe that they know. But again and again, they do not apply this when actually interpreting Augustine. Therefore, I find it necessary to make the point explicit. But I have added the reason for doing so. I have also added reasons why we can, indeed, speak across the divide by focusing not only on differences in method but also similarities like applying logic to language and a common sense approach to reality. I have changed the word “primarily” in “primarily question-asking” as the wording was too strong. You are also right that Augustine reached several conclusions in his writings and would definitely enter into a debate about, for example, divine knowledge of tensed propositions. However, he does have restrictions on how strong the conclusions are when the topic is the attributes of the divine nature/essence. I have focussed less on divine foreknowledge as an example of this in order not to introduce a new question into the conclusion. Instead, I write shortly about the formalizing aspect that is relevant to Prior’s application of Augustine. 

 

Comments 24: “It’s the other difference, in ontology … current debates …”

Response 24: If Augustinian temporality is often misrepresented in modern expositions I think a more thorough article demonstration is necessary than “it’s just a matter of pointing it out”. Indeed, to investigate this it was necessary to read several thousands of pages. To present this — from Conf XI to broader corpus back to Conf XI — I do not think “one or two pages” would suffice. What I have done with your comments is cut the abovementioned 3.5 pages on Augustine. Your comment about the “effect on current debates within presentism” was valuable as it led to explicit formulations of why I would argue that it is relevant. In my article, I now argue that this history explains why we have a spectrum of divergent views. But more importantly, engaging with the history of presentism’s theological and philosophical roots underlines the necessity of defining what one defends or attacks. Clarity about this would certainly help the current debate. Finally, Prior’s invention of tense logic proves how interest in the history of philosophical and theological ideas can stimulate new ways of thinking and formalizing time and tense. These points are now explicit in my article. 

 

Again, thank you for your contribution to my article. Your comments have made it possible to take it to another level. 

Kind regards! 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has improved significantly, and I think it is now a much more interesting read as an article in history of philosophy.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

I am pleased that you are satisfied with my improvements. Thanks again for all your comments that made it possible. Some changes have been made in light of another reviewer's commentaries. 

Kind regards! 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is much improved.  Here are three little (easy) things to change.  Then I’ll mention a bigger problem, which might require major changes (if I’m right about its being a problem); alternatively, you might avoid the problem by narrowing the scope of the paper (as I’ll explain below).

The smallest and easiest change: add an ‘e’ to ‘Augustin’ in the section heading on page 2.  (There’s also an ‘Augustin’ on page 7.)

Response 10 (referring now to your comments on my comments): ‘Denote’ has been replaced by other language, but it’s still unclear to me what is being claimed here.  Maybe an example of what you have in mind by “the real” being “signified by the merely possible” (and the present by the past and future) might help.  Is this a contrastive point—e.g., that things can be picked out, referred to, identified, only by distinguishing them from what they are not?  Or something else?  “[H]aving to define what “being present” means, we need to relate it to the past and future”—we need to do this for what reason?  So that we really understand what “being present” means?  Or because this is just the natural order of investigation: we start with the present, and then understand the past and future in relation to it?  Or . . . ?  If the point is clear and I’m just not seeing it, I apologize!

Section 4: The presentation of Prior’s position is fairly abstract, e.g., “the presence of the futurity or the futurity of the presence of an event is simultaneous with the futurity of the event itself” (and many similar passages).  Some concrete examples would be helpful.

The big issue:  In my comments on the original paper, I suggested that the problems you raise for “the widespread assumption among contemporary presentists that Augustine is the godfather of presentism” would “have little if any effect on current debates within presentism.”  You have risen to this challenge in the last section of the revised paper (“Augustine’s Proto-Presentism”), but not enough (I think) to meet the challenge.  I’ll comment on each of the three paragraphs of this section, following its introductory paragraph.

Paragraph 2: An important difference between Augustine and most (all?) contemporary presentists, including Prior, is that God, the Most Real, is eternal rather than temporal.  (It’s  remarkable how many theistic philosophers working in the analytic tradition—Dean Zimmerman, Patrick Todd, and many others—are presentists!)  But for contemporary presentists, this will just be a quaint feature of Augustine’s metaphysics—it won’t affect their ongoing investigations, any more than Sir Isaac Newton’s interest in alchemy affects current work in physics.  If Augustine’s eternalism is more relevant to the current debate than this, we need some explanation of why this is so.

Paragraph 3: For Augustine, with his degreed metaphysics, “the law of excluded middle does not apply,” while for Prior (and the analytic tradition more generally), “something exists or does not exist.”  This speaks to a limitation in the analytic investigation of time, which contemporary presentists should take to heart, but I don’t think it successfully identifies what that limitation is, because it’s too strong.  The law of excluded middle isn’t violated unless the terms in the affirmative disjunct are being used in the same sense as the terms in the negative disjunct, and in a degrees-of-reality metaphysics, like the one Augustine takes over from the Neoplatonists, “exist” when used of me and “exist” when used of God have different senses.  The law of excluded middle isn’t what prevents contemporary analytic philosophers from appreciating and drawing on the resources offered by a degrees-of-reality metaphysics.

Paragraph 4: It’s in this concluding paragraph that my question about the contemporary relevance of the paper to ongoing debates within presentism is most directly addressed:

While this article mainly seeks to understand the theological and philosophical roots of presentism, the historical approach contributes more to the current debate than simply warning about misinterpreting Augustinian temporality. Examining Priorian presentism clearly demonstrates why contemporary presentism “has come to include a wide spectrum of divergent views”. A stronger awareness of the historical roots of Prior’s line of thinking should lead modern philosophers to carefully and explicitly defininge what is meant by “presentism” whenever the view is defended or attacked.

The problem is that no evidence has been offered to show that the “wide spectrum of divergent views” includes divergent definitions of “presentism.”

Page 1: “he [Prior] never gave an exact definition.”  That doesn’t show that current presentists haven’t coalesced around an exact definition, only that Prior failed to do so.

Page 2 (top of page): “presentism has come to include a wide spectrum of divergent views.”  Such as?  What is the evidence that this wide spectrum includes divergent views of how presentism is to be defined?

Page 2 (beginning of section 2):

One of the reasons why contemporary presentism contains the abovementioned plurality is Prior’s lack of a precise definition. This has resulted in Prior’s own view being evaluated differently and thus offers considerable leeway in the interpretation of his work. Curtin and Robson, for example, say that “Prior was the first to develop presentism in detail” (2016, 95), while Ingram and Tallant write “we think that it’s less obvious that Prior’s complete view on time is presentism” (2022).

If the actual diversity of views among contemporary presentists has anything to do with Prior’s lack of a precise definition, we need to be told what the connection is.  The evidence offered in this passage is only of how Prior’s lack of precision has led to diverse interpretations of whether and in what sense Prior can be classified as a presentist.

Page 4 (wrapping up section 2): “the above discussion demonstrates how Prior grappled with a precise definition of presentism and offers a glimpse of the interpretive struggles of successive generations of scholars.”  Again, this speaks only to interpretive struggles over how Prior is best understood, not how “presentism” is defined by those involved in the current discussion.

It’s true that contemporary presentists opt for different strategies when responding to the most notorious problems confronting presentism, such as how to accommodate truths about the past.  They are clearly diverse in that respect.  But I’m not aware of any significant differences in how they understand what the presentist position is.  It’s always some version of “only the present exists” (or “only the present is real”).  Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: “Presentism is the view that only present things exist.” Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy: “Presentism, as a metaphysical thesis about time, is the view that only what is present exists.”  Wikipedia: “Philosophical presentism is the view that only present entities exist.”  Oxford Handbook of the Philosophy of Time: “Presentism is the doctrine that everything is present.”  Etc.

In sum, if there is a problem with the definition of “presentism” as used by participants in the current debate, which an investigation of Augustine and Prior can help elucidate, it isn’t clear what that problem is.

Since I’m responsible for asking you to address your argument’s “effect on current debates within presentism,” I’m going to suggest now that you might want to ignore the request.  The main business of the paper is to problematize Augustine’s role in the “origin story” of presentism, especially as that story involves the seminal figure of A. N. Prior.  That might be enough for the journal.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

none

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Once again, I thank you for your thoroughness. All your comments have been taken into account. The “bigger problem” will be dealt with last under “Response 6”. Below I have included citations of most additions and referred to the rest so you do not have to read the entire article again. 

 

Comment 1: “The smallest and easiest change: add an ‘e’ to ‘Augustin’ in the section heading on page 2. (There’s also an ‘Augustin’ on page 7.)”

Response 1: The two mistakes have been rectified. 

 

Comment 2: “Response 10 … Denote … still unclear to me what is being claimed here …” 

Response 2: Your suggestion/question that it is a contrastive point is exactly right. I have made that explicit. The reason I would like to avoid providing an example, however, is that Prior’s own comments are tentative and demonstrate his struggle with a precise definition. Thus, instead of over-precisely defining the point, I try to explicate it. The point should be fairly clear, but not too clear, as the evidence does not allow it. 

Your comment provided me with an opportunity to add an explanation of why Prior’s presentism has led to divergent views. The “present = existence” part of presentism is quite straightforward, but how non-present/non-existent times and entities should be considered and talked about is a major issue that current views of presentism need to resolve. Since Prior was fairly vague on this, divergence has followed. 

 

Comment 3: “Section 4: The presentation of Prior’s position is fairly abstract … Some concrete examples …”

Response 3: I have added concrete examples. To the example you mentioned, I have added “This simply means that saying “Today, it is five years ago that this happened” and “Five years ago, this event was happening” implies the same content.” To the description of things, not events, changing, I have added: “If an apple changes color by receiving sunlight, it is the apple, the thing, that has changed.” I already had the (two) examples of coffee drinking and explanations of the difficult Prior quotes. I think this will suffice. 

 

I now turn to “The big issue”. Let me start with the comments on specific paragraphs before turning to the “bigger problem”. 

 

Comments 4: “Paragraph 2: An important difference …”

Response 4: I agree. It has no relevance to the current debate, but is part of the conclusion in order to draw together the article. To make this explicit I have added: “While the theistic presentist may wish to consider how straightforward talk about the ontology of time carries over into talk about divine eternity, this point can be sidestepped by presentism in general.”

 

Comment 5: “Paragraph 3 … law of the excluded middle …”

Response 5: I agree here as well. I have erased “the law of the excluded middle” part, as you are right that it is “too strong”. The point is actually stated better without it — thanks! 

 

Comment 6: “Paragraph 4 … the contemporary relevance … no evidence has been offered to show that the “wide spectrum of divergent views” includes divergent definitions of “presentism.””

Response 6: “defining” has been changed to “define”. In the rest of my response, I will focus on “the big issue”: 

 

I have chosen not to “ignore the request” you made in your last review. I believe there is a way to resolve the “definition” and “current debate” problem as long as it is not the main point my article tries to make. As you write, the “origin story” is the main business of the article. However, the effect this investigation can have on the current debate within presentism is a secondary point that also deserves mentioning. Thus, I have made changes that make it explicit, how this is the case. The point is not that the definition of presentism varies to a great degree. The point is that a doctrine of presentism must explicitly contain how it deals with “responding to the most notorious problems confronting presentism, such as how to accommodate truths about the past” as you write. It is exactly at this point that Prior’s presentism is open to development, which has resulted in primitivist, reductive, and ersatzer presentism. Awareness of this calls for precisely stating what is defended/attacked in the current debate. Cf. Also “Response 2”.

To the beginning of section 2, I have added: “It should be specified what is lacking in Prior’s treatments of presentism. It is clear that only the present exists, that is, only present things and entities. This, likewise, is held by the current versions of presentism. But as a philosophical doctrine, any proper account of presentism needs to explain what this implies for the truth of past and future propositions. About this, Prior is fairly imprecise, and it is this feature that has resulted in the contemporary divergence of views.” I have attached a footnote containing the following: “Examples of these are primitivist, reductive, and ersatzer presentism (cf. Bourne 2006, 47-61; Curtis and Robson 2016, 95-101).”

To the end of section 2, I have added the following: “While this may be a fair representation of Prior’s definition, it is, again, important to note that it is not very informative about our understanding of non-present times. Thus, it may suffice for a definition of presentism, but not a doctrine thereof. Because of this, presentists have since opted for different strategies when responding to the most notorious problems confronting the view.”

The end of the conclusion (section 9) has been changed to: “While this article mainly seeks to understand the theological and philosophical roots of presentism, the historical approach contributes more to the current debate than simply warning about misinterpreting Augustinian temporality. Examining Priorian presentism clearly demonstrates why contemporary presentism “has come to include a wide spectrum of divergent views”. A stronger awareness of the historical roots of Prior’s line of thinking should lead modern philosophers to carefully and explicitly articulate what is implied by “presentism” whenever the view is defended or attacked. Indeed, the name “analytic philosophy” demands this. While defining presentism is fairly straightforward, the implications this has of non-present times and how the truths of these are interpreted is what demands an explanation, since this is where the debate gets problematic and relevant. Finally, the invention of tense logic is proof that a thorough engagement with history may change the current philosophical debates radically.” 

It should by now be clear “what the connection is” between Prior’s treatment and the current debate. It should also be clear where the current philosopher ought to demonstrate caution and make the doctrine explicit. Of course, it is still an option to ignore your former request, but I think that as long as it is a secondary point it actually is quite relevant as the implications of presentism often go undefined. 

 

Thank you very much for taking the time to respond to my work. It is appreciated! 

Kind regards! 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf