No time for powers

Backmann, Marius

No time for powers

Dateien

Backmann_2-1ahw8l52lsfho1.pdfGröße: 1.9 MBDownloads: 396

Datum

2019

URI (zitierfähiger Link)

http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bsz:352-2-1ahw8l52lsfho1

DOI (zitierfähiger Link)

https://doi.org/10.1080/0020174X.2018.1470569

Open Access-Veröffentlichung

Open Access Hybrid

Publikationstyp

Zeitschriftenartikel

Publikationsstatus

Published

Erschienen in

Inquiry : An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy. 2019, 62(9-10), pp. 979-1007. ISSN 0020-174X. eISSN 1502-3923. Available under: doi: 10.1080/0020174X.2018.1470569

Zusammenfassung

In this paper, I will investigate the compatibility of different metaphysics of time with the powers view. At first sight, it seems natural to combine some sort of powers ontology with a dynamical view of time, since the dynamic character of powers appears to account for the progression of time. Accordingly, it has been argued that a powers ontology, which is supposed to be inherently dynamic and productive, is incompatible with eternalism, which does not allow for any sort of real productivity. After having reviewed these arguments, I will argue that the powers view is not only incompatible with eternalism but also with the moving spotlight view and growing block theory. I will go on to argue that the specific notion of activity that the powers ontology provides is not straightforwardly compatible with presentism either.

Fachgebiet (DDC)

100 Philosophie

Schlagwörter

Temporal ontology, powers, eternalism, moving spotlight, growing block view, presentism

Zitieren

ISO 690

BACKMANN, Marius, 2019. No time for powers. In: Inquiry : An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy. 2019, 62(9-10), pp. 979-1007. ISSN 0020-174X. eISSN 1502-3923. Available under: doi: 10.1080/0020174X.2018.1470569

BibTex

@article{Backmann2019-11-26power-42295,
  year={2019},
  doi={10.1080/0020174X.2018.1470569},
  title={No time for powers},
  number={9-10},
  volume={62},
  issn={0020-174X},
  journal={Inquiry : An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy},
  pages={979--1007},
  author={Backmann, Marius}
}

RDF

<rdf:RDF
    xmlns:dcterms="http://purl.org/dc/terms/"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
    xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
    xmlns:bibo="http://purl.org/ontology/bibo/"
    xmlns:dspace="http://digital-repositories.org/ontologies/dspace/0.1.0#"
    xmlns:foaf="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/"
    xmlns:void="http://rdfs.org/ns/void#"
    xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#" > 
  <rdf:Description rdf:about="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/42295">
    <dspace:hasBitstream rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/bitstream/123456789/42295/3/Backmann_2-1ahw8l52lsfho1.pdf"/>
    <foaf:homepage rdf:resource="http://localhost:8080/"/>
    <dc:language>eng</dc:language>
    <dc:contributor>Backmann, Marius</dc:contributor>
    <dspace:isPartOfCollection rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/40"/>
    <dc:creator>Backmann, Marius</dc:creator>
    <dcterms:issued>2019-11-26</dcterms:issued>
    <dcterms:title>No time for powers</dcterms:title>
    <bibo:uri rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/handle/123456789/42295"/>
    <void:sparqlEndpoint rdf:resource="http://localhost/fuseki/dspace/sparql"/>
    <dcterms:rights rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/"/>
    <dcterms:abstract xml:lang="eng">In this paper, I will investigate the compatibility of different metaphysics of time with the powers view. At first sight, it seems natural to combine some sort of powers ontology with a dynamical view of time, since the dynamic character of powers appears to account for the progression of time. Accordingly, it has been argued that a powers ontology, which is supposed to be inherently dynamic and productive, is incompatible with eternalism, which does not allow for any sort of real productivity. After having reviewed these arguments, I will argue that the powers view is not only incompatible with eternalism but also with the moving spotlight view and growing block theory. I will go on to argue that the specific notion of activity that the powers ontology provides is not straightforwardly compatible with presentism either.</dcterms:abstract>
    <dc:rights>Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International</dc:rights>
    <dcterms:isPartOf rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/40"/>
    <dc:date rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">2018-05-11T07:11:18Z</dc:date>
    <dcterms:hasPart rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/bitstream/123456789/42295/3/Backmann_2-1ahw8l52lsfho1.pdf"/>
    <dcterms:available rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">2018-05-11T07:11:18Z</dcterms:available>
  </rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>

Universitätsbibliographie

Ja

Begutachtet

Ja