Philosophy of Time

Name:
Tutor:
Course:
Date:
Philosophy of Time
McTaggart divided time into ‘A-series` and ‘B-series` when interpreting time. He argues that A-series corresponds to people`s every day`s notions of categorizing time as past, present and future. He says A series is "the series of positions running from the far past through the near past to the present, and then from the present to the near future and the far future" (p. 458)". On the other hand, his arguments on B-series contrast the arguments for A-series. He refers to B-series as the position of orders from earlier to later. However, his further arguments stated that ‘A-series` is a very important element of any full theory explaining time. As a result, this easy will critically provide his arguments for this claim, the problems within the arguments, and my own opinion on the arguments.
He argues that, the reason as to why A series is important and objective as compared to B series is that, time always involves some change; as a result, change cannot happen if A series is absent. Even in the present of B series, without A-series, change is not possible. In B series, every relation is placed static, and every even is always same, that is, there is no even that can begin to be, or even cease to be. B series considers events as being immutable, but change must occur within such immutable events. Due to the fact that this can`t be objected, there is only one chance, and that particular chance is change in time as a result of the determination of events in question using A series terms.
He argues that the notion of change in time is very peculiar, in saying so, he is means that for time to become real, there must be a real change, and real change only occurs in a real A series. In this argument, McTaggart is implying that A series is very fundamental as compared to B series, whenever time is being looked at. He considers B series as being a temporal series, which lacks the ability to exist if A series is absent. This is because, there is nothing called time, if change is not there, and there is no change that can happen if A series is absent.
In case the temporal part is now removed from B series, the situation will be like simply ordering events, and if the list of such events is read starting from the bottom to top, the items on such a list will happen in a different progression in time from reading them from up to down. In his arguments, this is what McTaggart called the C series. This C series has no definite time ordering. In a mother way, there will be a convention that the list has to be read from bottom upwards according to B series. In itself, the list is a representation of events that are arranged from earlier to later but within it, it has no change, and it is forever fixed. Last but not least, a cursor can be placed against items as the list is being read, and the items below the cursor can be regarded as being past, and those ahead of the cursor called future, while the one the cursor is pointing at is present. Instead of now explaining the B series, this point explains the A series.
According to McTaggart, so far there is an establishment of the fact that time can`t exist in the absence of A series. Now regarding to the reality in time, in these arguments, there are kinds of arguments. In the first argument, there is presumption of time reality, thus saving the reality of time at the expense of denying that A series is important to time. The second argument which is adopted by McTaggart is that "since time is destroyed by removing the A series (in other words, the A series is essential to time), the unreality of time follows from the unreality of the A series (McTaggart, 464)".
What was spotted by McTaggart is that, when the cursor is moving up the list, the list is not part of the list, but a new list is created. Such a new list relates past, present and future, at every point it passes an event on the list. In case such lists are taken to be events that are distributed in time, then the changes then the changes that brand the events as past, present or future cannot be time. As a result, there are some difficulties in distinguishing past, present and future in an event
To put this difficulty clear, McTaggart argues that A series cannot exist because, in one hand, past, present and future lack the ability to compatibly determine the relationship or qualities of an event. In case any even like E is present, there is no way that it can exist in past and future at the same time. On the other hand, every event like E contains the three states, which are past, present and future. This is based on the fact that, in case event E, then there was a time it was existing in the future and then in the present. These two arguments make the whole argument of A series being fundamental useless, as they seem to be inconsistent. As a result, "the A series, and consequently change and time, cannot exist. Notice that we cannot presuppose the existence of time, in order to evade this arg...