What do you think?
Rate this book
The World-Time Parallel: Tense and Modality in Logic and Metaphysics
Is what could have happened but never did as real as what did happen? What did happen, but isn't happening now, happened at another time. Analogously, one can say that what could have happened happens in another possible world. Whatever their views about the reality of such things as possible worlds, philosophers need to take this analogy seriously. Adriane Rini and Max Cresswell exhibit, in an easy step-by-step manner, the logical structure of temporal and modal discourse, and show that every temporal construction has an exact parallel that requires a language that can refer to worlds, and vice versa. They make precise, in a way which can be articulated and tested, the claim that the parallel is at work behind even ordinary talk about time and modality. The book gives metaphysicians a sturdy framework for the investigation of time and modality – one that does not presuppose any particular metaphysical view.
- GenresPhilosophy
278 pages, Hardcover
First published January 19, 2012
16 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
May 23, 2012
Until I got to the appendix, I was going to give the book two stars. Rini and Cresswell really are trying to do something interesting in constructing a good semantics for relating time and world, or at least acknowledging the similarities in semantics between the discussion of the two. There are a few problems with the bulk of the text and the arguments that Rini ad Cresswell present.
The first is that the modal semantics are not something that everyone agrees on. They tend to focus fairly heavily on the modal semantics of Lewis and Plantinga, and I think that's fine, but there are a number of different accounts that are going to seriously impact the way that time is discussed. They do get into the differences a little bit later in a short discussion of Quine, but the discussion is far from comprehensive. The book is very dense, but given how short it is, some discussion of Scott or Kripke semantics for modality and accessibility relations might have been nice.
The second is that the metaphysics of time are not entirely well established early in the text. The attempt seems to be to offer an account of the appearance of time as an indexer in logic and then use that account to establish a metaphysics of time. I'm not sure this is the best approach, but it does yield some interesting results.
The third is that it is both technically dense and a bit unorthodox in terms of things like notation. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it does make the book very difficult to read. Clarity is not necessary for good philosophy, but it can be very, very helpful, especially when discussing a subject that is already technically rigorous.
The arguments in the text are interesting, though I don't think that they're addressed as fully as they need to be, largely because Rini and Cresswell spend a lot of time rehashing the historical views which have led to the creation of the problem, rather than trying to pose a solution. This leaves them with much less time spent establishing the sufficiency of their own solutions, some of which are quite inventive, but do demand exploration.
The appendix of the book is actually phenomenal, once you've gotten used to Rini and Cresswell's notation style, since it does a very good job at establishing some of the more interesting metaphysical commitments that a number of prominent philosophers have to take with regard to time and set theory. The discussion is enormously formal, but it does allow for a much more to-the-point discussion of the content, which is my primary concern about the rest of the text. For those interesting in the very narrow area of philosophy of time and modal logic, I suggest the book, though not before the other major works in the field.
The first is that the modal semantics are not something that everyone agrees on. They tend to focus fairly heavily on the modal semantics of Lewis and Plantinga, and I think that's fine, but there are a number of different accounts that are going to seriously impact the way that time is discussed. They do get into the differences a little bit later in a short discussion of Quine, but the discussion is far from comprehensive. The book is very dense, but given how short it is, some discussion of Scott or Kripke semantics for modality and accessibility relations might have been nice.
The second is that the metaphysics of time are not entirely well established early in the text. The attempt seems to be to offer an account of the appearance of time as an indexer in logic and then use that account to establish a metaphysics of time. I'm not sure this is the best approach, but it does yield some interesting results.
The third is that it is both technically dense and a bit unorthodox in terms of things like notation. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it does make the book very difficult to read. Clarity is not necessary for good philosophy, but it can be very, very helpful, especially when discussing a subject that is already technically rigorous.
The arguments in the text are interesting, though I don't think that they're addressed as fully as they need to be, largely because Rini and Cresswell spend a lot of time rehashing the historical views which have led to the creation of the problem, rather than trying to pose a solution. This leaves them with much less time spent establishing the sufficiency of their own solutions, some of which are quite inventive, but do demand exploration.
The appendix of the book is actually phenomenal, once you've gotten used to Rini and Cresswell's notation style, since it does a very good job at establishing some of the more interesting metaphysical commitments that a number of prominent philosophers have to take with regard to time and set theory. The discussion is enormously formal, but it does allow for a much more to-the-point discussion of the content, which is my primary concern about the rest of the text. For those interesting in the very narrow area of philosophy of time and modal logic, I suggest the book, though not before the other major works in the field.
Displaying 1 of 1 review