Philosophical and folk conceptions of time

Philosophers start out as non-philosophers. So they must get their initial ideas where everyone else gets them, including their notions of time. These must have their origin in common everyday experience.

Experimental philosophy, a recent approach to doing philosophy, assumes this story about the origin of ideas, and seeks to explore more exactly where philosophical ideas and theories come from. The topic is what x-phi says about notions of time. How do everyday notions of time compare with the well-pondered ones of philosophers. Do the latter connect with or relate to the former and, if so, how?

What are the main theories of time according to philosophers? Among them are: Presentism, Moving Spotlight, Growing Block, B-theory, C-theory, Unordered, One-instant… We'll briefly explain and, by way of bringing home their relevance, compare them in light of their implications for fatalism, determinism, and free will .

When people on the street hear the refined theories of thinkers on this subject, do they recognize them, do they ring true – or are these theories too strange or irrelevant to any concerns ordinary folk ever have? To the x-philosopher, it would be a strike against the theories if they are not widely recognized or are seen as irrelevant.

To the extent the theories don’t relate to everyday experience, does that mean the philosophers are wasting their time(!)? To the extent the theories are familiar, does that mean they are in some sense correct? The philosophical ones because they align with the everyday ones or the everyday ones because they align with the philosophical ones? Which is being used as the standard to measure the other?

X-phi philosophers want to ground philosophical ideas in what they believe is basic human experience. That’s why the views of non-philosophers matter to them. Common everyday understandings of ideas are taken to be more fundamental than the abstract constructions of many philosophers. X-phi employs some of the methods of social science to canvass ordinary “organic, free-range” opinion and compare it with the “highly processed” theories of specialists. Topics that have been given the x-phi treatment in recent times include the nature of knowledge, free-will v. determinism, consciousness, and the present topic, time.

X-philosophers ask the folk what they make of these theories. Even when there is agreement, do folks draw the same conclusions as philosophers? Is there more than one conception of time favored by the folk and is that why philosophers propose multiple, sometimes incompatible, theories? Do the folk entertain notions of time that don’t line up with any philosopher’s theory? Are the folk as divided in their notions of time as philosophers?

Philosophy, however, is different from science in many ways. One is an attitude toward relevance. A medical scientist’s sophisticated understanding of illness, for example, is not necessary for the lay person to understand in order for them to benefit from the scientist’s work. The primary interest of the ill person is in getting well, not understanding their illness. Given that, a medical professional is under no special moral or epistemic obligation to educate their patients beyond what is necessary for a treatment to succeed.

What would it mean for a philosophical idea to “succeed” for the person on the street with no philosophical pretensions? It’s pretty clear that what value philosophy has it is not a vital one. (You don’t philosophize about whether there is a real world external to your senses when a bus is bearing down on you as you cross the street.) We were an evolutionary success for a long time before Socrates.

Medical research is not done by surveying folks on the street on their opinions about illness. Why would one think it is different with philosophical ideas? Who cares what ordinary folks think about time? But an x-phi philosopher may counter that, since the lay person is not going to benefit in any obvious way from a philosophical theory of time, the notions of time they already have are the ones that are relevant. If so, then who are philosophers theorizing for? Themselves? Scientists usually have in mind the practical, or at least possible, utility of what they do. There is no consensus among philosophers that their thinking should be bounded by general utility. It is enough for a philosopher to imagine finding some sympathy for their views wherever they can find it, usually in other thinkers like themselves. Thus x-philosophers are seen as offering a critique of armchair philosophers.

...

Full writeup: https://xphi.henid.com

“Experimental Philosophy on Time,” James Norton, Philosophy Compass, Sep 2021. https://philpapers.org/archive/NOREPO-2.pdf

Physicist Carlo Rovelli explains why modern physics denies time any objective reality. https://youtu.be/-6rWqJhDv7M

Trailer for Ben River’s action-packed experimental film on a day in the life of a sloth: https://vimeo.com/320467431