Examines temporal experience to clarify the A versus B distinction in philosophy of time, suggesting implications for ongoing debates.
This paper offers a way of thinking about (an ‘interpretation’ of) contemporary philosophy of time on which the distinction between dynamic (A-theoretic) and non-dynamic (B-theoretic) views cannot be understood independently of considerations relating to temporal experience. Starting with some insights contained in Simon Prosser’s work, I suggest that (a) temporal experience cannot transparently represent time as being either A- or B-theoretic, and that (b) A-theoretic terminology partly gets its meaning from ostension (‘this is what it is for time to pass’). Moreover, I suggest distinguishing between the (official) B-theory, which claims that the process thus defined does not exist, and a metaphysically much less committed ‘Meta-B stance’, which steps away from the As and Bs altogether. I then examine the dialectic in discussions surrounding the increasingly popular view that we do not have experiences as of time passing (‘deflationism’/’veridicalism’), arguing that this is best understood as making a Meta-B, rather than a B-theoretic, claim about temporal experience. The upshot is that an experience-based interpretation of the AB distinction is viable and helps one make sense of large parts of the literature on temporal experience.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Natalja Deng (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: