Does Time Actually Exist?

I personally have never thought much about the nature of time. It has always seemed like something that you just knew existed but couldn't explain it. Being able to ask myself if I thought time was real or unreal, just ended up being a long list of unanswered questions. While reading McTaggart's article, I have to say, at first read I was extremely frustrated. Every time I thought I understood what he was saying, I'd read the next paragraph and be completely lost again. I found it confusing to keep together the different aspects of the A and B series, to the point where I had to take a break from reading it and comeback. 

With that being said, once I actually had a slight idea of the different perspectives he gave regarding the answer to time, I would have to say I understood the A series the most. For me it only made since that if time was real there had to be a change that occurred at one point or another. Which is why I agree with McTaggart's statement that the A series rejects the B series. The B series claimed that events were permanent and there was no change. But how could that possibly be? Change is essential to explaining time, otherwise how do you explain events happening now from events from the past or future?

After I understood that point in his argument, that the A series discredits the B, I started to believe that the A series was the answer. I was wrong. The A series had two faults, it claims that each event had to be different, meaning that one would be in the past, the next in the future, and so on. But the problem is saying an event is at one place in time contradicts the idea that an event can be at all three stages. For instance when you wake up in the morning and eat breakfast. When you wake up breakfast is a future event, but then it becomes present, and when you're finished it is in the past. Therefore breakfast is actually all three point is time, but the A series says that can't be because each can only be one place in time, not all three. Because of this the A series is rejected which would mean time is in-fact unreal.

I would have to say by the end of the article I was a bit surprised and confused. I was expecting to receive a definitive view point regarding if time is real or not, but instead he left it open ended. Series B was rejected because of A, series A was reject because of its contradictions, but then he proposed the idea of the C series. The C series to me exists but also doesn't, if that makes sense. In reality it exists, and there are no contradictions to disprove, but the issue is how can time be real if the C series doesn't really have a definitive direction? McTaggart said that for time to be real there needs to be change and direction. He used the examples of the letters in the alphabet, and the numbers, to show that they could either be read forward or backwards. But doesn't it have to be one or the other? To be honest I am not quite sure and he doesn't give a real answer to if time is unreal or not, but from my perspective I would say at this time I couldn't give a definitive answer either. I think we would need to look in other areas like physics to help solve this issue. 

-Lauryn

Who is Responsible?

 In this day an age I hear climate change pop up almost everyday in the news, and it just seems like things are getting worse and worse. I have rarely seen and "good" regarding it. We see mostly all of the west coast is currently in flames; there are people dying and hundreds of thousands of homes are being destroyed. Saying that we could have prevented this, I don't know, but I choose to believe that our actions have not helped the problem in any way shape or form. 

 With that being said, the questions regarding who is responsible seems to be a touchy subject. I believe that we should all be responsible for our own actions. As a child growing up we learn this concept, it is drilled into our brains, so why not apply it to this? If a child punches someone and that person now gets a black eye, the person who threw the punch is responsible. Why should that be any different for our actions regarding climate change? We should be able to apply this ideology to our own actions, whether good or bad, we are responsible for them. The article also brought up the point of what about previous generations, who is responsible? In the article it is clear that the Industrial Revolution caused serious negative effects on our environment, but we wouldn't be where we are today, for example technology wise, without it. Also, one can't change the past, so I believe that the only way to move forward is to start making better decisions now. 

I don't think it is right to place the burden of previous generations on those today to try and makeup for all the bad that was caused. I think of that as saying your relative stole an object, they now pass and you find said object and now you're facing the consequences that your relative would have faced. To me that would just make no sense. You didn't commit the crime so why should you have to pay for someone else's mistakes. 

Earlier I mentioned how we should all be responsible for our own actions, with that being said is it now our job to have duties to protect future people, and if not whose is it? I think that we should all try and do our part to better our environment, regardless of future people (I mean who knows if they'll even exists). The article mentions the idea of "polluters pay", and I agree with this. In a perfect society this makes sense, but trying to implement this into the society that we live in today just doesn't seem realistic. Unless some punishment or law is made for people who don't oblige then I can't see this ever happening. The article mentioned that the wealthy should pay because they're in a better position to do so. I agree and at the same time don't agree with this statement. Those who are of lower class or say homeless, most definitely shouldn't have to take on the burden of others, but I don't know if it is necessarily fair to say that the burden should be put on the advantage. Saying that would make me a hypocrite because earlier I mentioned how we should all be responsible for our own, and just our own actions. I don't have an exact answer on who should take on others burdens, but if we can figure out a way to minimize that potential burden by all doing our part-I would say that would be my first step. 

-Lauryn

Can We Harm People That Might Not Even Exists?

I never really gave much thought to how a decision I make today can impact people in future generations, at least environmentally. The idea makes sense I just never thought hard about ramifications. Asking if it would be bad for no future people to exists doesn't seem like a yes or no answer, at least not for me. I mean, if people weren't to exists in the future, let's say it ends with our generation, can it really be bad if it isn't hurting anybody? The future people who would have existed-I wouldn't say they were better off not existing than existing. 

Personally I believe that if I was to have been born a year or even a month later I would still have been me. I understand how it would be a different set of cells so "technically" I suppose I would be different- I guess what I am trying to say is that I can see it both ways. Therefore I believe that having no other generations would not cause harm to those future individuals, I mean whose to say the would have even existed in the first place. Also, if the climate decisions we're making now, good or bad, would still result in no future generations I don't see what harm that would cause. Although, if we were to make positive climate decisions that would make future generations better off, or if our negative climate decisions make it so potential future generations isn't even possible, then I believe we would be harming those individuals if they were to have been born. I guess what I am trying to say is that I agree that the decisions I make today have the potential to affect others after me. If I decide to become a very active environmentalist, I would hope that those decisions would help make like better for those future individuals, but if I knew that life was finite then what good does me trying to help out the world really do? If the effects won't be seen my anyone what's the point?   

-Lauryn 

Have We Always Been the Same Person?

 Thinking back to when I was a kid seems almost like another lifetime, or was it? Saying I am the same person that I was back when I was ten to now, being 20, just doesn't make sense to me. I have changed. My personality as well as physical characteristics of myself are not the same as they were. Although, one part of me believes that deep inside I am still that little girl when I was ten. I think this can get fairly confusing when thinking of our past and future compared to who we are right now. Are the memories I have of myself as a child really from past experiences, or are they from people telling me of past events that I now have drilled into my brain. Frankly I do not know. 

After reading Perry's article I was left with so many questions, because I was exposed to a wide variety of different perspectives. They can't all be true, or can they? When I think about survival, I don't have a definitive answer, however I would have to say that my personal views fir most with Weirob. I think this because how can one say that we live on if there is no proof, and frankly I don't understand the importance of ones soul. Just because our sould may live on doesn't necessarily mean that we do.  I would like to think that when I die that this isn't the end for me but who knows. I am a person who tends to see things as black and white, I like facts not what ifs, so this is very troubling for me. If I believe that my death is not the end then where does that place me in the future? From a different perspective I like to think that family member who have already passed are still there looking out and watching over me. If I believe that to be true then that must mean we do survive, maybe not in the same body but we live on. Somehow a part of them would still have to be themselves from their past lives. At the end of the day I don't think I will every get a definitive answer to my questions, and that will have to be okay. For me, whatever happens happens. 

-Lauryn 

https://rintintin.colorado.edu/~vancecd/phil201/Perry.pdf