Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a22635aa0be23e6e

Jump to content

Talk:Presentism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 11 years ago by 124.169.28.130 in topic Philosophy

Untitled

[edit]

I think this article could use some help. The opening part is great, with the example of caning. When most people come to look up the idea of presentism, the discussion of Augustine, though interesting, doesn't really help. I myself was looking for some arguments for and against the existence of presentism-- can people really see the past with anything other than their own beliefs and perceptions? How can one avoid presentism when studying the past? Perhaps relativity is very relevant here, but that connection needs to be more explicit. 129.59.234.115 16:09, 15 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

There are two types of Presentism, the second type is defined by reference to four dimensionalism. It is not really relevant to viewing the past through the beliefs of the present. Perhaps the second meaning of the word Presentism should be prefaced by "and now for something totally different"(!). loxley 22:42, 15 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
Presentism is also a term from religion/theology, with various usages.

Philosophy

[edit]

Presentism is a mode of literary or historical analysis in which present-day ideas and perspectives are anachronistically introduced into depictions or interpretations of the past.

This is not what presentism meanss in philosophy. Srnec (talk) 20:04, 16 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I just got here from Philosphy of Time (or something similar) and the meaning here is completely different from the meaning there. Can a philosopher please fix this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.28.130 (talk) 22:48, 15 September 2014 (UTC)Reply