Resolving a puzzle about the fixity of the past

In his 2022 article ‘A puzzle about the fixity of the past’, Lampert argues that standard views concerning knowledge and the semantics of ‘actually’ conflict with a widely held principle concerning the fixity of the past. I show that his attempt to establish the conflict fails, as it rests on the implicit assumption that a past mental state or utterance involving a modal indexical must have the same content across worlds with a shared past, when in fact it must, given its character, differ in content

Resolving the puzzle of the changing past

Barlassina and Del Prete argue that the past can change, on the basis that there is no other explanation for the truth values of certain claims involving the past-tense predicate ‘won the Tour de France in 2000’. To establish this, they argue that no contextualist account of this predicate will be able to explain these truth values. I show that their argument straightforwardly fails. Not only does a tweak to the contextualist account they consider suffice to explain these truth values, there is in fact an even simpler and more plausible non-contextualist account that can do the same work. Put simply: there is no puzzle of the changing past

Letter to the Rev. Dr. Priestley in which the author attempts to prove by one prescriptive argument that the divinity of Jesus Christ was a primitive tenet of christianity

Sign.: [ ]1, B-C8, D

Letter to a member of Parliament on the case of the protestant dissenters and the expediency of a general repeal of all penal statutes that regard religious opinions

Obra atribuida en COPAC a Alexander GeddesSign.: [ ]2, B-C8, D

Resolving the puzzle of the changing past

Barlassina and Del Prete argue that the past can change, on the basis that there is no other explanation for the truth values of certain claims involving the past-tense predicate ‘won the Tour de France in 2000’. To establish this, they argue that no contextualist account of this predicate will be able to explain these truth values. I show that their argument straightforwardly fails. Not only does a tweak to the contextualist account they consider suffice to explain these truth values, there is in fact an even simpler and more plausible non-contextualist account that can do the same work. Put simply: there is no puzzle of the changing past

A letter to the right reverend the Lord Bishop of London containing queries, doubts and difficulties, relative to a vernacular version of the holy scriptures being an appendix to a prospectus of a new translation of the bible from a corrected text of the originals

Sign.: A-M4Anteport