[Serious] Is the Past Real?

[Belacqua]

Neo has only brought up secular arguments on this thread. He has not attempted to use God as an explanation for anything, or pointed to any theologian as an authority.

His only mention of the word theology is to say which secular theory is more compatible. This is not an argument that the God part of the theory -- which he has not relied on or even described -- is true.

We have known Neo long enough to know that he's not trying to set some trap or trick us into some Goddidit argument later on. Even if he finds theology persuasive, he certainly knows that such arguments won't fly on this forum.

To treat him like some kind of tricky apologist who is sneakily defending theology is both unserious and unfair. We should address what he really said, and not invent some character who isn't here in order to get mad at someone.

[The Architect Of Fate]

You have no credibility with which to criticize me, Bel. So kindly shut it 

And everything above in regards to NEO is simply false.

[The Architect Of Fate]

indeed, the highlighted part is unforgivably facetious.

Nope, it's simply accurate. If that bothers people that's not my problem

[arewethereyet]

Neo has only brought up secular arguments on this thread. He has not attempted to use God as an explanation for anything, or pointed to any theologian as an authority.

His only mention of the word theology is to say which secular theory is more compatible. This is not an argument that the God part of the theory -- which he has not relied on or even described -- is true.

We have known Neo long enough to know that he's not trying to set some trap or trick us into some Goddidit argument later on. Even if he finds theology persuasive, he certainly knows that such arguments won't fly on this forum.

To treat him like some kind of tricky apologist who is sneakily defending theology is both unserious and unfair. We should address what he really said, and not invent some character who isn't here in order to get mad at someone.

It is not your decision at this point.  It's the decision of staff.  Kindly, move back to the topic at hand.

[arewethereyet]

indeed, the highlighted part is unforgivably facetious.

Nope, it's simply accurate. If that bothers people that's not my problem

Stop.  Get back to the topic, please.

[Belacqua]

I'd been trying to remember where I'd heard the "all time is eternally present" thing before. Just now I recalled that it's from T.S. Eliot's Four Quartets, specifically the opening part of Burnt Norton.

This is poetry, of course, so we don't know whether Eliot himself believes this or is using it for another reason.

Time present and time past
Are both perhaps present in time future,
And time future contained in time past.
If all time is eternally present
All time is unredeemable.
What might have been is an abstraction
Remaining a perpetual possibility
Only in a world of speculation.
What might have been and what has been
Point to one end, which is always present.
Footfalls echo in the memory
Down the passage which we did not take
Towards the door we never opened
Into the rose-garden. My words echo
Thus, in your mind.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I'm not sure whether the past is real. I AM sure that it doesn't matter whether the past is real.

Boru

IMO it matters because the ontological status of the past and future have ethical consideration in the present. Do we have ethical obligations to the past such as preserving traditions, honoring the work one's predecessors, and maintaining promises to the dead, etc.? Similarly, do we have obligations to the future such as not depleting resources, leaving legacies for future generations and not burdening them with debt?

Eternalism seems to treat all moments of time as equal. Every moment is equally worthy. In contrast to this, presentism privileges the current moment not just ontologically but morally as well...condemned to choose, as Camus would have suggested.

Traditional moral teachings, such as Aesop's fables, condemn those whose indulgenes in present lead to future misfortunes. And that seems wise for one's own life but how far does that principle extend? Why should I sacrifice for people who do not and may never exist? If I am called to preserve the planet for those not yet born am I not also called to protect the unborn so they can recieve it? Was Lincoln right? Is there hallowed ground, not in the metaphyisical sense; but rather, out of respect for whatever historical event occured there. If you are alone in a cemetary, do you avoid walking on graves (and not because someone might see you)? Why?

[The Grand Nudger]

No more so than the man who mows the grass over those graves, no. Truth be told, the entire world is one giant gravesite, and avoiding stepping on it makes about as much sense as skipping over cracks in the sidewalk. Your god at work, apparently.

[Neo-Scholastic]

On a personal note, I made a promise to my father that can only be fulfilled after he passes. And while I fully intend to honor that promise am I in truth so obligated?

[Silver]

On a personal note, I made a promise to my father that can only be fulfilled after he passes. And while I fully intend to honor that promise am I in truth so obligated?

A promise is a promise, I suppose. Yet, it's not as though his spirit will be floating nearby or watching from above to ensure you follow through on your given word. In the end, do what you want so much as your conscience personally allows.