#Timeless wisdom series
#Timeless wisdom free

One group, the “A-theorists,” argues that both series are part of time, independently of us, and our ordering of events into earlier or later depends on the existence of past, present, and future. In sum, A-series relations are about past, present, and future B-series are about “earlier” or “later.” There is an ongoing debate about whether one or both of these are actually part of time, or only part of our experience of time. I am always born in 1973 no matter when you are, the ordering of the meal precedes its arrival by one hour. On the other hand, B-series temporal relations are fixed. Soon it will be this year in 2020, it will be last year. Notably, A-series relations are always changing. This kind of ordering of time is called a “B-series.”

In the philosophy of time, this set, the past/present/future set, is called an “A-series.” The second set is organized according to whether something is earlier or later than some other point in time. It describes one fixed point in time and a particular property/relation that point has-either past, present, or future. The first set is organized according to the past, present, and future. Here is one set: “I did that last week” “Today is my wedding day” “She is starting school next year.” And here is another: “I was born in 1973” “The meal did not come until an hour after we ordered” “The commemoration will be held on the 500th anniversary of the battle.” There are two fundamentally different ways of organizing temporal relations operating in these examples. I will begin the main part of my discussion with a few examples of how we talk about time. It may be that consciousness is a biological phenomenon caused by lots of “building blocks” like different brain states, etc., but it is not itself made up of those “building blocks”-it is a unified state. Regardless, it is not itself reducible to those parts. Consciousness may or may not arise, or be emergent, from those parts or events that is a different question. By this, I mean that it is not possible to provide a complete or satisfactory account of consciousness by providing a complete account of its constituent parts, or any particular conjunction of events, because it is more than the sum of those things. If any of my three claims raises eyebrows I think it will be this one, because it is certainly the focus of active debate.

#Timeless wisdom free

From 1 and 2, I conclude that free will is required for the exercise of at least some kinds of wisdom. To sketch out that argument: rationality (and intentionality) are essentially deliberative deliberation requires choice, and choice requires free will. I am deliberately leaving the definition of “free will” a little loose here, simply because I think my argument holds for either compatibilists or libertarians. My second claim is that you cannot be rational if you do not have free will. Think of rationality as a match to wisdom’s fire you do not need a match to start a fire, and it is not enough on its own, but there are particular ways of lighting a fire that do not work if you leave out the match. Nor do I claim that it is the only thing needed for wisdom. I might claim it is always required, but that is not what I am doing here. The first, I assume, will receive general agreement: that rational thought is required for at least some kinds of wisdom. I would like to begin by making three claims that I will rely on in my argument but do not intend to defend at length. In this chapter, I will discuss the nature of time.