bubble50 DH Freelance 中翻英 英翻中

Presentism and Eternalism: Two Philosophical Theories About Time[1]

現時論與永恆論：兩種有關時間的哲學理論

Presentism is a theory in philosophy which says that the only events and objects which exist are those that exist in the present. So, only things which exist now, right now, really exist. It is a theory which focuses on the temporal present; that is, things existing in the present moment. It is not a theory concerned with whether things exist somewhere else. So long as that object or event which is spatially distant from us exists in the present moment, then it exists. If we were to make a list of all the things that a Presentist believes exists and does not exist; in the list of things that do exist we would have: the Grand Canyon and the Taj Mahal; whereas in the list of things that do not exist we would have: Socrates and tomorrow’s events.

現時論認為只有存在在現在的人事物才是唯一存在著的。所以，只有存在在現在(此時此刻)的東西才是真實存在的。這個理論的重點是時間上的當下，也就是存在在此刻的東西。這個理論不討論事物是否存在在其他地方。無論空間上與我們距離遙不遙遠，只要那個事或物存在在此刻，那它就存在。如果要把所有現時論者認為存在以及不存在的東西都分別列出來的話，那麼，出現在存在表上的就會有：大峽谷和泰姬瑪哈陵；而出現在不存在表上的則會有：蘇格拉底和明天要做的事。

The philosopher Ted Sider says, “Presentism is the doctrine that only the present is real… A presentist thinks that everything is present; more generally, that, necessarily, it is always true that everything is (then) present.” With this definition, the past and future do not exist – they are not real! That is why Presentism is so mind-boggling because we are constantly thinking about the past and planning for the future. But according to this theory, the past and future only exist subjectively – it is only the present which exists objectively (outside of our minds). Also, if we take a statement like “Newton exists”, then this statement could only be true if it was said when Newton existed in the present, say in 1666. If we say that statement now, then it is false. When making statements about what exists, the truth of the statement depends on the context (when the statement was made).

哲學家Ted Sider說：「現時論這個學說認為只有『現在』才是真的…現時論者認為萬物存在於當下這個時刻；說得更廣一點的話，他們認為出現在當下的毫無疑問地都是真的存在著的。[2]」在這個定義之下，過去和未來都不存在，它們都不是真的！因為我們總是想著過去和規劃著未來，所以這就是為什麼現時論會這麼令人感到費解、難以置信。但是，根據這個理論，過去和未來只是主觀上的存在；只有「現在」是客觀上的存在，它不只是存在於我們的腦中。再者，如果我們拿像是「牛頓是存在的」這樣的話來說，那麼只有當牛頓存在於「現在」時，例如在1666年說這句話時，這句話才能成立。如果是此時此刻說這句話，那它就是錯的。所以當我們說話的內容和「存在」這件事有關的時候，這句話的真實性就取決於說這句話時的背景。

Arthur Prior is another philosopher who argues that the present is real, and the past and future unreal. He says that since it is necessarily true that only the present exists, then there is no point in referring to the present moment. Saying that something is “present” (e.g. “I am present in this room”) adds no new information to the statement since all things which exist are present. If I exist in the room, then it follows that I must be present. So the statement should read: “I am in the room”. “Present”, as a word, Prior argues, is redundant.

另一位哲學家Arthur Prior認為現在是真的，過去和未來都是假的。他說，既然「只有現在是存在的」這件事必然為真，那麼在說話時提及當下就沒有任何意義了。因為所有的事物都存在在現在，所以說某人或某物「現在就在」(例如，「我現在就在這個房間裡」) 不會在這句話中增加任何新的意義。如果我存在在這個房間裡，照著句子的邏輯走，我必然是現在就出現在這個房間裡的。因此應該說「我在房間裡」就可以了。Prior認為，「現在」這個詞其實是多餘的。

Buddhism also teaches that the present reality is the only reality, and attaches supreme importance to it. As the Buddha says in the Bhaddekaratta Sutta: “You shouldn’t chase after the past or place expectations on the future. What is past is left behind. The future is as yet unreached. Whatever quality is present you clearly see right there, right there.” There are also Buddhist philosophers who have formulated a kind of Buddhist Presentism. One of them, Fyodor Shcherbatskoy wrote: “Everything past is unreal, everything future is unreal, everything imagined, absent, mental… is unreal… Ultimately real is only the present moment…”

佛教的訓示中也提到說當下的現實是唯一的現實，並強調當下的重要性。佛陀就在《一夜賢者頌》中說道：「不追憶過去，不期待未來。過去已過去；未來未到來。現在所生法，當處即觀照。[3]」也有佛教哲學家發展出一種佛教現時論。其中一位佛教哲學家Fyodor Shcherbatskoy寫道：「過去的一切都不真實，未來的一切都不真實，一切想像的、沒有出現的、精神思想上的…都不真實…只有當下才是最終的真實…」

There are problems with Presentism, however, such as, how the theory relates to the flow of time. If time passes, then does every event not exist in the past, present, and future? If there are no events which are in the past or in the future, then how does time pass? Also, if past events are unreal, then what do photographs actually show? And what are we referring to when we talk about past events? These issues have led some to prefer the Eternalist theory of time.

不過，現時論也存在著一些問題，例如，該理論是如何解釋時間的流動?如果時間會過去，那麼是不是說每件事都不會存在在過去、現在和未來？如果沒有一件事情是存在在過去或未來，那時間是如何過去的？此外，如果過去的事件不存在，那麼照片所呈現出來的又是什麼呢？當我們談論過去的事件時，我們所談的又是什麼呢？這些問題讓有些人更偏愛永恆論的時間理論。