Talk:A-series and B-series

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Time    (Inactive)
WikiProject icon This article was within the scope of WikiProject Time, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.


As a quick note, I would like to point out that the terms "tensional" and "non-tensional" are confusing and possible neologisms. I'm not sure if McTaggart uses these terms in his writing, but I cannot seem to find their widespread use online. A simple search of Google and Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy will demonstrate this. The terms "tensed" and "tenseless" are not only less cumbersome and problematic (as tensional reminds one of 'tension' rather than 'tense'), they are used in a popular book on Philosophy of Space & Time. "Time and Space" by Barry Dainton; ISBN 0-7735-2306-5

I am not done researching the matter, but if someone who has read McTaggart wants to comment on the usage, please feel free to do so. Or change it all together, if in fact McTaggart does not use the terms "tensional" and "non-tensional."

Otherwise I will revise this once I have sufficient knowledge. (talk) 03:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

exalting the label over the substance[edit]

A-series and B-series are terms introduced by the Scottish idealist philosopher John McTaggart in 1908 which have become classic terms of reference in modern discussions of the philosophy of time, even outside the analytic tradition.

Call me crazy but I'd prefer that the first sentence say what the series are rather than how important their names are. —Tamfang (talk) 06:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I tried to rectify that but it could probably use even more tinkering; have at it! BrideOfKripkenstein (talk) 23:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


The verb tenses in this article are grammatically incorrect. All sentences about the past must use past tensed verbs, and all sentences about the future must use future tensed verbs. Sentences like "future objects exist" should be changed to "future objects will exist". Similarly, sentences like "past objects exist" should be changed to "past objects existed". Any sentence about the past or future which uses the present tense is necessarily false, regardless of the rest of the sentence content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:10, 23 March 2015 (UTC)