Reply to Oaklander

Abstract

In September, 2016, I replied to an earlier draft of Oaklander's Critique of my view of time for Manuscrito. Now he has published an extremely complex 50-page expanded version. There is no way that a reply in a journal could cover all the topics Oaklander discusses. So, I will stick mainly to my own view to which Oaklander was responding. My reply is in two parts. In the first, directed at Oaklander's earlier draft, I say what I want to do in philosophy in general, and in the philosophy of time in particular. In the second part, I mention some places where he (apparently) misunderstands my view. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ Part IFirst, let me thank Prof. Oaklander for writing so lengthily and seriously about my view of time.Second, let me say what I am trying to do in philosophy. I am trying to construct an ontology that makes sense of the world as we interact with it. The world as we interact with it, I claim (uncontroversially, I would have thought), is characterized by past, present, future, with the present as