David Jakobsen

An introduction to ‘faith, unbelief and evil’

On the historic Cross, it is God Himself Who has actually met the last dark limits of our life, and has brought Himself face to face with that inescapable something (or Someone) which seems to keep us forever strangers (physically, morally, logically and in every other way) to the Absolute and Eternal. And because it is God Himself Who has thus in life and in death personally encountered sin, death, time and corruption, He has overthrown them and raised and transformed the existence that is subject to them, our existence, into the glorious Being of His Everlasting Godhead. He has robbed death of its sting and the grave of its victory, and delivered us from Satan’s ancient power. A.N. Prior: Athanasius Contra Mundum. Prior (1934)

A.N. Prior's ideas on tensed ontology

A.N. Priors work with Peirces philosophy and investigations into the formalisation of temporal ontology give rise to some important questions regarding time and existence. Some answers to these questions are considered in this paper, which deals mainly with A.N. Priors ideas on time and existence. The focus is on Priors analysis of problems concerning the ontology of objects which exist for a limited time only. This work led him to some interesting ideas concerning tensed ontology. In particular, the paper discusses Priors own contribution to tensed ontology, which may be seen as a further development of Lesniewskis ontology. Finally, the paper presents some challenges regarding the significance of tensed ontology in philosophy and information architecture.

A.N. prior's notion of the present

This paper presents a fresh look at A.N. Priors Notion of The Present (1970), in order to cast light on the article through Priors own notes from the Bodleian library. This will be done in order to evaluate two critiques of Priors notion of the present: That is self-contradictory (see [17]), and that it is unable to account for change (see [6]). This article will argue that a revisit to Priors notes will provide clarity at places where confusion gives ground to criticism of Priors definition as self-contradictory. The notes will also underline how radical Priors notion of the present is, and that he was aware of it. They thus help us to see more clearly what Prior actually meant by saying that the present is the real considered in relation to two realms of unreality, namely the past and the future.

An illusion close to life

Recently scholars have discovered a diary entry of Arthur Norman Prior dated the 25 March 1942 (Prior in The Nachlass of A.N. Prior, 2014a), in which Prior is reflecting on his own views and attitudes towards theology. The purpose of the present article is to consider what the diary entry can teach us about this period of transition in Prior’s life, and its effects upon his philosophical interests. This article will argue that the diary entry provides an explanation for why theology continued to be significant in Prior’s work.

Conceptual and Metaphysical Origins and Relevance of Temporal Logic

Logic has sometimes been seen as an alternative to metaphysics and to speculation. In this paper it is argued that a different story should be told when it comes to temporal logic and tense-logic in particular. A. N. Priors first formulation of tense logic was mainly established in order to qualify the discussion of certain metaphysical and conceptual problems. Although temporal logic has now been developed in various abstract and rather technical ways, it may still serve as a great help for anyone who wants to clarify the discussion of important existential questions like the nature of time, determinism, future contingency or freedom of choice.

The Interpretation of Branching Time Diagrams

The use of branching time diagrams in tense logic was originally suggested in 1957 by Saul Kripke. During the following years, A.N. Prior (1914–1969) developed models with forwards branching and backwards linearity. Prior’s work on tense logic inspired several logicians during the 1960s, such as Nino Cochiarella (born 1933) and Henrik von Wright (1916–2003). Both of them questioned Prior’s idea of a linear past. In the present paper, we argue that the best way to take advantage of the results of the various discussions of branching time since Prior would be to make use of a Molinistic version of the Ockhamistic model. We argue that this interpretation of branching time can reflect and support natural language reasoning in a very useful manner.