Recently, some authors – call them Reformists – have argued that the traditional Presentism-Eternalism and Actualism-Possibilism debates in the metaphysics of time and modality respectively are unclear or insubstantial, and should therefore give way to the newer Temporaryism-Permanentism and ContingentismNecessitism debates. In ‘On characterising the presentism/eternalism and actualism/possibilism debates’ (2016, Analytic Philosophy 57: 110-140), Ross Cameron defends the Conservative position that the traditional debates are both substantial and distinct from the Temporaryism-Permanentism and ContingentismNecessitism debates. In this paper I provide a Reformist response to Cameron’s arguments.

中文翻译：

---

表征时间和模态理论

最近，一些被称为改良主义者的作者认为，分别在时间和模态的形而上学中的传统存在主义-永恒主义和现实主义-可能性论争论不明确或缺乏实质，因此应该让位于较新的临时主义-永久性主义和或然主义必然论争论。在“关于表征当前主义/永恒主义和现实主义/可能性主义辩论”（2016 年，分析哲学 57：110-140）中，罗斯卡梅伦捍卫了保守派的立场，即传统辩论既是实质性的，又不同于临时主义-永久主义和或然主义必然主义辩论。在这篇论文中，我对卡梅伦的论点提供了改革派的回应。