Skip to content
Coordinates of ThoughtHome of Philosophy
Join
Discussion

If the past no longer exists, what exactly is my regret about?

I served twenty-two years in the army, the last part on the DMZ. There are a few decisions I regret, none of them dramatic, all of them still with me. Reading about the philosophy of time has given me a strange new question about that regret.

If presentism is right and only the present exists, then the decisions I regret are not anywhere. They are not real. My regret seems to be about nothing, or only about a memory, which is a present thing in my head. Augustine said something like this: the past exists only in memory. But my regret is not about my memory. It is about what I did to other people.

If eternalism is right, the past is as real as the present, just located earlier. Then my decision is still "there", permanently, in the block of time. That gives my regret a real object, but it also means nothing I do now can touch it. It is fixed forever.

Neither seems right. On one view my regret has no object; on the other its object is permanently beyond repair. I would like to hear how others think about this, especially people whose traditions have thought about repentance and repair. Is there a view of time in which the past is real but not closed?

LikeReplyFollow5 replies

Join the conversation: members reply here, and joining is free. Reading is always free.

Join free to reply Sign in

5 replies

  1. Eliana Halpern

    Fellow

    Byeong-hun, the rabbis had a bold view on exactly this. In the Talmud, Resh Lakish says that repentance out of fear turns deliberate sins into unintentional ones, and repentance out of love turns them into merits (Yoma 86b). Taken seriously, that says the meaning of a past act is not closed. The act is fixed; what it was part of is not yet fixed, because its story continues through what you do now. That's not a theory of time, but it's a theory of the past.

    Helpful · 3
    1. Choi Byeong-hun

      Fellow

      Eliana, that is a remarkable passage. A past that is fixed in fact but open in meaning. I can live with that more easily than with either of the two views I described.

  2. Brian Otieno Ouma

    Fellow

    In the prison class we read about this and one man said: "My crime is the one thing in my life that will never change, and I am the one thing in my life that can." He didn't know he was talking about the philosophy of time. I think he put the problem and the answer in one sentence.

    Helpful · 1
  3. Rohan Desai

    Fellow

    The Gita would say act without attachment to the fruits, and that includes the fruits of past actions. I don't think it tells you to stop caring about what you did to others. It tells you that the regret should become the next right action rather than a weight. I was burnt out last year and that reading helped me more than the metaphysics did.

    Helpful · 2
  4. Andrés Zuluaga

    Fellow

    Victims of the conflict here in Colombia often insist the past is real, more real than the present. "It happened" is the first thing they need acknowledged. I would be careful with any view that makes the past less real, because for them that sounds like denial. Eternalism has that one virtue: what happened stays having happened.

    Helpful · 3