tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759093728784895999.post7919727750940551015..comments2011-04-09T17:50:46.147-07:00Comments on Philosophical Reflections on Liturgy: Remembering the FutureAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12587322265256780784noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759093728784895999.post-44216432201620794482009-06-30T18:32:22.133-07:002009-06-30T18:32:22.133-07:00This seems right but I think it means that we have...This seems right but I think it means that we have to be careful how we understand remembering. Taking this literally, we can't understand it as "event memory," where the blank in "x remembers____" is followed by a noun phrase designating an event. Remembering in this sense entails I think (1) x's being present for the event and in some way "witnessing" it and (2) x's witnessing of the event causing x's having the memory.<br /><br />So if it's event memory, we can't remember the second coming because it can't be a cause of any current event but we can't remember the crucifixion either because we weren't back there then. So remembering in the requisite sense must be propositional memory, were "x remembers____" is followed by a that clause. We remember <i>that</i> Jesus was crucified. Presumably we can also remember that future events will occur: I remember that my flight will leave on July 10, that Fall convocation will be September 4, that Christ will come again.<br /><br />Is this good enough? It seems not to capture the idea that there are "realities that come to us from the future" which, if taken literally, does seem to suggest some sort of backwards causation.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12587322265256780784noreply@blogger.com