, and between
and
, stands for exactly the same concept, namely, that of identity in time; it does not refer to such different concepts as ‘size’ in the first instance and ‘colour’ in the second.”
Obviously, it is easy to detect the petitio principii unconsciously introduced into this argument. By stating that the two symbols = must mean the same thing since they both connote identity in time, the critic is accepting a priori as self-evident that there can be only one time-stream, or, in other words, that time is absolute. Of course, if he wishes to introduce his own private assumptions, he may do so; but he must not blame the theory if as a result thereof he is faced with a logical contradiction. He should realise that the contradiction arises solely as a result of his own initial unwarranted assumption, and that were he to withdraw this initial assumption the contradiction would automatically disappear. Then, indeed, he would have to recognise that the two symbols = need not have the same meaning; that the first, which we may write
, would represent “at the same time according to John,” whereas the second one,
, would represent “at the same time according to Peter.” As a result the relations would be written: