“…temporal bias exposes a philosophical flaw in our conception of rational agency across time. This distortion suggests that our rational agency is fragmented by the very experience of time itself.”
I suppose it could be that future self exists in potentia, as a combination of:
- the present manifestation of the self in its full solidity, with that solidity reaching its influence out to an unmanifested future impacted by a plethora of intersecting destinies, many of which are beyond our control
- and numerous internal impulses and unresolved directions within the individual.
So the future is a process of making, of realizing, but will not be realized and solidified except bit by bit as the present moves closer to it. It exists as a cloud of possibilities that has yet to resolve into definite directions and outcomes, or even into a clear fixed image. But as decisions in the present determine future developments their influence spreads and the imagined future becomes more achievable.
To image and process all this to take our present state towards a better future state is quite a task especially considering the cognitive barriers you’ve described.
I really appreciate that you framed your thought using the sentence from the article—“temporal bias exposes a philosophical flaw in our conception of rational agency across time.” It’s great to see that we’re on the same page in recognising how temporal bias distorts our rational agency.
I can see how you’re drawing from Aristotle’s potential and actuality to explain the future self as something that exists in potentia—a combination of our present self and the unresolved possibilities that will only solidify as the present moves closer to them. That’s a really interesting ontological take, especially when you describe the future as a process of realisation that becomes more concrete over time.
But here’s where the distinction lies for me: while Aristotle’s framework helps explain how the future self comes into being, the article is more focused on why we often struggle to make decisions that benefit our future selves. Temporal bias doesn’t just highlight that the future is unrealised—it shows that we tend to emotionally distance ourselves from that future self, treating it almost like a distant stranger. This disconnect is what leads to irrational decisions, where the present self prioritises immediate gratification over long-term well-being.
In a way, your point adds a valuable layer by thinking about the future self’s potential, but my focus is more psychological. It’s about the emotional fragmentation caused by the experience of time, which makes it difficult for the present self to care for the future self in the same way. So while Aristotle’s potentiality framework is a useful tool for understanding the future as something in the process of becoming, the article is more concerned with the distortion that happens because of this temporal disjunction.
That said, I think you’re expanding the conversation in an exciting direction! There’s definitely room to explore how Aristotle’s ideas might interact with this temporal bias in terms of the process of becoming and actualisation. I’d love to hear more of your thoughts on how these two frameworks might complement each other.
“Temporal bias doesn’t just highlight that the future is unrealised—it shows that we tend to emotionally distance ourselves from that future self, treating it almost like a distant stranger…. my focus is more psychological. It’s about the emotional fragmentation caused by the experience of time, which makes it difficult for the present self to care for the future self in the same way.”
You elaborate very clearly the emotional and psychological reasons for the difficulties in connecting with our future selves.
I think I understand what you’re expressing - the way I was looking at it is to consider if the potentiality impacts the fragmentation of the experience of time. And therefore the psychological impact of the present vs the near future vs the distant future.
So, does the nature of time affect the nature of how we project into it? If there’s a metaphysics underlying this then that foundational metaphysics must impact everything - time, our experience of it, our emotional and psychological reaction to it, our minds ability to project into the future, the nature of the future (as a cloud of possibilities) - the whole shebang.
And if there is a metaphysics underlying it all, perhaps there’s an inbuilt limit to projection, a safeguard or guard rails that are difficult to overcome. Hence, the psychological difficulty of connecting with one’s future self?
I appreciate the depth of your response—it’s a fascinating way to expand the discussion. You’re absolutely right to consider whether the potentiality of time itself might be contributing to this fragmentation in how we experience the future. If there is a metaphysical framework underlying our experience of time, then it’s certainly plausible that this framework would impose certain limitations on how we emotionally and psychologically project ourselves forward.
In the article, I’m primarily addressing the psychological disjunction that temporal bias creates—a kind of emotional distance from the future self. This distance causes us to treat the future self as a stranger, despite knowing that our present actions directly impact that future. The key issue here is how temporal bias distorts rational agency, leading us to prioritise immediate desires over long-term well-being because the future, as experienced through time, becomes abstract and emotionally less urgent.
But your point about the metaphysical dimension of time opens a deeper question. If time is not just a neutral container in which events unfold but has its own structure and potentialities, then perhaps there is a more foundational limit to how far we can project ourselves into the future. If we think of the future as a “cloud of possibilities,” as you put it, it may be that the very nature of time restricts our ability to fully engage with those possibilities. In this sense, the fragmentation I describe could be partly a consequence of this metaphysical structure—time itself might impose boundaries on our ability to maintain a coherent sense of self across temporal distances
What’s particularly intriguing is the idea that there might be an “inbuilt limit,” as you mention—a kind of safeguard or natural boundary in how we experience time. If that’s the case, then the psychological difficulty of connecting with the future self might not just be a cognitive flaw, but a reflection of this metaphysical boundary. Temporal bias, in this view, wouldn’t simply be a failure of rationality or self-control but a symptom of how we are bound to experience time in fragmented, emotionally distant ways
This leads to the question: to what extent are we capable of overcoming this fragmentation? Can rational agency, self-reflection, or certain interventions transcend these metaphysical constraints, or are we always operating within a limited horizon imposed by time’s structure? Your suggestion of a built-in limitation raises the possibility that some of this emotional distance is not entirely within our control—perhaps we are, by nature, constrained in how we relate to our future selves.
There’s definitely a rich line of inquiry here, and it intersects well with the psychological focus of the article. By considering both the metaphysical and emotional dimensions of temporal bias, we might arrive at a more holistic understanding of why we struggle with future-oriented decisions. I’d be keen to hear more of your thoughts on how this metaphysical foundation might interact with the psychological difficulties we face in projecting ourselves forward in time.
Wow - some truly profound conceptual topics in this piece examined in minute detail. Quite an engaging read.
“…temporal bias exposes a philosophical flaw in our conception of rational agency across time. This distortion suggests that our rational agency is fragmented by the very experience of time itself.”
I suppose it could be that future self exists in potentia, as a combination of:
- the present manifestation of the self in its full solidity, with that solidity reaching its influence out to an unmanifested future impacted by a plethora of intersecting destinies, many of which are beyond our control
- and numerous internal impulses and unresolved directions within the individual.
So the future is a process of making, of realizing, but will not be realized and solidified except bit by bit as the present moves closer to it. It exists as a cloud of possibilities that has yet to resolve into definite directions and outcomes, or even into a clear fixed image. But as decisions in the present determine future developments their influence spreads and the imagined future becomes more achievable.
To image and process all this to take our present state towards a better future state is quite a task especially considering the cognitive barriers you’ve described.
I really appreciate that you framed your thought using the sentence from the article—“temporal bias exposes a philosophical flaw in our conception of rational agency across time.” It’s great to see that we’re on the same page in recognising how temporal bias distorts our rational agency.
I can see how you’re drawing from Aristotle’s potential and actuality to explain the future self as something that exists in potentia—a combination of our present self and the unresolved possibilities that will only solidify as the present moves closer to them. That’s a really interesting ontological take, especially when you describe the future as a process of realisation that becomes more concrete over time.
But here’s where the distinction lies for me: while Aristotle’s framework helps explain how the future self comes into being, the article is more focused on why we often struggle to make decisions that benefit our future selves. Temporal bias doesn’t just highlight that the future is unrealised—it shows that we tend to emotionally distance ourselves from that future self, treating it almost like a distant stranger. This disconnect is what leads to irrational decisions, where the present self prioritises immediate gratification over long-term well-being.
In a way, your point adds a valuable layer by thinking about the future self’s potential, but my focus is more psychological. It’s about the emotional fragmentation caused by the experience of time, which makes it difficult for the present self to care for the future self in the same way. So while Aristotle’s potentiality framework is a useful tool for understanding the future as something in the process of becoming, the article is more concerned with the distortion that happens because of this temporal disjunction.
That said, I think you’re expanding the conversation in an exciting direction! There’s definitely room to explore how Aristotle’s ideas might interact with this temporal bias in terms of the process of becoming and actualisation. I’d love to hear more of your thoughts on how these two frameworks might complement each other.
“Temporal bias doesn’t just highlight that the future is unrealised—it shows that we tend to emotionally distance ourselves from that future self, treating it almost like a distant stranger…. my focus is more psychological. It’s about the emotional fragmentation caused by the experience of time, which makes it difficult for the present self to care for the future self in the same way.”
You elaborate very clearly the emotional and psychological reasons for the difficulties in connecting with our future selves.
I think I understand what you’re expressing - the way I was looking at it is to consider if the potentiality impacts the fragmentation of the experience of time. And therefore the psychological impact of the present vs the near future vs the distant future.
So, does the nature of time affect the nature of how we project into it? If there’s a metaphysics underlying this then that foundational metaphysics must impact everything - time, our experience of it, our emotional and psychological reaction to it, our minds ability to project into the future, the nature of the future (as a cloud of possibilities) - the whole shebang.
And if there is a metaphysics underlying it all, perhaps there’s an inbuilt limit to projection, a safeguard or guard rails that are difficult to overcome. Hence, the psychological difficulty of connecting with one’s future self?
I appreciate the depth of your response—it’s a fascinating way to expand the discussion. You’re absolutely right to consider whether the potentiality of time itself might be contributing to this fragmentation in how we experience the future. If there is a metaphysical framework underlying our experience of time, then it’s certainly plausible that this framework would impose certain limitations on how we emotionally and psychologically project ourselves forward.
In the article, I’m primarily addressing the psychological disjunction that temporal bias creates—a kind of emotional distance from the future self. This distance causes us to treat the future self as a stranger, despite knowing that our present actions directly impact that future. The key issue here is how temporal bias distorts rational agency, leading us to prioritise immediate desires over long-term well-being because the future, as experienced through time, becomes abstract and emotionally less urgent.
But your point about the metaphysical dimension of time opens a deeper question. If time is not just a neutral container in which events unfold but has its own structure and potentialities, then perhaps there is a more foundational limit to how far we can project ourselves into the future. If we think of the future as a “cloud of possibilities,” as you put it, it may be that the very nature of time restricts our ability to fully engage with those possibilities. In this sense, the fragmentation I describe could be partly a consequence of this metaphysical structure—time itself might impose boundaries on our ability to maintain a coherent sense of self across temporal distances
What’s particularly intriguing is the idea that there might be an “inbuilt limit,” as you mention—a kind of safeguard or natural boundary in how we experience time. If that’s the case, then the psychological difficulty of connecting with the future self might not just be a cognitive flaw, but a reflection of this metaphysical boundary. Temporal bias, in this view, wouldn’t simply be a failure of rationality or self-control but a symptom of how we are bound to experience time in fragmented, emotionally distant ways
This leads to the question: to what extent are we capable of overcoming this fragmentation? Can rational agency, self-reflection, or certain interventions transcend these metaphysical constraints, or are we always operating within a limited horizon imposed by time’s structure? Your suggestion of a built-in limitation raises the possibility that some of this emotional distance is not entirely within our control—perhaps we are, by nature, constrained in how we relate to our future selves.
There’s definitely a rich line of inquiry here, and it intersects well with the psychological focus of the article. By considering both the metaphysical and emotional dimensions of temporal bias, we might arrive at a more holistic understanding of why we struggle with future-oriented decisions. I’d be keen to hear more of your thoughts on how this metaphysical foundation might interact with the psychological difficulties we face in projecting ourselves forward in time.