Journal Title: Critical Reflections: Journal for Philosophy and Social Sciences
ISSN (Print): 3126-3879
ISSN (Online): 3126-3887
Publisher: Society for Ancient Philosophy, Cosmology, Religion, Anthropology and Astrobiology - SAPCRAA
Contact: info@sapcraa.com Phone: +38765471075
Adress: Banja Luka, Republic of Srpska, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Publication Frequency: The journal publishes two regular issues per year (June and December). In addition, special thematic issues devoted to specific topics in philosophy, the social sciences and the humanities may be published throughout the year, subject to editorial approval.
Language: English, Serbian.
Editor-in-Chief: Prof. Dr. Snežana Ivanković, University of Belgrade, Republic of Serbia

AIMS & SCOPE

Aims

Critical Reflections: Journal for Philosophy and Social Sciences aims to foster the critical and theoretical analysis of society, culture, and thought. Published by SAPCRAA, the journal seeks to provide an international, double-blind peer-reviewed forum where classical philosophical traditions and contemporary social-scientific debates meet, and where conceptual rigor is brought to bear on the relationships between ideas, social structures, and institutions. It is committed to the highest standards of academic excellence and publication ethics and to making scholarship accessible to a global audience.

Scope

The journal publishes original research articles, review articles, and critical essays in philosophy and the social sciences. Its core areas are philosophy (including ethics, social and political philosophy, aesthetics, metaphysics and epistemology), sociology, political science, and anthropology, together with closely related work in the study of religion, cultural studies, and the history of ideas where it advances social-theoretical or philosophical inquiry. The journal welcomes theoretical, hermeneutic, comparative, and empirically grounded studies that illuminate the relationships between ideas, social structures, and institutions. All articles are published in English and Serbian with full abstracts.

Types of Contributions

The journal welcomes the following types of submissions

Original research articles,
Review articles and theoretical essays,
Case studies and comparative analyses,
Research notes and commentaries,
Book reviews.

All submissions except book reviews undergo double-blind peer review.

PUBLICATION ETHICS

This journal is committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics. Please see our [Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement] for more information.

PEER REVIEW PROCESS

All manuscripts submitted to Critical Reflections: Journal for Philosophy and Social Sciences undergo a rigorous double-blind peer review process to ensure the highest standards of academic quality and integrity. Each submission is initially assessed by the Editor-in-Chief for scope and quality before being sent to at least two independent reviewers with expertise in the relevant field. For complete details on our review procedures, criteria, and timelines, please refer to our [Peer Review Process].

AUTHOR GUIDELINES

Critical Reflections: Journal for Philosophy and Social Sciences welcomes submissions from researchers and academics working in philosophy, the social sciences, and related disciplines in the humanities. Before submitting a manuscript, authors are kindly requested to carefully review our formatting requirements, citation style, and submission procedures. Complete instructions for preparing and submitting your manuscript are available in our [Author Guidelines].

ARCHIVE AND ACCESS

Critical Reflections: Journal for Philosophy and Social Sciences is committed to the principles of open scholarship. As a fully open-access journal, we provide immediate and unrestricted access to all published research. Full-text versions of all issues are available in our [Archive]. To ensure permanence and citability, each article is assigned a unique Digital Object Identifier (DOI). All content is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original authors and source are properly credited.

INDEXING AND ABSTRACTING

Critical Reflections: Journal for Philosophy and Social Sciences is committed to ensuring global visibility and accessibility of published research. The journal is currently indexed in the following databases:

Critical Reflections: Journal for Philosophy and Social Sciences is indexed in CEEOL (Central and Eastern European Online Library, www.ceeol.com), an international database of scholarly publications through which all published articles are available to university libraries and research institutions worldwide.

The journal has been indexed in the Dimensions database.

The journal's content is crawled and made discoverable through Google Scholar.

The journal's content is crawled and made discoverable through Semantic Scholar.

The publisher is a Crossref member. Metadata for all articles is deposited with Crossref, and each article receives a persistent DOI (prefix 10.65932).

The journal is present on ResearchGate.

Authors who publish in Critical Reflections: Journal for Philosophy and Social Sciences retain full copyright of their work. By submitting a manuscript, authors grant the journal the right of first publication. All articles are published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). This means that anyone may freely read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of articles, provided that proper attribution is given to the original authors and source.

Authors are permitted to:

Share and distribute their published work through any medium,
Deposit their work in institutional or subject repositories, including preprint servers such as PhilPapers, SSRN and Zenodo,
Reuse their work in subsequent publications, provided the original publication is properly cited,
Retain patent and trademark rights, as well as all moral rights to the work.
No formal copyright transfer is required.

PLAGIARISM POLICY

Critical Reflections: Journal for Philosophy and Social Sciences is committed to maintaining the highest standards of academic integrity. All submitted manuscripts are screened for plagiarism and originality using iThenticate prior to peer review. Manuscripts found to contain plagiarised content, including self-plagiarism, will be rejected immediately. If plagiarism is detected after publication, the journal will follow the guidelines established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and may retract the article. Authors are expected to ensure that their work is entirely original and that any use of others' ideas, words, or data is properly cited.

RETRACTION POLICY

Critical Reflections: Journal for Philosophy and Social Sciences follows the retraction guidelines established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Articles may be retracted in the following circumstances:

Clear evidence of unreliable findings due to misconduct or honest error,

Plagiarism or redundant publication,
Fabrication or falsification of data,
Failure to disclose major conflicts of interest,
Ethical violations involving human or animal subjects,
Copyright infringement.

Retraction notices will be published and linked to the original article, which will remain accessible but clearly marked as retracted. Retractions may be initiated by the authors, the Editor-in-Chief, or the publisher upon verified evidence of misconduct.

APPEALS AND COMPLAINTS

Critical Reflections: Journal for Philosophy and Social Sciences is committed to fair and transparent editorial processes. Authors who wish to appeal an editorial decision or file a complaint may do so by following the procedures outlined below.

Appeals: Authors may submit an appeal if they believe a rejection decision was made in error. Appeals must be submitted in writing to the Editor-in-Chief within 30 days of the decision and should include a detailed response to the reviewers' comments and a clear justification for reconsideration. Appeals will be reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief and, if necessary, by an independent member of the Editorial Board. The decision on the appeal is final.

Complaints: Complaints regarding editorial conduct, peer review process, or publication ethics should be addressed in writing to the Editor-in-Chief at editor.cr@sapcraa.com All complaints will be investigated promptly and handled in accordance with COPE guidelines.

AI POLICY

Critical Reflections follows current guidelines of COPE, WAME, and ICMJE concerning the use of artificial intelligence in scholarly publishing. AI tools, including large language models and generative systems such as ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, and Copilot, cannot be listed as authors, since authorship entails intellectual accountability that AI systems cannot bear. Full responsibility for every aspect of a submitted manuscript — including any content produced, drafted, edited, translated, or otherwise assisted by AI — rests entirely with the human authors, who remain accountable for the accuracy of all claims, the integrity of all citations, and the originality of all arguments. Authors must disclose any substantive use of AI tools in the methods section or in a dedicated acknowledgments statement, identifying the tool, its version, and the function performed (text generation, idea development, literature search, code or statistical analysis, image generation, translation, and similar). Routine language polishing does not require detailed itemisation but should be acknowledged in general terms. The fabrication of citations, quotations, or data — whether by AI or otherwise — constitutes a serious breach of research integrity and will result in rejection, retraction, and, in cases of bad faith, notification of the authors' institutions. Reviewers and editors are prohibited from uploading submitted manuscripts to public or third-party AI systems, as this violates the confidentiality of peer review. AI-generated images and figures must be clearly labelled as such and may not represent empirical, archival, or ethnographic material without explicit methodological justification. The Editorial Board reserves the right to request further information about AI use at any stage, to require revision, and to reject or retract work where AI use has not been properly disclosed. The policy is reviewed periodically and updated to reflect evolving standards in scholarly publishing.

Critical Reflections: Journal for Philosophy and Social Sciences is committed to protecting the privacy of all users, authors, reviewers and readers.

Data Collection: We collect personal information (such as names, email addresses, and institutional affiliations) only when voluntarily provided during manuscript submission, registration, or correspondence. This information is used solely for editorial and publishing purposes.

Data Usage: Personal data is used to manage the submission and peer review process, communicate with authors and reviewers, and improve our services. We do not share personal information with third parties except as necessary for publishing operations or when required by law.

Cookies: Our website may use cookies to enhance user experience and analyse site traffic. Users may disable cookies through their browser settings.

Data Security: We implement appropriate technical and organisational measures to protect personal data against unauthorised access, alteration, or disclosure.

Rights: Users have the right to access, correct, or request deletion of their personal data. For any privacy-related inquiries, please contact us at [email].

This policy is compliant with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

ARTICLE PROCESSING CHARGES

Critical Reflections: Journal for Philosophy and Social Sciences is primarily funded through donations, institutional support, and the resources of the Society for Ancient Philosophy, Cosmology, Religion, Anthropology and Astrobiology. As a result, the journal strives to minimise financial barriers for authors and does not routinely charge Article Processing Charges (APCs). Submission and peer review are always free of charge. However, in exceptional circumstances, a modest APC may be applied to support the costs of publication. Authors will be informed of any applicable charges upon acceptance of their manuscript. For further information, please contact the editorial office at info@sapcraa.com

SUBMISSION

Critical Reflections: Journal for Philosophy and Social Sciences welcomes original submissions from researchers, academics, and practitioners worldwide. Manuscripts may be submitted through one of the following methods:

Option 1: Submit via our online submission form [here].

Option 2: Submit via email to info@sapcraa.com with “Manuscript Submission” in the subject line. Authors will receive confirmation of receipt within 5 business days. Before submitting, please ensure that your manuscript complies with the formatting and style requirements outlined in our [Author Guidelines].

Editorial Board

Emeritus Prof. Dr. Robert J. DostalBryn Mawr CollegePhilosophical hermeneutics, with particular emphasis on Hans-Georg Gadamer, German idealism and Kant, phenomenology, especially Husserl and Heidegger, contemporary continental philosophy, ancient Greek philosophy and its reception, particularly Plato, philosophy of art and aesthetics, the philosophy of time and temporality, philosophical method, philology and the theory of interpretation(United States of America)
Prof. Dr. Francesco Di IorioUniversity of Insubria (Italy) and Nankai University (China)Philosophy of the social sciences, epistemology, the individualism–holism debate and non-atomistic methodological individualism, fallibilism, phenomenological hermeneutics, analytical sociology, and Austrian school economics(Italy / China)
Prof. Dr. J. Obi OguejioforShanakan University & Nnmadi Azikiwe UniversityAfrican philosophy and African theology; medieval philosophy and medieval Latin scholarship; analytic and modern philosophy; metaphysics and the philosophy of time; intercultural philosophy and hermeneutics; philosophy, ethics and governance in Africa; postcolonial critique and Négritude studies(Nigeria)
Dr. Shahbaz HaiderIndependent ResearcherTwelver Shīʿī philosophy and theology; Islamic metaphysics and the doctrine of gradational existence (tashkīk al-wujūd); ʿirfān and philosophical mysticism, including the doctrine of the Perfect Human (al-insān al-kāmil); Shīʿī ḥadīth and Imāmī traditions; astrotheology and the plurality of worlds; the theological and philosophical implications of extraterrestrial intelligence; religion-and-science studies(Pakistan)
Emeritus prof. Dr. Ljubiša MitrovićUniversity of NišTheoretical and systemic sociology; sociology of social development and social change; sociology of global and regional processes; Balkan studies and geoculture of development; transition, dependency and post-socialist societies; interethnic relations, identity and the culture of peace; cultural policy in multicultural societies; sociology of European integration; historical sociology and the history of social thought(Serbia)
Prof. Dr. Nancey MurphyFuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, CaliforniaPhilosophy of science, theology and science, philosophy of mind, neuroscience and free will, cosmology and ethics, Christian anthropology, nonreductive physicalism, philosophy of religion, epistemology of theology, Anglo-American postmodern philosophy, science and religion dialogue, moral philosophy, philosophical theology(United States of America)
Prof. Dr. Tengiz IremadzeNew Georgian University & Grigol Robakidze UniversityMedieval and Early Modern Georgian Philosophy, Neoplatonism, Christian Philosophy(Georgia)
Slaven KneževićUniversity of Banja LukaPhilosophy of religion, metaphysics, anthropology, cosmology and cosmogony, marxism.(Bosnia and Herzegovina)
Prof. Dr. Mukhtar Yakhyaevich YakhyaevDagestan State UniversityPhilosophy of religion, Islamic Studies and the sociology of religious radicalism, with a focus on religious fanaticism, extremism and counter-terrorism in the North Caucasus(Russian Federation)
Prof. Dr. Petar AnðelkovićUniversity of Priština (Kos. Mitrovica)Sociology of religion; religious education and national identity; sociology of culture and identity; ethnic and confessional relations in Serbia and the Balkans; sociology of education(Serbia)
Dr. Julien ParetAlliance UniversityPolitical and cultural theory, Eurasianist political philosophy and post-Western thought, ideology, discourse and the politics of representation, media and film philosophy in the age of artificial intelligence, subcultures, dissent and counter-narratives, post-truth epistemology and the formation of collective narratives(India)
Prof. Dr. Jianxin LiuCharles Sturt UniversityOntology and environmental ethics; religion and the sciences; multimodal discourse and literacy studies(Australia)
Prof. Dr. Shafique N. ViraniUniversity of TorontoIslamic intellectual history and philosophy; Ismaili and Ithnā-ʿasharī Shiʿism, Quranic studies, Sufism, mysticism and religious pluralism, Muslim literatures in Arabic, Persian and South Asian languages, Bhakti literature(Canada)
Prof. Dr. Iftikhar AlamThe Islamia University of BahawalpurQur'anic studies and tafsīr, hermeneutics of revelation, Orientalism and the Western study of Islam, and contemporary Islamic thought(Pakistan)
Prof. Dr. Tamar TsopurashviliSavle Tsereteli Institute of Phil., Ilia State UniversityMedieval philosophy, philosophy of language and theories of predication, metaphysics and ontology, philosophy of religion, the reception of Neoplatonism and Aristotelianism in Eastern and Western Christianity, gender studies(Georgia)

Latest Issue

Volume: 4 Issue: 1 (2026) Serial Number: 5

29 June 2026

7–25

The modal collapse objection to divine simplicity: can the first cause act contingently?

Slaven Knežević

The modal collapse objection holds that a doctrine of divine simplicity, on which the first cause (prauzrok) is identical with its own act, entails that everything the first cause brings about is brought about necessarily, so that no created state of affairs could have failed to obtain. Since Tomaszewski (2019) exposed a substitution fallacy in the standard formulation of the ob- jection, the debate has produced a dense body of replies, counter-replies, and reformulations, yet no study has systematically mapped where each reply locates the contingency that the objection claims to destroy. This article closes that gap. Drawing on a corpus of twenty-two peer-reviewed contributions published between 2019 and 2026, I develop the Contingency Localization Frame- work (CLF), a five-fold typology that classifies every extant response according to the theoretical site at which it houses contingency: the inferential structure of the argument itself, extrinsic effect- side predication, multi-track divine power, intra-divine aspectival differentiation, or a gradated emanational hierarchy. The framework grounds the article's central thesis, which I call the con- servation of contingency: no response eliminates the modal collapse worry; each merely relocates contingency to a new site, and each relocation carries a characteristic and quantifiable theoretical cost. Bibliometric analysis of the corpus shows that 63.6% of contributions defend simplicity while 36.4% press the objection, that extrinsicalist strategies account for 53.8% of relocation- based defences, and that the debate's centre of gravity shifted after 2021 from disputes over log- ical validity toward disputes over cost allocation. The framework is then extended to the emana- tionist metaphysics articulated in Knežević (2024) and analysed by Đukić (2025), which I argue constitutes a fifth, structurally distinct localization strategy with its own liabilities. The conclusion assesses which localizations survive the providential collapse argument of Schmid (2022) and at what price.

DOI: 10.65932/CR-2026-1-1 download

26–45

Essentially ordered causal series and quantum indetermi- nacy: testing the aristotelian-thomistic first cause argu- ment against non-deterministic physics

Putri Lestari

Aristotelian-Thomistic arguments for a first cause turn on a distinction between acci- dentally ordered causal series, whose members act in succession, and essentially ordered series, whose members act simultaneously and whose intermediate members exercise causal power only as instruments deriving that power from a prior member. Critics of these arguments have con- centrated on regress termination and on whether persistence needs a sustaining cause; almost nobody has asked what the instrumental structure itself demands of physics. I argue that the standard formulation of the per se argument carries a tacit commitment I call the Derivational Sufficiency Requirement (DSR): that whatever an intermediate cause contributes to its effect is wholly derived from what it receives from the prior member. DSR is trivially satisfied under determinism and non-trivially contested under every indeterministic interpretation of quantum mechanics. Working from a corpus of thirty-eight verified sources published between 2019 and 2026, I develop the article's original contribution: the derivational trilemma, according to which a defender of the per se argument must either (i) commit the argument to a deterministic inter- pretation, thereby forfeiting the interpretation-neutrality classical theists typically claim, or (ii) weaken DSR to the derivation of propensity distributions rather than of singular outcomes, or (iii) accept irreducibly underived transitions inside the very structure designed to eliminate brute facts. A survey of eight interpretive families shows the trilemma to be exhaustive over the extant options, with 37.5% falling on the first horn, 25.0% on the second, and 37.5% on the third. I then defend the second horn as the strongest available position and identify a convergence, so far unremarked in either literature, between the propensity-based indeterministic physics of Del Santo and Gisin (2023) and the Thomistic distinction between primary and secondary causation. The convergence has a determinate price: the per se argument, so weakened, delivers a sustainer of powers rather than a determiner of outcomes. The emanational morphology of Knežević (2024a) is examined as a further, structurally distinct way of paying that price.

DOI: 10.65032/CR-2026-1-2 download

46–64

Apotropaic textile practices in postpartum rituals of the di- naric highlands: the red thread as boundary object between folk medicine and Orthodox canon

Cheryl McDougall

A red woollen thread tied around the wrist of a newborn, or worked into the swaddling, belt, or headcloth of a woman in the forty days following birth, is among the most widely reported protective devices in the ethnographic record of the Dinaric highlands and the wider Slavic Or- thodox world. It is also absent from the canonical texts of the tradition within whose ritual cal- endar it operates. The postpartum period is the object of a precise ecclesiastical framework — the prayers of the first day, the eighth-day naming, the fortieth-day churching of mother and child — and the red thread appears at no point in that framework, being neither prescribed nor for- bidden. This article treats that absence as its central datum rather than as an incidental gap. Work- ing from the published ethnographic and lived-religion literature on the Western Balkans and the wider Slavic area, and from the comparative literature on amulets, charms, and the materiality of magic, I argue that the standard boundary-object model, which explains an artefact's circulation between communities by its interpretive flexibility, misdescribes what is happening here. The original contribution of the article is the canonical vacancy thesis: the red thread circulates be- tween folk therapeutic practice and ecclesiastical practice not because the two communities read it differently but because one of them has issued no reading at all, and this normative silence is a structural condition rather than an oversight. From the thesis I develop a three-tier typology of ritual objects by institutional status — canonically incorporated, canonically proscribed, canoni- cally vacant — and derive a falsifiable prediction: vacant-tier objects should display higher per- sistence under secularisation and biomedicalisation than objects in either of the other tiers, since their retention incurs no doctrinal cost and their abandonment yields no doctrinal benefit. The article is conceptual and comparative; it advances no claim resting on new fieldwork, and the concluding section specifies the fieldwork that would be needed to test the prediction properly.

DOI: 10.65932/CR-2026-1-3 download

65–84

Autonomy without terminality: the legal threshold of “UN- bearable suffering” in EU assisted dying frameworks after mortier v. Belgium

Lazarela Mićunović

European assisted dying statutes diverge sharply on whether an applicant must be ter- minally ill, and the divergence has consequences that the literature has not adequately theorised. Where terminality is required, eligibility turns largely on a medically verifiable predicate about the applicant's condition. Where it is not required, as in Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg, and as an implication of the German Federal Constitutional Court's 2020 ruling, the whole weight of gatekeeping falls on a predicate that only the applicant can access: unbearable suffering. This article develops the concept of the epistemic gatekeeping load, defined as the share of an eligibility determination that rests on first-personally accessible predicates, and argues that it varies inversely with terminality requirements across the European regimes. From this I derive the article's central thesis, which I call procedural substitution: as the epistemic gatekeeping load rises, legal systems do not and cannot compensate by refining the substantive definition, and instead substitute pro- cedural architecture for substantive review. Mortier v. Belgium is the moment at which the Eu- ropean Court of Human Rights made this substitution explicit at the supervisory level, holding that a permissive regime does not violate Article 2 in substance even for a non-terminal psychi- atric applicant while locating a violation in the independence of the ex post control body and the length of the criminal investigation. Karsai v. Hungary confirms the pattern from the opposite direction through a wide margin of appreciation. The article's normative claim follows: the long- running complaint that “unbearable suffering” is unacceptably vague is misdirected, since the vagueness is not a drafting defect that better definition could cure but a structural entailment of abandoning terminality, and the appropriate locus of reform is therefore the design of review institutions. The analysis is doctrinal and comparative, draws on sixty verified sources, and offers legal analysis rather than legal advice.

DOI: 10.65932/CR-2026-1-4 download

85–103

The anthropology of waiting rooms: Temporal hierarchies and embodied patience in public healthcare institutions of southeast europe

Elona Shala

The anthropological literature on waiting has developed along two tracks. One treats waiting as an exercise of institutional power, in which the imposition of delay produces subordi- nated subjects; the other treats the waiting room as an atmospheric and spatial condition with its own affective properties. Neither track has examined how waiting rooms stratify internally, nor what difference it makes whether that stratification is visible to those it disadvantages. This article addresses that gap. Drawing on the published ethnographic and health-services literature, it pro- poses a distinction among three regimes of temporal stratification, differentiated by where the conversion of social advantage into temporal priority occurs relative to the sight-lines of those waiting: sequestered conversion, in which advantage is exercised outside the room; codified con- version, in which it is exercised inside the room under published criteria; and exposed conversion, in which it is exercised inside the room through unpublished, particularistic means. The article's original contribution is the claim that public healthcare waiting rooms in Southeast Europe are characterised by exposed conversion, and that this produces a distinctive attentional posture I term surveillant waiting: attention directed laterally at co-waiters and at the staff-door threshold rather than forward at one's own turn, because the operative uncertainty concerns not when one will be seen but who will be seen first and on what basis. The consequence for the article's second key term is that embodied patience in such settings is better understood as vigilance held in a still body than as resignation or discipline. Three falsifiable predictions follow, of which the sharpest is that reducing waiting duration should not reduce dissatisfaction under exposed conversion, whereas rendering the conversion either invisible or codified should. The study is conceptual and comparative and rests on no new fieldwork; the conclusion specifies the observational design that would test the predictions.

DOI: 10.65932/CR-2026-1-5 download

104–122

Tota simul and contingent futures: boethius's conception of eternity in book v of the consolation of philosophy as a response to the problem of divine foreknowledge

Alin Gomez

The article offers a systematic reconstruction and contemporary re-evaluation of Boethius's solution to the problem of divine foreknowledge in Book V of the Consolation of Philosophy. The central research question is whether the Boethian doctrine of eternity — defined as interminabilis vitae tota simul et perfecta possessio, the whole, simultaneous and perfect possession of unending life — still constitutes a defensible response to the dilemma of divine omniscience and human freedom, given the objections raised against it in the analytic philosophy of religion between 2019 and 2025. The research applies a hermeneutic-analytical methodology that combines close textual analysis of Consolatio V.1–V.6 with rational reconstruction of its argumentative structure and a comparative-systematic mapping of that structure onto the contemporary debate. The analysis yields three principal results. First, Boethius's solution is shown to be a unified three-component strategy, integrating an epistemic principle (the modes- of-cognition thesis), a metaphysical doctrine (atemporal eternity), and a modal distinction (simple versus conditional necessity), such that no component functions successfully in isolation. Second, the article develops its original contribution, the praesential-dependence reading, according to which the tota simul doctrine operates as a metaphysical vehicle for an implicit dependence response: divine vision is explanatorily posterior to the free act it apprehends, which anticipates the contemporary dependence solutions of Wasserman, Law, Cyr, and Fischer. Third, it is argued that the most influential recent objections — Hasker's presentist critique and Cyr's superfluity objection — target the metaphysical component while leaving the praesential-dependence core intact. The conclusion is that Boethius's fifth-century solution remains a live option in the twenty- first-century debate precisely when it is read as a structurally unified dependence response rather than as a bare appeal to timelessness.

DOI: 10.65932/CR-2026-1-6 download

Volume: 4 Issue: 1 (2026) Serial Number: 5 download