Proxy “actualism,” as defined by Karen Bennett in her article by that name, is roughly the view that while everything that exists is actual, everything—even what could exist but doesn’t—has proxies that do exist. Every possible thing has a proxy that actually exists. (For Plantinga, my essence is my proxy; for Linsky and Zalta, I, when I am nonconcrete, am my proxy.)
Bennett argues that proxy “actualism” is not actualism. In drawing a sharp distinction between two sorts of things that actually exist, the proxies and the objects for which they are proxies, the proxy “actualist” introduced two domains of quantification, just as the possibilist does. The proxy “actualist” has simply moved the distinction between merely possible and actual individuals into the actual world.
Let proxy “presentism” be roughly the view that, while everything that exists is present, everything—even merely past and future objects—has a proxy that presently exists. While I’m not certain, I’m inclined to think Crisp’s view and the view offered to the presentist by Merricks in Truth and Ontology are each a version of proxy “presentism”.
Question: Isn’t proxy “presentism” just as presentist as proxy “actualism” is actualist? That is, if proxy “actualism” is not actualism, then isn’t proxy “presentism” not presentism?