This is going to sound silly but I was wondering why McTaggart's approach is needed to prove time to be real/unreal.
Here's what I was thinking:
The existence of time is a necessary condition for there to be real change, thus the existence of real change is a sufficient condition to show that there is real time.
Which is I believe what McTaggart has as his first premise. But then wouldn't it be sufficient for one to show that there is/is not real change in order to show the (un)reality of time? Why does change have to be described by any of the A,B and C series in order for change to be real?
update: I believe that in McTaggart's 1908 paper where he first argued for the unreality of time the definition of reality was never given. I take his reality to mean mind-independent existence, but if you have any suggestions please let me know!
update again: I see what you mean!! Sorry for being slow. Personally I think that temporal passage doesn't have to be real for time to be real, so I guess I take the B-theorist view. I see now how my stance on this issue will answer my own question: if I am a B-theorist, then of course I will think that just proving that there are real changes is enough to show that time is real, so I won't need to go through the following analysis like McTaggart did. But McTaggart needs more to show that time cannot be real as he holds that temporal passage is intrinsic to time.
Please feel free to point out what I've missed!
Many thanks for any help!