Abstract

Shozo Omori's theory of the past, developed during his later years, is examined critically with a focus on its central thesis that the past is that which is recalled. The analysis shows that Omori's argument designed to support the above thesis contains ideas which run counter to that very thesis. Specifically, it turns out that, when contrasting recall and perception as two heterogeneous modes of experience, he tacitly supposes past perception as something other than the recalled, and that this inconsistency threatens the validity of his basic views.