The paper presents a realist perspective on the recent exchange in the Journal of the Philosophy of History between Adrian Currie and Daniel Swaim on the one side and Paul Roth and Fons Dewulf on the other. The first part presents a critique of Currie and Swaim’s view that the past is not determinate and can be changed. The second part states a series of arguments against Roth’s view that events exist only under description. The third part discusses the ontological problems that Roth’s irrealism about the past fails to address.

中文翻译：

---

对 Roth-and-Dewulf 与 Currie-and-Swaim 交换的天真现实主义反思

这篇论文从现实主义的角度看待最近在历史哲学杂志上的交流，一方面是 Adrian Currie 和 Daniel Swaim，另一方面是 Paul Roth 和 Fons Dewulf。第一部分对 Currie 和 Swaim 的过去不确定且可以改变的观点进行了批判。第二部分陈述了一系列反对罗斯认为事件仅在描述下存在的观点的论据。第三部分讨论了罗斯关于过去的非现实主义未能解决的本体论问题。