A battle over the politics and philosophy of time is a major part of what is at stake in the differences between three competing currents of contemporary philosophy analytic philosophy poststructuralist philosophy and phenomenological philosophy. Avowed or tacit philosophies of time define representatives of each of these groups and also guard against their potential interlocutors. However by bringing the temporal differences between these philosophical trajectories to the fore and showing both their methodological presuppositions and their ethicopolitical implications this book begins a long overdue dialogue on their respective strengths and weaknesses. It argues that there are systemic temporal problems chronopathologies that afflict each but especially the poststructuralist tradition focusing on Gilles Deleuze and Jacques Derrida and their prophetic future politics and the analytic tradition focusing on John Rawls and philosophical methodology in general particularly the tendency to oscillate between forms of atemporality and intuitionoriented ampldquopresentismamprdquo. What is required is a ampldquomiddlewayamprdquo that does not treat the livingpresent and the pragmatic temporality associated with bodily coping as an epiphenomenon to be explained away as either a transcendental illusion and as a reactive force that is ethically problematic or as a subjectivepsychological experience that is not ultimately real.