Professor Schiller's question, “Must philosophers disagree?” can be answered in the negative if a technique can be worked out whereby it becomes possible to answer the question, “What are they talking about?” It is the aim of the ensuing remarks to provide at least the outline of such a technique and to illustrate its possible effectiveness in the specific context of controversies about the nature of time. That philosophers may continue to disagree in spite of the suggestions offered is, of course, to be expected in view of the long history of failures which compromise positions have encountered. The fate of the conciliator usually has been to receive the contempt of the embattled polemicists, and the fate of his peacemaking, to be construed as just another theory. Of course, this is in most cases the ulterior motive for his pretended altruism in assuming the rôle of arbitrator. Yet there are theories and theories. A position like that of Hume on the question of causality may reasonably be opposed to that of Leibniz but not in the same sense as to that of Kant. For the latter does attempt to provide a bridge between rationalism and empiricism and to do justice to the valid claims of each. The theory of time here proposed immodestly attempts a rapprochement among the multitudinous doctrines of time by setting forth one more doctrine.