|
Anaxagoras -> RE: Time...the impossible essential. (7/17/2011 8:08:58 PM)
|
Never read the Metaphysics, only his work Nicomachean Ethics which was a pain to read. Great philosopher though, a definite contender for the greatest thinker of all time.
Just a few thoughts on the topic that a sceptic might contribute for what its worth.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Arpig
1. Time exists, this is obvious from simple observation. There are things that are no longer, and things that are, and things aren't yet. So time exists.
I can't see time unlike the objects I preceive. All I can say is that the objects exist from simple observation. If I look long enough I may be able to see some objects change but it is debatable to say that this observation in itself is sufficient to say time exists, in part because I already assume time exists. Thus a simple implicitely apparent observation cannot be made as it involves circular reasoning from background knowledge. I must hypothesise that a thing called "time" exists.
quote:
2. Everything exists within time, and this can be seen as the defining aspect of existence. In order for something to be said to exist, it must have some duration within time, no matter how short. So time is essential for existence, without time nothing can exist.
Its hard to see time as the defining aspect of existence since time has no content within itself whereas existence is definately something rather than nothing.
quote:
3. Time is made up of three basic parts. Past, Present, & Future.
Only from the perspective of someone existing within time. If time exists it is unknowable outside of its own framework which makes it impossible to define objectively.
quote:
4. These three parts are essential to the existence of time, without all three components, time cannot exist.
4. Past & Future offer no problems, but the Present does.
A. In order for the Present to exist, it must, by definition, not be Past or Future.
B. If the Present has any duration, it must, again by definition, contain a Past and a Future within it, which would be impossible, since it is the Present.
C. Therefore the Present has no duration within time.
D. Therefore the Present does not exist.
If we understand the present as a subjective experience then it can be said to exist as being the experience within our present state of consciousness even if it has partially past and futuristic components. Since we experience both past and future in a subjective context too then we can say all exist in a sense. If we say the present doesn't exist than neither does the past or future since they are dependent in terms of understanding on the notion of "present". In fact one could say only the present exists because the past and future are experiences within each individual that can only be experienced in a context of the present.
quote:
6. If time does not exist, then nothing can have a duration within time, and therefore nothing exists.
but it does according to the simple observation at the start on which the foundation of the argument is based! Its a strange argument that makes an assertion to prove an argument that it then tries to disprove! Imagine a democrat affirming he is right but then arguing in effect to prove he is wrong.
quote:
See...it's fucked up. So I don't pay much attention to time, and I attach no real value to it, since it doesn't really exist, it's a fabrication of our minds that is inherently flawed.
It might be flawed in the context of one argument because there seems to be a supposition time exists in an objective detached sense. Rather than seeing it as a fabrication, it could be a necessary component of perception-in-existence, as Kant would suggest. Kant stated that the true objective world was unknowable but was perceivable intersubjectively.
|
|
|
|
