| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Thayer
Visitor
Joined: 10 Aug 2008
Posts: 6
Local time: 9:07 AM
|
 Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2008 8:53 pm Post subject: The defnition of the present |
  |
|
Can anyone refer me to a credible work on the philosophy of time? Is there a justified definition of the present moment?
What first caused me to question it was Hume and his insistence upon immediate perception and observation. He rightfully disqualifies the past and future as ultimately unjustifiable in obtaining certain knowledge. But what here is meant by immediate observation? Can a definite distinction be drawn between the present and the past? Once I began to try and narrow it down it seemed an almost infinite regress.
As I am typing these letters now, each letter represents a past occurrence; even further then, the moment it takes to type one letter can be reduced to fractions of itself, and on and on until the present is no longer tangible to our senses or reason. I am ultimately unjustified in asserting that I typed the previous sentence a minute ago? I would assert no, since there is still the remote possibility that I have been created this very moment (whatever that is exactly) with all of these previous memories programmed within me, having not actually occurred in any real or definite way.
I will be forthright and admit that I am a Christian, but if I were not to be I would most certainly be a skeptic, seeing that all who have tried to establish even one certainty beyond our own existence have failed miserably.
I am relatively new to philosophy and so I hope that someone with a far greater insight can shed some light on my problem.
Thank you.
_________________
Whatever your heart clings to and confides in, that is your God.
-Martin Luther |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
|
SalsaShark
has filled in a custom rank.
Joined: 07 Aug 2006
Posts: 1039
Local time: 12:07 AM
Location: Regina SK CAN
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2008 9:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You just stumbled into a very interesting subcategory of philosophy.
Plenty of thinkers have thought plenty of different things. I for one really like what Augustine said in "Confessions", although I don't subscribe to his opinion, I think it's a quite different way to think about it. You'll have to dig through "Confessions" to find it as I don't remember where it is, but the whole read is good provided you can dig through the theology and stick to the philosophy (although it's a largely philosophical writing, compared to other Christian thinkers regarding time period and/or subject matter). He makes the case that what I call the time-line argument is thinking of time in the wrong way. He essentially defines past as memories and future as expectations and says that the past is qualitative instead of quantitative. Either way, considering you're a Christian, you should read Confessions in it's entirety - and then follow it up with Hume's Dialogue concerning Natural Religion.
Also, for a different perspective and not only an easy read but a fun read, Plato has a pretty generic view of time - which ties in with motion. I forget where his biggest writing is though....
Just go to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and search time. I find it to be a fascinating thing to look at in philosophy.
_________________
"Oh bury me, far away please, bury me." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
abstract atheist
Forum Leader
Joined: 02 Sep 2008
Posts: 526
Local time: 9:07 AM
Location: Austin, Texas
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2008 10:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I asked why it was now:
http://www.atheistforums.com/why-is-it-now-t9537.html
Some people labeled me a pseudophilosopher. But to me this is a physical question, not a philosophical one.
_________________
The world holds two classes of men - intelligent men without religion, and religious men without intelligence. - Abu’l‐Ala al Ma’arri
Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day; teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime; give a man religion and he will die praying for a fish.
Father: Son, I don't want you hanging around Steve any more, I think he might be gay.
Son: He better be gay, he's my boyfriend. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gettin' In Tune
Forum Master
Joined: 03 Aug 2007
Posts: 2550
Local time: 9:07 AM
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2008 10:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LEAVE! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SalsaShark
has filled in a custom rank.
Joined: 07 Aug 2006
Posts: 1039
Local time: 12:07 AM
Location: Regina SK CAN
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2008 10:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Get over it abstract atheist. All you're doing is distracting from a terribly interesting issue at hand.
_________________
"Oh bury me, far away please, bury me." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
abstract atheist
Forum Leader
Joined: 02 Sep 2008
Posts: 526
Local time: 9:07 AM
Location: Austin, Texas
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2008 11:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SalsaShark wrote: | | Get over it abstract atheist. All you're doing is distracting from a terribly interesting issue at hand. |
What the hell are you talking about? I bring up the same problem that Thayer did, and I am viciously attacked for it. I simply come from a physical viewpoint. Why am I distracting from this issue? You want to know what I think about time. No, of course you don't. You want me to kill myself, so there is no chance that I will ever post on this forum again. And so does everyone else in this God forsaken forum. And so does everyone in the universe. This whole world is one vast cosmic conspiracy against me. Everyone hates me. Everyone. Even Jesus. I was the one person he didn't die for.
Now, about time. Thayer, you should read Quenten Smith's work. He is a very good modern philosopher of time:
http://www.qsmithwmu.com/philosophy_of_time.htm
_________________
The world holds two classes of men - intelligent men without religion, and religious men without intelligence. - Abu’l‐Ala al Ma’arri
Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day; teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime; give a man religion and he will die praying for a fish.
Father: Son, I don't want you hanging around Steve any more, I think he might be gay.
Son: He better be gay, he's my boyfriend. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thayer
Visitor
Joined: 10 Aug 2008
Posts: 6
Local time: 9:07 AM
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2008 10:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| SalsaShark wrote: | You just stumbled into a very interesting subcategory of philosophy.
Plenty of thinkers have thought plenty of different things. I for one really like what Augustine said in "Confessions", although I don't subscribe to his opinion, I think it's a quite different way to think about it. You'll have to dig through "Confessions" to find it as I don't remember where it is, but the whole read is good provided you can dig through the theology and stick to the philosophy (although it's a largely philosophical writing, compared to other Christian thinkers regarding time period and/or subject matter). He makes the case that what I call the time-line argument is thinking of time in the wrong way. He essentially defines past as memories and future as expectations and says that the past is qualitative instead of quantitative. Either way, considering you're a Christian, you should read Confessions in it's entirety - and then follow it up with Hume's Dialogue concerning Natural Religion.
Also, for a different perspective and not only an easy read but a fun read, Plato has a pretty generic view of time - which ties in with motion. I forget where his biggest writing is though....
Just go to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and search time. I find it to be a fascinating thing to look at in philosophy. |
| Quote: | ...in the Eternal nothing passeth, but the whole is present; whereas no time is all at once present: and that all time past, is driven on by time to come, and all to come followeth upon the past; and all past to come, is created, and flows out of that which is ever present...
Confessions XI. 13. |
| Quote: | For what is time? Who can readily and briefly explain this? Who can even in thought comprehend it, so as to utter a word about it? But what in discourse do we mention more familiarly and knowingly, than time? And, we understand, when we speak of it; we understand also, when we hear it spoken of by another. What then is time? If no one asks me, I know: if I wish to explain it to one that asketh, I know not: yet I say bodly that I know, that if nothing passed away, time past were not; and if nothing were coming, a time to come were not; and if nothing were, time present were not. Those two time then, past and to come, how are they, seeing the past now is not, and that to come is not yet? But the present, should it always be present, and never pass into time past, verily it should not be time, but eternity. If time present (if it is to be time) only cometh into existence, because it passeth into time past, how can we say that either this is, whose cause of being is, that is shall not be; so, namely, that we cannot truly say that time is, but because it is tending not to be?
Confessions XIV. 17. |
| Quote: | Yea, that one hour passeth away in flying particles. Whatsoever of it hath flown away, is past; whatsoever remaineth, is to come. If an instant is to be conceived, which cannot be divided into the smallest particles of moments, that alone is, which may be called present. Which yet flies with such speed from future to past, as not to be lengthened out with the least stay. For if it be, it is divided into past and future. The present hath no space.
Confessions XV. 20. |
I have to agree with you, Salsa Shark, this is certainly one of the most fascinating studies in philosophy I have ever come across.
What is perhaps even more interesting than the ambiguous nature of the present is the way it affects the other two aspects of time: what is past and what is to come. I have read large portions of Augustine, focusing primarily on his anti-Pelagian works and his proposed theodicy, but after reading these passages I most certainly will delve into his more philosophical works (though they are never fully separated from his theology).
As I understand these passages, it seems that Augustine is drawing a distinction between 1) the present as an element of time (which he seems to refute rather clearly) and 2) the Present as the Eternal; the moment of time that flows from the Eternal Presence. Am I reading this correctly? I think Aquinas built a bit from this concept (though he is far more Aristotelian) in his understanding of the Eternal Now.
I plan on reading more on time from Stanford Encyclopedia next. Thanks for the reference.
_________________
Whatever your heart clings to and confides in, that is your God.
-Martin Luther |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
abstract atheist
Forum Leader
Joined: 02 Sep 2008
Posts: 526
Local time: 9:07 AM
Location: Austin, Texas
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SalsaShark
has filled in a custom rank.
Joined: 07 Aug 2006
Posts: 1039
Local time: 12:07 AM
Location: Regina SK CAN
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2008 10:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| abstract atheist wrote: | | SalsaShark wrote: | | Get over it abstract atheist. All you're doing is distracting from a terribly interesting issue at hand. |
What the hell are you talking about? I bring up the same problem that Thayer did, and I am viciously attacked for it. I simply come from a physical viewpoint. Why am I distracting from this issue? You want to know what I think about time. No, of course you don't. You want me to kill myself, so there is no chance that I will ever post on this forum again. And so does everyone else in this God forsaken forum. And so does everyone in the universe. This whole world is one vast cosmic conspiracy against me. Everyone hates me. Everyone. Even Jesus. I was the one person he didn't die for. |
Quit being a little bitch. Saying things like "some have called me a psuedophilosopher" in a passive-aggressive manner just makes you look like an ass, especially for the people who know what you're referring to.
And Thayer:
Stanford Encyclopedia is a pretty good source, I've had a number of professors tell me it's the best place to supplement the readings both because of accuracy and relevance. Another one is www.philosophypages.com - it's kind of just a whole bunch of three-paragraph summaries of the various positions in various fields. I find it's a good starting point. I also find that wikipedia is wrong a lot when it comes to philosophy, a statement backed up by every professor I've ever had. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HxC
w00t
Joined: 02 Jun 2008
Posts: 991
Local time: 9:07 AM
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2008 11:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
the present is the thing that just happened, and is now the past.
| Quote: | The idea is to remain in a state of constant departure while always arriving.
--boat car guy |
_________________
there's a reason christians are called "sheep" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Live Video and Chat Room
Freethought Videos
FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Register
