6
   

Any philosophers that think time is completely subjective?

 
 
ufotofu
 
Reply Thu 4 Mar, 2010 08:17 pm
I'm currently writing a paper on how time is subjective. So far I only have Augustine as an example, who, from what I understand, does not believe time is completely subjective or objective. Can anyone lead me in the right direction?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 6 • Views: 12,669 • Replies: 108
No top replies

 
Reconstructo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Mar, 2010 08:30 pm
@ufotofu,
ufotofu;136280 wrote:
I'm currently writing a paper on how time is subjective. So far I only have Augustine as an example, who, from what I understand, does not believe time is completely subjective or objective. Can anyone lead me in the right direction?


Yes! Hegel proves, in my opinion, that time is created by desire and concept, and nothing else. Time is only memory and desire, in the form of concepts, and the actions we take on the spatial present w/ these concepts in mind.

This book is one of the best books in philosophy. I assure you. You don't get the whole thing here. But it's a start.

Man is Time, at least in the way that humans understand it, and Hegel proves this....(Hegel is the great forgotten genius of Western Philosophy....)Introduction to the reading of Hegel - Google Books
ughaibu
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Mar, 2010 08:57 pm
@ufotofu,
ufotofu;136280 wrote:
I'm currently writing a paper on how time is subjective. So far I only have Augustine as an example, who, from what I understand, does not believe time is completely subjective or objective. Can anyone lead me in the right direction?
I think Huw Price is one. Anyway, have a look around here: People with online papers in philosophy
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Mar, 2010 06:28 am
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;136289 wrote:
Yes! Hegel proves, in my opinion, that time is created by desire and concept, and nothing else. Time is only memory and desire, in the form of concepts, and the actions we take on the spatial present w/ these concepts in mind.

This book is one of the best books in philosophy. I assure you. You don't get the whole thing here. But it's a start.

Man is Time, at least in the way that humans understand it, and Hegel proves this....(Hegel is the great forgotten genius of Western Philosophy....)Introduction to the reading of Hegel - Google Books


I suppose that if Time is subjective, then unless there were people, there would be no Time and everyone would be in a terrible hurry since they wuld have had no time to do anything. So we would have to wait for people to come around before there was Time. But what would be happening in the meanwhile? And would people relax a little when that happened? Does Hegel have anything to say about this dialectical crisis?
Zetherin
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Mar, 2010 10:43 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;136436 wrote:
I suppose that if Time is subjective, then unless there were people, there would be no Time and everyone would be in a terrible hurry since they wuld have had no time to do anything. So we would have to wait for people to come around before there was Time. But what would be happening in the meanwhile? And would people relax a little when that happened? Does Hegel have anything to say about this dialectical crisis?


If humans did not exist, things like the natural decomposition of plantlife, would not occur. The world, as we know it, would be at a standstill.

How you don't know this stuff, I haven't a clue.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Mar, 2010 10:46 am
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;136500 wrote:
If humans did not exist, things like the natural decomposition of plantlife, would not occur. The world, as we know it, would be at a standstill.

How you don't know this stuff, I haven't a clue.


Hmmm. Neither do I. I suppose that I have not been educated beyond my capacities.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Mar, 2010 11:05 am
@kennethamy,
0 Replies
 
jgweed
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Mar, 2010 01:18 pm
@ufotofu,
Are there not many different kinds of time?

A ancient farmer understood the seasons in relation to his planting or the day to the sun rising and setting. In Rome, time was measured by the divisions of military watches.

With the general use of watches, time became more measurable, and train-tables and punch-clocks became available as well as more accurate sea-navigation. Refinements and further segregation of time periods into ever smaller amounts were made possible and necessary by science; races are won by tenths of a second. Think of all the rules regarding time in a football game.

With humans, time is seen as the past, present, and most importantly the future into which projects and hopes can the thrown. A man glances at his watch as he hurries to meet his date at 6:30, or to get to work at precisely 8 am (think of the different rules of "give and take" regarding being "on time" in the two cases).
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Mar, 2010 01:24 pm
@jgweed,
jgweed;136558 wrote:
Are there not many different kinds of time?

A ancient farmer understood the seasons in relation to his planting or the day to the sun rising and setting. In Rome, time was measured by the divisions of military watches.

With the general use of watches, time became more measurable, and train-tables and punch-clocks became available as well as more accurate sea-navigation. Refinements and further segregation of time periods into ever smaller amounts were made possible and necessary by science; races are won by tenths of a second. Think of all the rules regarding time in a football game.

With humans, time is seen as the past, present, and most importantly the future into which projects and hopes can the thrown. A man glances at his watch as he hurries to meet his date at 6:30, or to get to work at precisely 8 am (think of the different rules of "give and take" regarding being "on time" in the two cases).


Yes. The philosopher, Henri Bergson, distinguished between duration and time. The former is subjective. That is why having a tooth drilled seems to take such a long time, when it is actually only a few minutes.
Zetherin
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Mar, 2010 01:32 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;136563 wrote:
Yes. The philosopher, Henri Bergson, distinguished between duration and time. The former is subjective. That is why having a tooth drilled seems to take such a long time, when it is actually only a few minutes.


Yes, how we perceive time, and time, are different. How could someone confuse the two?
prothero
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Mar, 2010 02:52 pm
@ufotofu,
Just as we do not (well should not) talk about space as some kind of rigid Cartesian coordinate system (empty box) into which objects are placed.
We do not (should not) talk about time as some fixed independent reality.

Time is change or process. If there is no process or no change there is no time. If there is any change, then there must be time.

The rate of which any particular process occurs is relative to velocity, gravity, etc and so time is variable and relative. The relative rate of radioactive decay between two different frames of reference is variable not fixed. You can not separate time from space and from process.
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Mar, 2010 02:54 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;136569 wrote:
Yes, how we perceive time, and time, are different. How could someone confuse the two?


I don't think commonsense does, does it?
0 Replies
 
Reconstructo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Mar, 2010 06:15 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;136436 wrote:
I suppose that if Time is subjective, then unless there were people, there would be no Time and everyone would be in a terrible hurry since they wuld have had no time to do anything. So we would have to wait for people to come around before there was Time. But what would be happening in the meanwhile? And would people relax a little when that happened? Does Hegel have anything to say about this dialectical crisis?



It's important to distinguish between time and movement. And also to consider that Hegel abolishes/reduces the mind-matter distinction to what it is, a distinction imposed by the "it," as one can no longer just say mind.

It's a sublime idea, really, this "geist," but admittedly not practical. The point is difficult to grasp, but quite profound. Einstein seems to support it. Spacetime is a mathematical twist on Hegelian time.

I also note that we imagine time spatially, therefore continuously. The experience of sound re-enforces this. But entertain this thought experiment. How would humans experience time in the absence of concepts? including conceptualized memory and desire/fear?

Consider also that physics time is a useful human invention, so useful as to become to the dominant way we consider time..but not the only way that it can be understood....

---------- Post added 03-05-2010 at 07:19 PM ----------

prothero;136603 wrote:
If there is no process or no change there is no time. If there is any change, then there must be time.


I agree with your post, except for this point....

I think we need to step back, and consider the relationship twixt time and change. Is the perception of change possible in the absence of memory? Imagine a human with a 0 second short term memory. What is time in this case? I argue again that time is imposed by the concept, and its emotional components (desire/fear).

---------- Post added 03-05-2010 at 07:20 PM ----------

Zetherin;136569 wrote:
Yes, how we perceive time, and time, are different. How could someone confuse the two?


I see what you are saying. But this is why Hegel is profound. He thought hard on the issue. What is time except for our concept of it? Where is time? Could you explain time to a person with no memory?
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Mar, 2010 07:26 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;136680 wrote:

. What is time except for our concept of it? Where is time? ?


All that means is that time does not exist, but only the concept of time exists. Why does anyone think that is true?
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Mar, 2010 07:43 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;136569 wrote:
Yes, how we perceive time, and time, are different. How could someone confuse the two?


Now, do they ? Why wonder were did you get such idea from...
0 Replies
 
Zetherin
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Mar, 2010 07:47 pm
@ufotofu,
Reconstructo wrote:
I see what you are saying. But this is why Hegel is profound. He thought hard on the issue. What is time except for our concept of it? Where is time? Could you explain time to a person with no memory?


Things were still going on before any lifeforms were around which could even hold concepts. Isn't that true? I mean how did we even evolve to have brains and minds which could know concepts, if not for time? It took time, for us to evolve to have brains, didn't it?
0 Replies
 
Emil
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Mar, 2010 08:55 pm
@ufotofu,
What is this Time with capital T? Is it anything like, say, time? Just asking. There is a tendency in philosophy for people to write certain words with a capital beginning letter as if it somehow acquired a profound meaning by that act.

---------- Post added 03-06-2010 at 03:56 AM ----------

ughaibu;136305 wrote:
I think Huw Price is one. Anyway, have a look around here: People with online papers in philosophy


I had been looking for that link. Thanks! Bookmarked now.
0 Replies
 
Reconstructo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Mar, 2010 09:41 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;136731 wrote:
All that means is that time does not exist, but only the concept of time exists. Why does anyone think that is true?


Well, are you going to read the books, if I point you to them? Hegel especially showed that Man as conceptual system was time, that time as humans experience it is a byproduct of conceptualization. Not practical, so you might not care. But quite logical. Pure mathematics, to be metaphorical.

---------- Post added 03-05-2010 at 10:42 PM ----------

Emil;136770 wrote:
What is this Time with capital T? Is it anything like, say, time? Just asking. There is a tendency in philosophy for people to write certain words with a capital beginning letter as if it somehow acquired a profound meaning by that act.

In German nouns are capitalized. In English, important nouns were once more often capitalized. No need for the allergy.

---------- Post added 03-05-2010 at 10:45 PM ----------

Zetherin;136741 wrote:
Things were still going on before any lifeforms were around which could even hold concepts. Isn't that true? I mean how did we even evolve to have brains and minds which could know concepts, if not for time? It took time, for us to evolve to have brains, didn't it?


So says your human conceptual mind....:sarcastic:

What is time for those w/o concept? The spatial-present, I would think.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Mar, 2010 02:28 am
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;136782 wrote:
Well, are you going to read the books, if I point you to them? Hegel especially showed that Man as conceptual system was time, that time as humans experience it is a byproduct of conceptualization. Not practical, so you might not care. But quite logical. Pure mathematics, to be metaphorical.

---------- Post added 03-05-2010 at 10:42 PM ----------


.


No. We would not make appointments unless there was such a thing as time. I just wanted to point out that to say that time is only a concept is to imply that there is no time; not that there is time but that time is a concept.

The usual thing is going on. First, the concept of X is confused with X, with the false implication that since the concept of X exists, X itself exits. Which compounds the confusion. You cannot have it both ways first saying that time does not exist but only the concept of time exists, and then saying that time exists after all, but that time is subjective. If only the concept of time exists, then time does not exist whether it is subjective or objective. It is a fallacy to argue that since since only the concept of time exists, and the concept of time is subjective, that time is subjective. Which seems to be the prevailing argument. From what you write, Hegel commits exactly this fallacy.
Reconstructo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Mar, 2010 03:20 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;136821 wrote:
No. We would not make appointments unless there was such a thing as time. I just wanted to point out that to say that time is only a concept is to imply that there is no time; not that there is time but that time is a concept.

The usual thing is going on. First, the concept of X is confused with X, with the false implication that since the concept of X exists, X itself exits. Which compounds the confusion. You cannot have it both ways first saying that time does not exist but only the concept of time exists, and then saying that time exists after all, but that time is subjective. If only the concept of time exists, then time does not exist whether it is subjective or objective. It is a fallacy to argue that since since only the concept of time exists, and the concept of time is subjective, that time is subjective. Which seems to be the prevailing argument. From what you write, Hegel commits exactly this fallacy.


Time exists not by itself but as part of a system of concepts. All concept exists within a system of concepts. All human concepts are imposed. So even though there are qualia that concepts refer to, the concept is how we experience the qualia as unified, therefore a separation of the concept and what it refers to is not exactly logical, however justified in practical terms.
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Any philosophers that think time is completely subjective?
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/30/2020 at 05:10:48