Any philosophers that think time is completely subjective?

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?

By strange I meant that it excites wonder and awe. That's another definition for the word strange that wasn't included in the quote above.

Strange
2 a : not before known, heard, or seen : unfamiliar b : exciting wonder or awe :

Strange - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Time isn't some substance which you can throw around, it is like speed just a messurement.

*-Time is subjective to rules or our perseption of time is subject to rules. To menton abok by Paul Davies "About Time" he sates among mant things and possibilities that if there were two identical twins, one traveled away frop earth close to the speed of sound for years and then camestraight back, Twe twin on the ground has aged far more than the one traveling.

It does exist as a measurement in physics. But also in other ways. Heidegger and who knows how many others looked at time from another angle. We are mortal beings. We know that we must one day die. So this is a different way to experience time.

So time exist because of our deaths? ..............what drugs are you on? Maybe I can have some ..pretty please?

No, time would exist, in this second view, because of our memory and imagination, which offer us visions of the past and future. Desire and fear would be an important factor in this view. Man imposes his imagined future on the present...and only the present is spatially here or present.

Sounds very poetic, little philosophy, none scientific.

Well, Hex, for me, philosophy is prior to natural science. And science is made out of exactly what I just described. Science is a body of concepts and equations that develops over time, within human history. Unless we had memory, we would have no science. And unless we had a desire for more knowledge, for example a vision of the unified theory, we would not bother with science.

The future exists in the present as the fantasy of what could/should be. The scientist wants knowledge concerning the structure of nature, right? So he acts on the present, conducts experience, in order to generate this knowledge. Human time always was and always has been prior to physics time. Physics time exists as a piece of human time. Man is a time-binding species. We build on the accomplishments on the dead. And we can do so because of language, or concept. This is why Hegel said that concept is time. But that's an oversimplification.

Man is a system of concepts who is there in the present, and this present is made of not only of concepts but also of sensation and emotion. Man is a creature who desires. What does he desire? He doesn't desire what he already has, or what is already present. That would make no sense. He desires what he imagines. The future and past exists in the spatial present as imagination/memory/concept. I think they are all the same sort of "material." How does your personal past exist for you? Where is your past? It's made of concepts, I think. You carry it with you in your "head." We say head but when we humans do brain surgery we don't see concepts. We see tissue. So "head" is just a metaphor.

Sounds very poetic, little philosophy, none scientific.

Sigh!....................

Where did you get this word "Sigh"? Did you inherit from a language that evolved over time? And do you really find that last post hard to understand?

Here are simple questions for you. What is memory? In what way does the past exist? In what way does the future exist?

If you can't or won't answer such questions yourself, I find your "sigh" to be a little self-serving.

Memory is knowledge of the past, of course. The past exists. There is no such thing as a "way of existing". I have posted about that before. The same goes for the future. The past exists, but not at present; the future exists too, but not, of course at present. However, statements about the past do exist, and statements about the future exist too. What else would you like to know?

Thanks for this exhaustive account!

So the past and the future are made of statements? Sounds like concepts to me, bro.

Where did I say that the past and future are made of statements? You really have to read what is there. Not what you believe is there.That is called, "being objective". And I am definitely not your "bro". Whatever that is.

Except that it is bad poetry. It doesn't even rhyme.

In what way does the past exist? In what way does the future exist?