Any philosophers that think time is completely subjective?

I need to add a bit more here , but dwell upon what I have written

so while something is going on here on Earth something at the same moment is going on in the universe and on and on and on and on

let me put it this way , to the Universe time is irrelevant

...but note that the status of "thing" and the status of "going on" are entirely defined by human consciousness irrespective of our "actual presence".

so your point about time then ?

because time is all about Human consciousness

Without your consciousness its all a big cosmic meh.

...the point about "time" or indeed any concept (e.g "cosmos" ) is that it has no independent "existence"....but that goes for "consciousness" as well !

Fresco, I like your posts. Yes, "consciousness" and "time" and "concept" are concepts. I like that you see this. As it's not addressed much. In my opinion, we are all too eager (most of us) to take the subject/object dichotomy as fundamental.

Thales said the world was made of water. Did he not realize that this very statement would then have to be made of water? He would have been smarter to say that the world was made of idea, and smart still to not say this in an idealistic vein. Transcendental idealism (representational realism) swallows itself, implodes.

A dynamic system of concepts structures a continuum of sensation and emotion. This seems close to the truth, or at least less obviously refutable than most philosophical chatter. Except "concept" is often understood dualistically, as if concepts were representations of objects rather than their logical-thinkable-rational structure. Do you know about Quine and the unicorn? He wanted to deny its existence, but couldn't do that without using the meaningful word. These sad materialists, who cannot think existence apart from sensation, and see that sensation is meaningless except for concept. These falsificationists whose falsification program is not falsifiable by sensation. Philosophy-haters, dialectic-haters. Correspondence-theory half-wits, or mental sloths. They negate their own significance as they do their best to negate the value of thinking apart from sensation. Oh well. Crunch all you want --we'll make more.

if you blog anywhere, stop by my blog at wordpress (nonismo) and drop a line. I would PM this but I'm blocked for no good reason. Which is why I don't stop in much (among other reasons).

To get out of "words defining words" I tend to fall back on Maturana's "languaging". If you are into this at all you may see where I'm coming from.

It is relevant as there is matter in the Universe. Matter generates time. Anything that has Mass is subject to change. Change is what you are after to understand what time is.

The universe is expanding. There would be no expansion if there was nothing there.

Your body is changing. It is growing old. This is the best example that time is occurring.

I would suggest that everything that has mass IS change, not just "subject to" change. Matter and change are not separate things by which we measure one with reference to the other. Heraclitus was mystically right.

really

so you can then explain ALL the physics , chemistry , nuclear , biochemistry , astrophysics , astronomy

this should be a very long answer !!

If it is the case that time is relative as Einstein suggested it may well be true that the experience of time from an observer point of view can find a little space for subjective awareness don´t you think ? of course the first has nothing to do with the second except as a reminder of what is implicit in relations...

to the Universe its self , time is irrelevant

Regarding the philosopher, Kant, did he not hold that both space and time are "subjective", insofar as they are essential for our capacity to make sense of experience? And, by this approach, are they not also "objective" inevitabilities because of their ascribed a priori nature?

If you define subjective truth as the lack of a proof that time is objective then it is subjective because until time is proved to be objectively true it is subjective. There is no objective proof of time.

Too bad that you KANT recall one. (Almost surely already covered somewhere in a lengthy thread dating back to last year).

Nagarjuna

What about the Indian logician Nagaruna? Bergson wrote about "duration" as the subjective aspect of time: sometimes it flies and sometimes it drags out.