6
   

Any philosophers that think time is completely subjective?

 
 
north
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2010 09:04 pm

I need to add a bit more here , but dwell upon what I have written
0 Replies
 
north
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2010 09:33 pm

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

0 Replies
 
north
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2010 09:46 pm

let me put it this way , to the Universe time is irrelevant
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Aug, 2010 12:42 am
@north,
...but note that the status of "thing" and the status of "going on" are entirely defined by human consciousness irrespective of our "actual presence".
north
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Aug, 2010 07:13 pm
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

...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
GoshisDead
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Aug, 2010 01:43 am
@north,
Without your consciousness its all a big cosmic meh.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Aug, 2010 03:04 am
@north,
...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 !

Reconstructo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Sep, 2010 05:09 am
@fresco,
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.
0 Replies
 
Reconstructo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Sep, 2010 05:10 am
@fresco,
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).
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Sep, 2010 09:34 am
@Reconstructo,
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.
0 Replies
 
Sleeping Dragon
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Sep, 2010 11:15 am
@north,
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.
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Sep, 2010 04:36 pm
@Sleeping Dragon,
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.
0 Replies
 
north
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Dec, 2010 08:46 pm
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

...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 !


really

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

this should be a very long answer !!
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Dec, 2010 09:46 pm
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...
north
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Dec, 2010 10:42 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

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
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Mar, 2011 10:55 pm
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?
0 Replies
 
igm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Jun, 2011 11:18 am
@ufotofu,
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.
0 Replies
 
G H
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Jun, 2011 11:49 am
@ufotofu,
Quote:
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?

Too bad that you KANT recall one. (Almost surely already covered somewhere in a lengthy thread dating back to last year).
0 Replies
 
igm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Jun, 2011 11:58 am
@ufotofu,
Nagarjuna
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Jun, 2011 04:16 pm
@igm,
What about the Indian logician Nagaruna? Bergson wrote about "duration" as the subjective aspect of time: sometimes it flies and sometimes it drags out.
 

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
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/02/2021 at 08:48:58