Any philosophers that think time is completely subjective?

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.

North, you say, with much justification, that objects do what they do because of their nature, not because we calculate. That's an important part of the truth;

but it also seems that things do as they do because of the combination of their nature and ours. When we see the way something behaves is not that way part of our nature in the sense that another species might be disposed to see it differently?

time is not only subjective but also about perspective

time is included in the four dimensional mathematical frame work of calculations because the movement of things and their change in space is important

because we want to understand this or that particlular behaviour of that object and the relations to other objects , of that particular object , naturally

we are trying to understanding objects and their relations with themselves towards other objects ,by calculating , fine

but to the objects themselves , they do what they do , because of their Nature , not because we calculate

North wrote:

time is not only subjective but also about perspective

time is included in the four dimensional mathematical frame work of calculations because the movement of things and their change in space is important

because we want to understand this or that particlular behaviour of that object and the relations to other objects , of that particular object , naturally

we are trying to understanding objects and their relations with themselves towards other objects ,by calculating , fine

but to the objects themselves , they do what they do , because of their Nature , not because we calculate

These are some very insightful statements.
I envisage time, from the standpoint of human comprehensibility, as aggregations and the compartmentalization of 'concepts'.
Neolithic man went on 'hunts', came home and had 'feasts', 'made love', 'had children', and all of these aspects of life were documented on cave walls, paintings, ect. He experienced 'time' through the transition of these experiences, and brought this understanding of time forth through artistic descriptions from his 'memory'.
Therefore, memory, and the symbolic representation of experience to ourselves (via our 'narrative' or 'life's storyline', which in primitive times was probably extensively rudimentary) are essential components of our understanding of 'time'.
Agrarian culture had a more sophisticated perception of time, through growing seasons.
Finally egyptians created a 'water' device that controlled the drip rate of water in such a way as to activate a delicate device simulate what we understand to be a 'clock'. This is the advanced reduction of 'concepts' to artificial events, seconds, or drips.
Which brings up an interesting metaphor. These 'drips' can be thought of as the rhythm necessary to organize social activities, and what we now understand to be 'lifestyles' and thus 'identities'. Redolent of music?

In nature time is process orientated, both laterally and linear, the growth of organic agents, that at the same time is linear in its life/death cycle, while that cycle is subject to the linearity of the life cycles of other animals. A gazelle lives for 9 years (or so?), but will only live for 1 if a hungry lion is in proximity. The termination of the gazelle's life is necessary for the continued linearity of the lion's.

IN total, time is really complicated