Once again on the existance of time...

Forums: Philosophy
Email this Topic • Print this Page

I wonder if when questions of the existance of time (and perhaps some other things) are being asked, should this existance be qualified to mean either physical or conceptual? Or something else? I am asking this because it seems to me that as far as my consciousness is concerned, time is very real - and very pervasive. But I cannot find a single means of describing time as a physical entity. Is it necesarry to ask in what term time is meant before pondering its existance?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Question • Score: 7 • Views: 5,471 • Replies: 99

No top replies

@thack45,

See if you can follow this:
The PERSISTENT WORD "time" exists, but what that word refers to is different concepts depending on context. Thus the "existence"/"persistence" of "time" is implied by the word rather than implying some particular underlying "reality". Now this point can be argued for all "things", but is particularly significant for the thing we call "time" because one aspect of it appears to be quantifiable. The fact that physicists like Einstein have deconstructed normal ideas of measuring time has brought the issue of "time's existence" to the fore.

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Thus the "existence"/"persistence" of "time" is implied by the word rather than implying some particular underlying "reality".

LOL, this is ******* GOLD!

So, a word "implies" something exist? What the hell is wrong with you? LOL

Look, the word "santa" implies "there exist Santa". This is ******* gold. I laugh my ass off because of you.

1 Reply

@TuringEquivalent,

Quote:

I laugh my ass off because of you.

Now look what you've replicated.

1 Reply

@laughoutlood,

laughoutlood wrote:

Quote:
I laugh my ass off because of you.

Now look what you've replicated.

That don` t count, since, you like to laugh for no good reason at all.

0 Replies

@thack45,

thack45 wrote:

I wonder if when questions of the existance of time (and perhaps some other things) are being asked, should this existance be qualified to mean either physical or conceptual? Or something else? I am asking this because it seems to me that as far as my consciousness is concerned, time is very real - and very pervasive. But I cannot find a single means of describing time as a physical entity. Is it necesarry to ask in what term time is meant before pondering its existance?

But to say that time has "conceptual existence" is only to to say that the concept of time exist, and if you say that time has only conceptual existence (as you probably do) what you are saying is that only the concept of time exists, but that time does not. To say that X has conceptual existence is simply to say that the concept of X exists. It makes no sense to say that existence is conceptual (or physical). It makes sense only to say that either the concept of something exists, or that the thing exists, and if the thing is a physical thing that it exists. I know that there is the concept of time. But whether time itself is a physical thing, or any kind of thing, I have no idea. And to say that only the concept of time exists, is to imply that time (physical or not) does not exist.

1 Reply

I suggest that those who assume they know what "existence" means should
1. Investigate the millions of words written on "ontology".
2. Note that Heidegger made a living from his brilliant re-analysis of it.

2 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

I suggest that those who assume they know what "existence" means should
1. Investigate the millions of words written on "ontology".
2. Note that Heidegger made a living from his brilliant re-analysis of it.

How would 1 or 2 matter?
Would I have to read all of the millions of words to know what I meant when I said that giraffes exist but mermaids don't? Does Heidegger think that mermaids exist? If he did, let me know, and I won't bother to read the rest of what he has to say about it.

2 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

I suggest that those who assume they know what "existence" means should
1. Investigate the millions of words written on "ontology".
2. Note that Heidegger made a living from his brilliant re-analysis of it.

Why do you want to be wrong, a million times, fresco? Do you disagree that " x exist" means "There exist an x". All of us are wrong, one time, but you need to give up when you are wrong. That is how people learn. Don` t cry about it.

2 Replies

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

fresco wrote:

I suggest that those who assume they know what "existence" means should
1. Investigate the millions of words written on "ontology".
2. Note that Heidegger made a living from his brilliant re-analysis of it.

How would 1 or 2 matter?
Would I have to read all of the millions of words to know what I meant when I said that giraffes exist but mermaids don't? Does Heidegger think that mermaids exist? If he did, let me know, and I won't bother to read the rest of what he has to say about it.

You are warn, Ken. Don ` t mess with heidegger, since he is my hero.

0 Replies

@kennethamy,

Try reading up on "nominalism" versus "realism" thereby doing a bit of actual philosophy instead of playing at it as usual.

2 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Try reading up on "nominalism" versus "realism" thereby doing a bit of actual philosophy instead of playing at it as usual.

Hi, nice comeback. When people contradict you, you give out homework assignments.

0 Replies

@TuringEquivalent,

"Wrong" is for barbershop chat . Philosophy involves "thinking out of the box".

0 Replies

@TuringEquivalent,

TuringEquivalent wrote:

fresco wrote:

I suggest that those who assume they know what "existence" means should
1. Investigate the millions of words written on "ontology".
2. Note that Heidegger made a living from his brilliant re-analysis of it.

Why do you want to be wrong, a million times, fresco? Do you disagree that " x exist" means "There exist an x". All of us are wrong, one time, but you need to give up when you are wrong. That is how people learn. Don` t cry about it.

Since philosophers like Heidegger say such nutty things about what "existence" means, I have always advocated Quine's suggestion that we make a gift of the word "existence" to them, and just use the phrase, "There is an X" and "There are Xs". (Or "there isn't an X and "there aren't Xs") It is harder to say nutty things about them.

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Try reading up on "nominalism" versus "realism" thereby doing a bit of actual philosophy instead of playing at it as usual.

But reading about nominalism or realism is not doing philosophy at all. It is reading about others doing philosophy, and how are you, yourself, philosophizing by reading about others philosophizing? If I read Heidegger on existence, I am reading about Heidegger philosophizing about existence. I am not philosophizing about existence.

Isn't that obvious?

0 Replies

@kennethamy,

"Nutty" hmmm...and your thoughts on "nominalism" versus "realism" are what ?

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

"Nutty" hmmm...and your thoughts on "nominalism" versus "realism" are what ?

The point I made is that reading about nominalism or realism is just reading about others philosohizing. It is not doing any philosophizing yourself, as you said it was. Just as reading a novel is not writing a novel (it is reading a novel). The issue is not nominalism or realism, but your confusion between reading about others philosophizing, and philosophizing yourself. Deal with that instead of diverting the question. Whether or not Heidegger's is nutty, reading him is not doing philosophy anymore than reading about someone else driving a car is driving a car. As Wittgenstein pointed out, "Philosophy is an activity, not a theory".

2 Replies

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

fresco wrote:

"Nutty" hmmm...and your thoughts on "nominalism" versus "realism" are what ?

The point I made is that reading about nominalism or realism is just reading about others philosohizing. It is not doing any philosophizing yourself, as you said it was. Just as reading a novel is not writing a novel (it is reading a novel). The issue is not nominalism or realism, but your confusion between reading about others philosophizing, and philosophizing yourself. Deal with that instead of diverting the question. Whether or not Heidegger's is nutty, reading him is not doing philosophy anymore than reading about someone else driving a car is driving a car. As Wittgenstein pointed out, "Philosophy is an activity, not a theory".

It is an activity with some rules, so, it is a theory.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

Priceless !

The only "point" you are making is about your lack of reading.
The implication is that you simply do not have the ability to understand and discuss the views of others. If you have any coherent comments on ontology, I will reply, otherwise I think I've wasted on enough time (ho! ho!) on you already.

1 Reply

@TuringEquivalent,

TuringEquivalent wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

fresco wrote:

"Nutty" hmmm...and your thoughts on "nominalism" versus "realism" are what ?

The point I made is that reading about nominalism or realism is just reading about others philosohizing. It is not doing any philosophizing yourself, as you said it was. Just as reading a novel is not writing a novel (it is reading a novel). The issue is not nominalism or realism, but your confusion between reading about others philosophizing, and philosophizing yourself. Deal with that instead of diverting the question. Whether or not Heidegger's is nutty, reading him is not doing philosophy anymore than reading about someone else driving a car is driving a car. As Wittgenstein pointed out, "Philosophy is an activity, not a theory".

It is an activity with some rules, so, it is a theory.

Philosophies are theories. But philosophizing is an activity. Playing chess is also an activity with some rules. But playing chess is not a theory. Of course, there are chess theories like hypermodernism. But that is not playing chess. And even applying theories is an activity, not a theory.

It is a common confusion (especially among beginners in philosophy, and also postmodern philosophers) that reading about others philosophizing is philosophizing. As I pointed out, this confusion seems to be unique to philosophy. No one thinks that reading about others driving is driving oneself.

2 Replies

Once again on the existance of time...

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know