7
   

Once again on the existance of time...

 
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jul, 2010 02:16 am
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

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.



After I studied what others say about nominalism (or whatever the topic is) I might do some thinking about the topic myself. But I don't confuse dong the first with doing the second. No more than I confuse studying physics with actually doing physics.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jul, 2010 02:19 am
@kennethamy,
What rubbish !
Q What are you reading at Oxford ?
A I'm reading physics.
TuringEquivalent
 
  0  
Reply Sun 18 Jul, 2010 02:23 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:

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.


What is a theory? If a theory is a type of explanation, then i agree with you.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jul, 2010 02:25 am
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

What rubbish !
Q What are you reading at Oxford ?
A I'm reading physics.


I am sure you realize that you are equivocating on the term "reading" which has a special use in the sentence you cite. But anyway, when an undergraduate says he is reading physics, he means he is studying physics. He may also be doing physics in his lab work, but that is not what it means to be "reading physics". Do try again.
wayne
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jul, 2010 02:29 am
@kennethamy,
Just a little note here, since we don't have PMs, you keep me grounded in the importance of disciplined and structured thinking, I appreciate that a lot, even if no one else does.
You have my support still, in case that means anything.
kennethamy
 
  0  
Reply Sun 18 Jul, 2010 02:30 am
@TuringEquivalent,
TuringEquivalent wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

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.


What is a theory? If a theory is a type of explanation, then i agree with you.


Another diversion. The issue is not what is a theory. The issue is that not distinguishing between reading about what someone else does, and doing it yourself, is a confusion just as much in philosophy as it is elsewhere. If you want to discuss what is a theory? you might want to start a new thread.

Of course a theory is a kind of explanation. What else is it?
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jul, 2010 02:32 am
@kennethamy,
Only a non-academic fool would think "reading" does not involve " doing" i.e. "mental doing". Try doing a bit yourself instead of illustrating your simplistic tedious rhetoric.
TuringEquivalent
 
  0  
Reply Sun 18 Jul, 2010 02:39 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:

TuringEquivalent wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

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.


What is a theory? If a theory is a type of explanation, then i agree with you.


Another diversion. The issue is not what is a theory. The issue is that not distinguishing between reading about what someone else does, and doing it yourself, is a confusion just as much in philosophy as it is elsewhere. If you want to discuss what is a theory? you might want to start a new thread.

Of course a theory is a kind of explanation. What else is it?


It not a diversion! Surely, you are too limited. Perhaps, a theory is an explanation, or an activity? The theory of writing can be an explanation of writing, or writing as an activity with determined rules, and practices.
kennethamy
 
  0  
Reply Sun 18 Jul, 2010 02:45 am
@TuringEquivalent,
TuringEquivalent wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

TuringEquivalent wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

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.


What is a theory? If a theory is a type of explanation, then i agree with you.


Another diversion. The issue is not what is a theory. The issue is that not distinguishing between reading about what someone else does, and doing it yourself, is a confusion just as much in philosophy as it is elsewhere. If you want to discuss what is a theory? you might want to start a new thread.

Of course a theory is a kind of explanation. What else is it?


It not a diversion! Surely, you are too limited. Perhaps, a theory is an explanation, or an activity?


A theory is an explanation. But thinking up a theory, and testing it, is an activity. (And my name is not "Shirley").
TuringEquivalent
 
  0  
Reply Sun 18 Jul, 2010 02:50 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:

TuringEquivalent wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

TuringEquivalent wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

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.


What is a theory? If a theory is a type of explanation, then i agree with you.


Another diversion. The issue is not what is a theory. The issue is that not distinguishing between reading about what someone else does, and doing it yourself, is a confusion just as much in philosophy as it is elsewhere. If you want to discuss what is a theory? you might want to start a new thread.

Of course a theory is a kind of explanation. What else is it?


It not a diversion! Surely, you are too limited. Perhaps, a theory is an explanation, or an activity?


A theory is an explanation. But thinking up a theory, and testing it, is an activity. (And my name is not "Shirley").


Don` t you have insurance to buy a pair of glasses?


I am justing say, you are limiting yourself. Why can` t a theory be a rule-govern activity?
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jul, 2010 02:56 am
@TuringEquivalent,
Turing,

How about "a theory" is an "proposed overview". It implies the attainment of "a vantage point" from which a better picture of a field of enquiry can be obtained. Obviously the word "better" implies a degree of negotiation.

In the case of "time", Einstein's Relativity was such an overview for the realm of physics. But when we suggest this also refers to "the existence of time" we are making the assumption that "existence" is axiomatically something "physical". Now at that point the "location" of the vantage point changes from physics to philosophy. We immediately become involved with issues of the relationship between ontology and epistemology and also the status of language and logic. The particular vantage point I favour(for reasons I won't go into here) is that of "reality" as a dynamic social construction. That does not mean I think I have found "the answer to existence", it simply allows me to look at the question of "existence" in a different manner to the norm, as did other philosophers. Such a move allows me to "make sense of" apparently paradoxical statements from physicists like " a positron is an electron travelling backwards in time", that sense being that which works within the social paradigm we call physics.
TuringEquivalent
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jul, 2010 03:10 am
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

Turing,

How about "a theory" is an "proposed overview". It implies the attainment of "a vantage point" from which a better picture of a field of enquiry can be obtained. Obviously the word batter" implies a degree of negotiation.

In the case of "time", Einstein's Relativity was such an overview for the realm of physics. But when we suggest this also refers to "the existence of time" we are making the assumption that "existence" is axiomatically something "physical". Now at that point the "location" of the vantage point changes from physics to philosophy. We immediately become involved with issues of the relationship between ontology and epistemology and also the status of language and logic. The particular vantage point I favour(for reasons I won't go into here) is that of "reality" as a dynamic social construction. That does not mean I think I have found "the answer to existence", it simply allows me to look at the question of "existence" in a different manner to the norm, as did other philosophers. Such a move allows me to "make sense of" apparently paradoxical statements from physicists like " a positron is an electron travelling backwards in time", that sense being that which works within the social paradigm we call physics.


Perhaps, what you want to convey is that time is not something physical, like a piece of rock. Time is something posited in the context of our physical theories.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jul, 2010 03:16 am
@TuringEquivalent,
Quote:
Time is something posited in the context of our physical theories.


Of course ! but "the existence of time" implies more than that because "physicality" itself is up for grabs from a philosopher's point of view.
0 Replies
 
William
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jul, 2010 03:27 am
Time is a past and future wondered and wandered kind of thing. If it were not for our considering those two non existencies time would not be considered at all.

william
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jul, 2010 06:59 am
@wayne,
wayne wrote:

Just a little note here, since we don't have PMs, you keep me grounded in the importance of disciplined and structured thinking, I appreciate that a lot, even if no one else does.
You have my support still, in case that means anything.


Thank you, although I did not realize that I needed support, nor that anyone believed that disciplined thinking grounded in reality was something people were attacking. And, if they were, who would care about that?
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jul, 2010 07:06 am
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

Only a non-academic fool would think "reading" does not involve " doing" i.e. "mental doing". Try doing a bit yourself instead of illustrating your simplistic tedious rhetoric.



Of course, when you are reading about (say) driving, you are doing something, namely reading about driving. But what has that to do with it? The point is that reading about driving is not driving. And similarly, although reading what other philosophers write is, of course, doing something, namely reading about other philosophers doing philosophy and their conclusions, that is not, as I am sure even you can see, doing philosophy yourself. Now that we have cleared up the difference between two kinds of things you can do, one of which is reading about other philosophers, and the other which is, actually doing philosophy, perhaps we can go on.

"Everything is what it is, and not another thing". Joseph Butler.
0 Replies
 
SammDickens
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jul, 2010 09:24 am
@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?

It's got to help if our initial terminology is clear. I think time is real as a realm in which change occurs, events and processes play out in time. As it is true that we can have no real objects without space, so it is that we can have no real change without time. But the inverse of both these conditions may also be true. That is, it may be that we can't have any space without objects nor any time without change.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jul, 2010 10:02 am
@SammDickens,
SammDickens wrote:

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?

It's got to help if our initial terminology is clear. I think time is real as a realm in which change occurs, events and processes play out in time. As it is true that we can have no real objects without space, so it is that we can have no real change without time. But the inverse of both these conditions may also be true. That is, it may be that we can't have any space without objects nor any time without change.


All that may be true, although I cannot pretend to understand all of it. But if you just mean that however we understand the idea of time, it is still true that we make, keep, and break appointments, then I agree. Whatever it means to ask whether time is real, to deny that time is real is to deny that we make, keep, and break appointments. And that is certainly false.
0 Replies
 
thack45
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jul, 2010 07:33 pm
Wow. There are alot of posts. I haven't gotten to read any yet but thanks in advance to all for the replies.
0 Replies
 
north
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jul, 2010 07:55 pm
@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?


the important thing to understand about time , is that time is a consequence of the movement of things , a measure of movement

time is meant as a way to understand movement(s) of things , such as planets , atomics etc . , and also the way we order ourselves on this planet

hence time zones
0 Replies
 
 

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 © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 05/16/2022 at 10:41:09