Once again on the existance of time...

@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.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

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

1 Reply

@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.

1 Reply

@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.

1 Reply

@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.

1 Reply

@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?

1 Reply

@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.

1 Reply

@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.

2 Replies

@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").

1 Reply

@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

@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.

1 Reply

@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.

1 Reply

@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

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

@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?

1 Reply

@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

@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.

1 Reply

@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

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

@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

Once again on the existance of time...

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know