Banana Breath wrote:
Is there really such a thing as the future? Or is all of your future someone else's past? For example, TOMORROW (your future) you plan to take the bus to town to see a movie. But the bus must already be there in order for you to take it, and the movie must already have been produced and distributed in order for the theater to display it. Those things MUST have occurred in the past in order for them to happen in your future.
This question is in part a take off on the question "is there a now?"
i'm confused by your question. Do you think that future happenings are rooted in cause and effect? Then, sure; it's not quite that simple, but for all intents and purposes, given the premises you've presented -- yeah, cause and effect, the idea of a timeline, the congruence of events, they're a thing. So where's the poop?
That's not to say that the future is closed, destined, predestined, determined or defined. That's not the sort of thing one can "know". One can try to predict it, or even try to understand it, ie interpret it before the fact, but to know-know it..? What's the point?
Heidegger gives an answer in Sein und Zeit. Simplistically. The very essence of psychological 'being' is along a time dimension. Merleau-Ponty in The Phenomenology of Perception extrapolates this by saying that 'things' always have a temporal aspect to them in terms of 'affordances' for interaction. Thus what has happened in the past is the acquisition of words which give rise to affordancies and those words are the currency of what we call 'thought'.
The relationship between time, or a "time dimension", and dasein, as Heidegger represented it, is not psychological. It supersedes and conditions any psyche and any resultant psychology.
To my knowledge, Merleau-Ponty's affordances, while generally described as linguistic in later writings, were not immediately about the business of cementing phonemes and semantics. "Words" did not give rise to Merleau-Ponty's affordances, it's vice-versa. You're following Gibson, not Merleau-Ponty.
Banana Breath wrote:
Heidegger gets us part of the way there; viewing the future through the lens of the dasein, the future is the end state of one's existence, and in a sense, the future is the purpose of the present. But from what I recall of Heidegger, there's really nothing in the future other than a rearrangement of the present. One lives present akin to the driver of a bus doing little more than steering, with an objective (the future) in mind. When the future arrives, we have nothing more than the same driver, the same bus, having arrived at the target destination.
Only if you are a "naive realist" !
fresco, you keep using that phrase, as a general criticism of anyone that disagrees with you, and also as a badly veiled intellectual insult; however, i'm not sure you know what it means.
The term 'naive realist' is a technical one involving subjects contemplating independent objects. Heidegger transcends that separation .
From that viewpoint it is meaningless to talk about a subject independent future.
"Naive Realism" is a term that designates a point of view that identifies perception with objective reality. Heidegger does deal with that...whether or not he transcends it is probably a topic for another time; but was that an accurate way of designating Banana Breath's post? Not really... What BB proposed was not, whatever you may think of it, naively realist.