2
   

Is there a future?

 
 
Reply Mon 17 Aug, 2015 06:04 pm
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?"
http://able2know.org/topic/263571-1
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Question • Score: 2 • Views: 1,325 • Replies: 18
No top replies

 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Aug, 2015 06:28 pm
@Banana Breath,
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'.
HesDeltanCaptain
 
  0  
Reply Tue 18 Aug, 2015 06:48 am
@Banana Breath,
The future doesn't exist. What exists rather is the hope of a future. We 'hope' we'll live to see retirement age and that IRA enable us to live well. But we could die before then in which case there was never a future guaranteed us and our hope of one didn't pan out.

Are asteroids tumbling by the Earth every day. Any one can impact the planet and land on our heads any second. But we all still make plans for the future.

"Man plans. God laughs." is a clever saying. Smile
Banana Breath
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Aug, 2015 12:55 pm
@fresco,
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.
0 Replies
 
Banana Breath
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Aug, 2015 12:59 pm
@HesDeltanCaptain,
I'd say we hope not just for the future, but for a particular future. The future arrives eventually in one shape or another, even if we die.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Aug, 2015 01:10 pm
@Banana Breath,
Only if you are a "naive realist" !
Banana Breath
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Aug, 2015 02:20 pm
@fresco,
no need for snide snippets, enlighten us with a more robust alternative if you're up to the task.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Aug, 2015 02:42 pm
And why has Heidegger become a salutation in Australia?
Banana Breath
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Aug, 2015 04:58 pm
@izzythepush,
perhaps the excess salt in Vegemite has gone to their brains.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Aug, 2015 05:43 pm
@Banana Breath,
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.



0 Replies
 
Razzleg
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Aug, 2015 12:10 am
@Banana Breath,
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?"
http://able2know.org/topic/263571-1


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?

fresco wrote:

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.


fresco wrote:

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.

fresco wrote:

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.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Aug, 2015 01:08 am
@Razzleg,
IMO the asking of the question 'Is there a future' itself is technically based on a naive realistic assumption about the word 'is'. Writers like Heidegger contributed to that view (irrespective of my possible over-simplification of them).
Within the game of 'lets correct that pompous fresco about whom said what' fresco's usage of the word 'naive' could certainly be interpreted as 'an insult', but that game says more about communicative modus operandi of the player, rather than making a contribution to the debate.
I of course agree with your specific answer to the OP ...'whats the point'... but I think you miss a trick by not homing in on the reason for the futility of the question due to the philosophically nebulous word 'is'.

fresco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Aug, 2015 01:32 am
@Razzleg,
NB A later edit would shift the focus from the single word 'is', to the phrase 'is there really'.
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Aug, 2015 07:52 am
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

IMO the asking of the question 'Is there a future' itself is technically based on a naive realistic assumption about the word 'is'. Writers like Heidegger contributed to that view (irrespective of my possible over-simplification of them).
Within the game of 'lets correct that pompous fresco about whom said what' fresco's usage of the word 'naive' could certainly be interpreted as 'an insult', but that game says more about communicative modus operandi of the player, rather than making a contribution to the debate.
I of course agree with your specific answer to the OP ...'whats the point'... but I think you miss a trick by not homing in on the reason for the futility of the question due to the philosophically nebulous word 'is'.


Denying the perception of what "is" is works as "nebulous" as asserting the perception of what "is is not". Of course your IQ gets stuck in these details

PS - ...oh by the way while we may speak of several layers of complexity "snapshots" of reality are no less real then anything else including an holistic approach...There are no several levels of realness...
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Aug, 2015 08:06 am
Yes the future is the now after now.
Another way of putting the problem is explaining it as the order of things independently of recurring to a time referent...

The prime word is order not time.
0 Replies
 
Razzleg
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Aug, 2015 03:30 am
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

IMO the asking of the question 'Is there a future' itself is technically based on a naive realistic assumption about the word 'is'. Writers like Heidegger contributed to that view (irrespective of my possible over-simplification of them).
Within the game of 'lets correct that pompous fresco about whom said what' fresco's usage of the word 'naive' could certainly be interpreted as 'an insult', but that game says more about communicative modus operandi of the player, rather than making a contribution to the debate.
I of course agree with your specific answer to the OP ...'whats the point'... but I think you miss a trick by not homing in on the reason for the futility of the question due to the philosophically nebulous word 'is'.


i have an answer "mentally" prepped for you, fresco, but i'm afraid that i don't have time to write it and then edit it three times before i post it, and then edit it three more times after i post it (hoping that no one has read it, yet.) i've got RL things going on right now that don't allow for much interruption. However, i would like to say that i don't "usually" think of you as pompous.

i...wait, let me repunctuate this: I am the pompous one here! I care about citation! I am filled with bibliographical, righteous fury. Smile

i view you as a more of a zealot.

PS: Fil, on the other hand, is a "mystic"-savant...
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Aug, 2015 08:01 am
@Razzleg,
...and I charge no money for my "lectures", go figure how much I am missing...
Maybe I should kick-start a church or something... Wink
Banana Breath
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Aug, 2015 09:48 am
I'm thinking of something more like a flatlander contemplating the existence of a third dimension.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatland

If the future is nothing but the re-arranged past, then as in flatland, we could arrange a two-dimensional map of all known past events, and simply draw line segments between points to represent our trajectories through time; past, present, future. It seems to me that everything Heidegger has written on the topic can be mapped upon this representation. However a truly different future, genuine change and not rehashed past, would require deviation from that plane; the introduction of a third dimension.
0 Replies
 
Razzleg
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Aug, 2015 01:42 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Probably. Most of us on here wouldn't stop arguing with you, but you'd make some decent cash. Smile
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
DOES NOTHING EXIST??? - Question by mark noble
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
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Is there a future?
Copyright © 2018 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 08/20/2018 at 02:28:51