If we move to the secondary sense of "time", as what is measured, we find the conception of a continuity without any nows. — Metaphysician Undercover
If we move to the secondary sense of "time", as what is measured, we find the conception of a continuity without any nows. The nows are seen as artificial. Therefore, when Heidegger says “The succession of nows is interpreted as something somehow objectively present..." in your quoted passage, this is a misunderstanding of Aristotle. It conflates the distinction between the primary sense of "time", and the secondary sense of "time", which Aristotle tried to establish. — Metaphysician Undercover
Timelessness has the idea of change wrapped up in it. The concept of change is dependent on eternity. — frank
By hand, it might take you a minute or two to work out that 357 x 68 = 24,276. A calculator or computer will do it faster, but still take a measurable amount of time. But how long does it take 357 x 68 to be 24,276? — Srap Tasmaner
By hand, it might take you a minute or two to work out that 357 x 68 = 24,276. A calculator or computer will do it faster, but still take a measurable amount of time. But how long does it take 357 x 68 to be 24,276? — Srap Tasmaner
Wittgenstein says the meaning of something like 357x68 is the foundation of a language game, just as the statement ‘this is my hand’ is the foundation of a language game wherein it doesn’t occur to us to doubt the truth of the statement. One could then ask, how long does it take this thing to be my hand? The type of certainty that we accord the solution to the equation is what he calls a form of life. So the ‘time’ of the equation or ‘this being my hand’ is the time of its contextual use in a language game. It has no existence outside of the occasion of its use as a particular sense. — Joshs
Timelessness has the idea of change wrapped up in it. The concept of change is dependent on eternity.
— frank
This sounds like the Aristotelian idea of time as change , — Joshs
change as continuity and continuity as akin to the continuity of magnitude. Eternity is linked to infinity via continuity. — Joshs
asking how long it takes for a number to be a number is meaningless — Xtrix
Numbers -- and words -- are products of the human mind, of the human being. — Xtrix
I don't know where this is coming from. Think of Einstein's thought experiments. Motion is relative to a stationary point. — frank
Mathematical objects are locked in a permanent now because we have made them so. They cannot be what we intend them to be unless they are ‘timeless’ in this way. Is there some reason we cannot so intend? — Srap Tasmaner
There was a time when you seemed to understand that A and not-A are two sides of the same coin. You forgot? — frank
asking how long it takes for a number to be a number is meaningless
— Xtrix
Yes, well, that’s the point of saying that mathematics is ‘timeless’ — Srap Tasmaner
Numbers -- and words -- are products of the human mind, of the human being.
— Xtrix
And? What does their being the products of Dasein tell us about their being? — Srap Tasmaner
I think what it tells us about their being is that they occur in a certain mode of our being -- call it an abstract or linguistic mode, of which I would include mathematics and music. Quantities and geometric shapes are human phenomena. This is a Kantian move, really, but with the "subject" and "time" as interpreted differently. — Xtrix
Artistotle is interpreting time as something present-at-hand, according to Heidegger. Whatever secondary sense you're referring to, it's not at all clear. "Continuity without any nows" is what, exactly? Perhaps citing Aristotle to support whatever claim you're making would be helpful. — Xtrix
In classical logic, ‘not-A’ is represented by everything in a specified universe of meanings that is not ‘A’. In phenomenology, the ‘A’ springs out of the same pragmatic context as the ‘not-A’. The two sides belong to a shared context of relevance. Relevance is ‘irrelevant’ in classical logic. — Joshs
I think what it tells us about their being is that they occur in a certain mode of our being -- call it an abstract or linguistic mode, of which I would include mathematics and music. Quantities and geometric shapes are human phenomena. This is a Kantian move, really, but with the "subject" and "time" as interpreted differently.
— Xtrix
That’s helpful for explaining what you’ve been trying to get at. There’s more to do, but I could definitely see preferring to start here. — Srap Tasmaner
Thnks for answer,
try time think one time you consider cycles and another time you say there is no cycles. If it is only now, tomorow never comes, past doesnt exist, or you show me, where ? Please try with cyles. I am looking into: time exist because cycle exist — Nothing
If time is objectified it appears as a flow or movement from past through present to future. But this is an abstraction; for lived time there is only now, not a 'dimensionless-point' now but an infinitely expansive now in which, and only in which, the future and the past exist as such. — Janus
No offense, but you seem kind of like a computer that's been programmed to have philosophical discussions, but the code needs some tweaking. — frank
I think you're taking liberties, because Heidegger is never so clear, but I also think that you almost have to be correct. When meditation is taught in eastern traditions, there is an emphasis on the "now" as well -- and past and future are seen as an illusion of some kind. The only "reality" is the one unfolding in the present.
Seems true. On the other hand, is this not simply another interpretation from a present-at-hand mode of being? While the now might not be quantified, we're stilling conceptualizing it and speaking of it. If anything, I see us as only being able to piece it together second-hand, in a way -- like automaticity or even deeper aspects of our being that are unconscious, and in fact largely beyond our ability to be it to individual awareness (like the internal workings of our liver and circulation). — Xtrix
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.