Do you see "what you have read" in the portions I have quoted from Hegel? — Paine

I didn't see anything directly relating to Hegel's idea on time from your quote, hence wrote what I read on Hegel's time in the reply. From my memory, most of Hegel's writings on time is in his Encyclopaedia II and III.

I don't understand

which cannot be subjectively imposed on them — Paine

It sounds like you haven't read Kant's CPR.

In Hegel, the life of an individual human being happens in the context of an unfolding over time of the potential for freedom to actually come into concrete existence: — Paine

From what I read, it seems Hegel had totally different idea on time from Kant's idea of time - Time is intrinsic to each and every existence as part of the concept of existence, which cannot be subjectively imposed on them, likes from Kant's idea i.e. time as the pure form of sensibility.

It just means we don't know everything about anything. — Janus

Fair enough.

but as with a situation where you see a shadow, but have no access to its causal object, we can say not much. Perhaps speculation is allowable as a matter of curiosity.. — AmadeusD

You are seeing something physical which is entering your sensory organ - the shadow. Of course you can talk about it. Where there is no cause for the shadow, you can launch investigation for the cause.

But think of the case where you don't have any sensory perception such as God, but people keep talking about it. What can you say more about God apart from what you heard from other folks talking about it?

I think all readers can agree that Hegel does not put forward the humility of Kant. That means we should be extra careful about how to compare their language. — Paine

Does Hegel say time is just subjective perception? Or does he talk about time as some external entity in the material world?

What you're doing isn't reasoning though, it's just dogma. — Darkneos

That sounds like a typical mindless utterance from someone who can't reason. Tell us what you know about reasoning and dogma in logical manner. And explain clearly why my reasoning is not reasoning but dogma in understandable way, rather than just spitting out some emotional meaningless utterance.

Thank you for invitation to the topic. May see you there.

Thank you for letting us know. Enjoy your time writing the novel. I hope and trust you will be back here soon for more interesting philosophical topics and discussions. :pray:

I think it is inapt to say we don't know anything about things in themselves, because the idea of a thing in itself is nothing more than an abstraction. — Janus

I agree. Things in themselves sounds like contradiction. If we don't know anything about it, we couldn't even name it or talk about it. The fact that it has the name, and can be talked about implies, we know something about them, if not it is possible to know something about them in other ways.

So, we don't know anything exhaustively. — Janus

What does knowing something exhaustively mean? Does it mean there are degrees of knowing something? Any examples?

Yeah, standard state of affairs, right? Human subjectivity…the bane and the blessing of philosophical discourse. — Mww

Not just blind subjectivity. That would be meaningless. I just feel that philosophical interpretation has to be clearer and decipherable than the original writings. If the interpretations are more abstract or complicated than the original writings, then it wouldn't be good or meaningful interpretation. And also interpretation can be open for more discussions, investigation, criticisms and more interpretations if need be.

Of course, interpretations can be wrong, but as long as they are crystal clear, it can be revisited with the above procedure for getting them right.

Have fun with it, I say — Mww

Thanks. You too.

I would discuss poetry with you, but not philosophy, mate. All the best.

I am just saying what my reasoning tells me. Better than quoting from popular media or claiming something is correct just because doctors and medical folks say so.

It doesn’t help that Kant didn’t discuss intuition all that much either, so there’s precious little to interpret, forcing us to just accept what there is in the way of description of methodological processes. — Mww

Yes, this is the point. Kant's work might be a few hundred years old now, and some might say they are far too outdated for today. I still feel that we can find some jewels of wisdom from his writings, if we can manage to interpret them well. The reason I ask all these questions on the others' ideas and writings on the issue is not always necessarily I am totally unaware of or ignorant on the issue.

On many occasions I do so, so I could compare the others' ideas with my own, and progress for further points for discussion in order to understand the issue better. If I remember correctly, Socrates has used similar methodology for coming to truths and conclusions on the philosophical topics they were discussing.

Anyhow my ideas of the interpretation on the issues might be different from yours or others. But if they are, then we can further discuss why they are different, and which ones make more sense for clear understanding.

My ideas on intuition in Kant is, that it is a faculty that is for the objects that can be perceived (intuited), but not be seen or heard. We intuit on the things that don't come into our sensory organs, but for some reason, we can still talk about, feel, believe in them.

The pure form of intuition is the conditions that is a priori, which makes the intuition possible. If time is the pure form of intuition, then it is the condition or prerequisite for the intuition possible. Hence we know it, but we often don't think about it, and we take it for granted.

Space and time are both the pure form of intuition, because when we see an object, we cannot observe the object without space around it. Every existence in the universe exists in space. Wherever someone exists standing, sitting or lying, he/she is in space around them. But we don't talk or think about the space. We take it for granted as part of the existence. We only notice the space, when we are paying attention to the spatial situation for fittings or locations of the object in it.

Likewise time is the pure form of intuition in the sense that whenever we perceive something, we are perceiving at this moment of time "NOW". Time is already in the part of the perception. We cannot perceive objects or situations without the underlying time - now. We don't think or talk about time - NOW when seeing something, but when we need to, we can intuit it as time now. It is not visible object, but we clearly can know it by intuition, and the intuited time now is the pure form of intuition in the sense that it is already and always there even without any sensory data on the time itself.

Likewise when remember the past events, we call back the images or the sounds of the past events, but we also intuit the time "past" in the memory which has the pure intuition of time as the pure form.

For some others idea of time being "unknowable", I don't agree with it. Because I believe Kant has written CPR in order to draw line between knowable and unknowable. What is knowable is subject for Science, what is unknowable is topics of Metaphysics. Time doesn't belong in unknowable. It belongs in knowable.

According to Kant in his other publications on Religion, it is possible for us to know the unknowable,but not via our sensory organs and sensory perceptions. It is our faith and intuition which can make the unknowable to knowable.

But is time only our internal pure intuition? Could time exist in the external world? I think yes, time exists in the material world. If so, in what form and what type of existence? This is my next question. What does Kant say about it? What do some other philosophers say about it?

“Objects in themselves” are said to be entirely unknown to us. This is not to say that they cease to exist, — Wayfarer

How do you know if something exists or not, if it is unknowable?

but that whatever kind of existence they may have independently of our mode of cognition is inaccessible to us. — Wayfarer

What do you mean by "inaccessible" here? In what sense our mode of cognition is inaccessible? How is it different from "unknowable"?

Is time unknowable or inaccessible in Kant? Isn't time intuitable according to Kant?

I did say they were intuitions, when I should have said they were the pure forms of intuitions, and of sensibility in general. — Mww

I thought about the points of discussion over the weekend, and still found some parts of the passages were not clear.

What do you mean by sensibility in general, and the pure form of intuitions? Is time not the object of intuition, rather than the intuition itself in Kant's writing?

Sadly your claim is still coming from appeal to authority or popular media. Your rant is devoid of logic and knowledge what the word "biological" means.

then on that assumption we must accept that the 'ultimate' nature of time is unknowable. — Janus

What is your stance on the issue?

It needs explanation how brain generates mind, how brain is linked to mind or how mind works from brain. — Corvus


Very true. — RussellA

Maybe you need to bring in Scientific explanation on this point along with Metaphysical analysis and elaboration.

But if space and time, in and of themselves alone, are said to represent conceptions the transcendental expositions of which are idealities, must it then be possible to intuit idealities in the same regard as appearances? No, for to cognize transcendentally is to reason, from which follows in the cognition of a ideal representation, we in effect represent to ourselves purely a priori nothing more than the ground of a principle, in this case for the use of sensibility in general insofar as by it the representation of appearances in intuition, re: phenomena, becomes possible. — Mww

:up: Yes, agreed.

Suppose in touching the apple I knock off one atom. The apple has changed. Is it the same apple even though it has changed or should I give it a new name because it has changed. — RussellA

It is still the same apple even if with some of its atoms are missing or altered. It is called identity through time. With time change in the universe, everything changes. But the identity of the object remains same, as long as it can be remembered by the perceiver.

When you were born x number of years ago, you were a newborn baby, Now you are a grown up adult, I guess? You now look totally different in height, weight and looks from when you were a newborn baby, but you are still you. You changed through time, but you remember you are you. You are still you.

What is more, you don't need to change your name, or give you a new name. No, you don't keep giving new names to objects, unless there are necessary reasons for it.

The deeper question is: in what sense would time exist absent any awareness of it? The difficulty is that as soon as you begin to think about that question, you are already bringing time into awareness, or rather, bringing your mind to bear on the question. So time is always already part of the consideration. — Wayfarer

OK, fair enough on that. But it doesn't say anything about why and how time is intuition, and nothing about the nature of time itself. Remember time is not a new topic. It has been one of the hot topic since ancient Greek era. We could like to try to figure out what the nature of time could be in more understandable and realistic manner from our own material world we live in.

Idealist's account of time would be meaningless and groundless, if it just says that time is something unknowable, and hard to understand, but it makes our perception possible and is a precondition of perception. Anything can appear in our intuition, and time is intuition. It does not really say much about the nature of time itself.

We still have to search, explore and aim to demonstrate in more concrete manner where in our material world time might be existing hidden in the form of different level or type of existence.

Yes, it does. Thanks for pointing it out, and sorry I was inattentive with my statements in the first place. — Mww

No problem. I was just curious on the statement that Time is intuition, said by Kant. I was trying to analyse and delve into what it meant in deeper angle. How could time be intuition. At this time, I am not in position for agreement or disagreement on the statement. I am trying to figure out what it could mean, and trying to make up some argument on it.

I feel it is not the conclusion or answers which is more important, but good logical argument on the point is more interesting on these metaphysical issues.

So your remarks about time being objective are broadly correct, but its objectivity is not really the point at issue — Wayfarer

You seem to have misunderstood my point in my previous posts to Metap. I was not saying time is objective, but measurements of time is objective. Because all measurements tend to be objective to be practical, useful and meaningful.

I am not saying Kant's idea on time is wrong, or difficult to understand. My position is more into the direction that we could try to analyse what Kant and other philosophers meant when they wrote about time. Because time is a very interesting topic.

If you say, well it is very hard to understand, so just keep reading what others said about it, then it is not good methodology of philosophy. The answer could vary on these topics depending on what direction you are coming from.

What could be a better approach is keep asking questions on unclear parts, and keep discussing until the ideas get clearer. This is not analytical issue where the answers are black and white right or wrong. This is a metaphysical issue, where the conclusions could be drawn after much analysis, questions and discussions, readings and contemplation have been made on the issue. If you have some type of prejudice on this approach, and conclude that the issue is difficult to understand, and keep suggesting the only way forward is go back and keep reading the OP, then it is not a constructive methodology or right way to approach the issue at discussion.

Before I used to believe time does not exist in the material world. Time could be illusion. But now I feel that it might not be simple as that. There are more to explore on the topic. And going back to the historical philosophers writings on Time might be a good idea, and keep thinking and discussing and asking about what they had meant, and could help us coming to better understanding of time, if not enlightening conclusion.

For Kant, it is tricky to say one way or another on his positions in Space and Time in CPR. If you are aware, he wrote and published more than 1 version of CPR, and also many other publications on Natural Science and Metaphysics. His wordings and ideas are known to be different on all these publications. And there are many Kant scholars who have different opinions, understandings and interpretations on Kant's ideas on the topic.

Hence, I feel that we shouldn't be too eager or quick to prejudge on the topic and Kant's ideas, but keep discussing, asking questions, and just concentrate on answering to the questions if you have any ideas or your own answers to the questions rather than suggest reading OP again, or insist that the topic is too hard to understand.

Intuition is a mental activity, time is not a mental activity therefore not an intuition, but derived nonetheless from mental activity. — Mww

Does it mean that you disagree with what Kant wrote? i.e. Time is intuition?

Time is not known or knowable, so there’s no need of perception of change for that reason. — Mww

But if nothing changed at all in the world, would anyone perceive time? The fact of the matter is, things change (e.g. Sun rises every morning), hence people notice time passing.

The apple is a single object. The table is a single object. But is the apple on a table a single object? There seems to be no reason to think so. But we could name an apple on a table “apptab”. Is the apptab now a single object just because we have given it a name? — RussellA

I think you are seeing two objects, not a single object. You can say it is one object, and call it apptab, but no one else will understand what you mean by it.

This raises the question, do objects exist in the mind-external world or are they created by the mind? — RussellA

Objects exist in the external world if we can see and interact with them. Some objects which are not visible because they are too distant or hidden inside buildings could be inferred as existing if there are good reasons to believe them existing such as Papua New Guinea, or folks in the houses and hotels.

No. I assume the mind is no more than the brain, but others disagree. — RussellA

Brain definitely is the source or foundation for the functions of mind, but saying mind is brain sounds too simple and meaningless. It needs explanation how brain generates mind, how brain is linked to mind or how mind works from brain. This is a Philosophy of Mind topic.

But if I did not have the concept of “cup”, how could I know that what is in front of me is a “cup”? I would know something was in front of me, but I would not know that it was a “cup” — RussellA

We are not interested in knowing it was a cup. We are interested in if the cup exists as a real object. It is all what realism is concerned, isn't it? Knowing is not existence, is it?

The neurons of the brain exist as matter and energy. My assumption is that concepts in the mind are no more than arrangements of neurons in the brain. In that sense, concepts also exist. — RussellA

Can you prove and demonstrate the existence of concept as arrangement of neurons in the brain?

Time doesn’t change at all; one moment is exactly the same as every other. — Mww

If time doesn't change at all, then how do humans perceive it? What is it that humans perceive as time passing e.g. from this morning to midday?

It isn’t the passage of time we notice; it is change in relations. — Mww

If time is intuition, then intuition is change in relation?

If time is intuition, then it is internal to our mind. Correct? Then why does it need perception of change in relation to know time?

Time and space are both intuitions, hence there is no difference in kind between them;
Space and time never were and cannot be treated as objects, hence the assumption of a difference in kind in their treatment is not the problem being addressed in the text. — Mww

Space and time are both intuitions. This statement needs some clarification.
Time changes every moment. If time is intuition, then what changes in intuition? If time is not object, then what do we perceive, when we notice the time passing?

No. I need the concept of a cup in my mind before I know I am looking at a cup. If I don’t know the concept of a cup, I don't know what I am looking at. — RussellA

OK fair enough. But going back the DR or IR, they are both realism. Isn't realism about existence? It is not about concept, or knowing. It is about existence. Even if you don't have concept, you cannot deny what you are seeing in front of you - the cup shaped object, and it is real.

Does existence of cup need concept of cup? What do you mean by existence? Even if, you don't have a concept of cup, you cannot deny the existence of cup shaped object you are seeing.

Therefore my concept of “cup”, a combination of a square shape being cream in colour has come from regularly seeing the combination of a square shape being cream in colour. — RussellA

It seems to indicate that you don't need your internal cup in your mind to be able to see the external cup in the external world. At the beginning first time you saw the cup, you didn't have the concept of cup, but you were still seeing it. After having seen the cup many times, you named the object "cup".
Would it be correct?

Think of this example.

1. Amad died and his biological body was found in his house.
2. Amad's biological body was removed from his house after his death.
These statements sound not correct and misleading.

Biology is a term which has strong connection with and implication to life or living which has biological function such as breathing, eating, digesting, growing or getting old.

Just because you can extract DNA from the dead body, you insist it is biological body.
That is a claim which is devoid of logic and also linguistic coherence, which is incredibly silly.

Your claims sound so illogical and nonsensical. It reminds me of reading something in the shady internet commercial sites, or ChatGPT stuff. Dead body has no life which is devoid of biological functions. You don't say something is biological when there is no life in it.

It is you who keep returning to this petty point, and telling off I am wrong. I am just replying to you trying to be polite not ignoring your posts to me even if there is nothing interesting or worthwhile in them.

From perceiving something in my senses, I infer that there is something in the mind-external world that has caused my perception. — RussellA

Why do you have to "infer" the perceived object, when you are seeing it?

Suppose in my mind I have the concept of something that I know as “cup”.

Suppose I perceive in my senses a single instantiation of this concept. — RussellA

Where does your concept of "cup" come from? How does your internal concept of "cup" instantiates in the external world?

I am not sure where you are quoting your claims from. It sounds like some AI or internet information. I am totally relying on my own reasoning on these concepts to come to the definitions.

From my reasoning, you are not just wrong, but also you sound like you are relying on the doctrine of authority or popular media.

Sorry mate, your claim is not accepted.

It only makes sense that the direct object of our perception and cognition exists in our mind, — RussellA

Does it mean when you see a cup on the table, the cup exists on the table, and it also exists in your mind?

So are you saying this is your interpretation of what you saw? Or are you saying that your church members and church leaders also aimed to provide false promises or illusions? — Tom Storm

It was obvious from the observations, many members were there for increasing their business, making more contacts preferably richer older folks, and they were told to bring more friends or whoever into the church, and they will have more blessing from God. Some were attending the church because they were lonely, and wanted to find partner. Of course, it wouldn't be all 100% of them were like that, but quite a lot of them were like that.

You don't say a corpse with no biological function, a biological body. It is just nonsense. Please understand that Logic and Semantic are closely related, if not the same.

I have no time to argue with you on the point which is not even main issue with this thread. Enjoy your poetry mate.