odysseus wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2019 4:45 am
Well EB, let’s look at your thoughts.
What you call a soup of nonsense is called serious philosophy. This is what happens when you go to a philosophy club having read so little philosophy. What IS a moment in time if not the witnesed events therein? What is time as a concept if not these events in duration? But this term is merely redundant, as extension is redundant when talking about space. Duration is a relative term, is it not? One duration is of an indeterminate designation. We have other terms for this, like minutes and centuries. But are these not arbitrarily conceived? Grounded in sidereal events and pragmatically conceived considerations, it is not time that produces the usual terminology, but events. I believe time is reducible to events. Events do not occur in time. They are tangled with our pragmatic systems of measuring and scheduling and the like. Time IS time words like today and later this morning and so on. So, when it comes tothe usual notions, keep in mind we are dealing with time utility terms and not absolutes But infinity IS an absolute termisnt it? Wel, no. The term is , like all terms, an attempt to bring the wotld to heel, deal with it, that is. We do this by assimilating what we do not know into what we do by applying the usual vocabulary: What is eternity if not an infinite number of nights, of sevonds , and so on. But all we do here is multiply and turn the actuality of a transcendence into something familiar.
The only way out of this is to discard such familiarity and reconceive time, infinity and finitude. One must, heh heh, read Kant, then read Heidegger. And in between read a lot of philosophy.
I don’t mind people who don’t read. But to toss ideas around so disparaging that you know nothing whatsoever about is just nothing short of juvenile.
Have a nice day
Sorry if I offended you, but what I really meant was that what you say is tosh. I really have nothing against you and I'm sure you're a nice bloke. So, please keep in mind that when I say that what you say is tosh, I really mean that and not something else. So, no good reason to feel offended, really.
As to good philosophy, well, good philosophy is good philosophy because it is good philosophy, not because it's you who've read it in some book or because it's Kant. Also, what you've read may actually be good philosophy, and why not, but what you say is still tosh.
Time is not conceived as events "in duration". We just don't need the word "duration" to talk about time and nobody does. It would be stupid. And who even ever said that? Ah, yes, just you. When philosophers use the expression "time in duration", it is therefore not to define time but to make clear what they are talking about, i.e. time and not just one moment in time. You're welcome.
Minutes and centuries are not arbitrary notions either. Just wait a century for the loo and you will notice the not at all arbitrary difference between a minute and a century. Our notion of duration is grounded in our subjective experience, and again, that's definitely not something arbitrary because this is indeed all we actually know. You don't seem to understand that. We could say here very a propos that man is the measure of everything. .
And if you say that events do not occur in time and that time is reducible to events, then you're just asserting something you don't know so why should I or anyone believe you? Further, this isn't anything like an original idea, so what you say you believe is likely merely what you are repeating without proper justification. So, what's the justification for believing that events do not occur in time and that time is reducible to events? Well, it could be true, isn't it? Yeah, could be. Could be false, too. Could be. So, not much in terms of justification. It's just you're choice to believe it.
Personally, I don't believe time exists as we ordinarily think of it. But then again I don't believe that space, or indeed anything physical, including the physical world itself, exist as we ordinarily think of them. So, you can keep you're "serious" philosophy for when you've find something a bit more original to teach me.
As to using time words as if they are referring to actual things, there is nothing wrong with that. Maybe time exists, maybe it doesn't exist. When you can prove it doesn't, come back to teach us.
I'm myself not even interested in whether time really exists or not. Who cares,really? Doesn't make much difference either way, isn't it?
Instead, I was discussing the logic of our usual notion of time or of the infinite and the logic of the notion of time doesn't rely at all on whether time is a real thing or just a figment of our imagination. So, if you have something to say about the logic of our ordinary concept of time, you're welcome.
EB