Philosophy Now Forum

I've got this question for a philosophy class of mine, and would like some input, if anyone has any to give.

--> There is a story that Yogi Berra was once asked for the time, and replied "You mean now?"
What is the deeper point of this story both from the viewpoint of someone who believes that the reality of time presupposes the existence of an Absolute Now and from the viewpoint of someone who believes the idea of an Absolute Now is incoherent?

I've gone through some readings that involve this concept, though I'm not quite sure how to answer this neatly. It seems to me that it can be answered in a short bit of writing, as the question in this instance doesn't necessitate a complete and thorough explanation of concepts, only a general explanation.

Should anyone have any input as to the main points that should be observed in answering such a question, it would be appreciated.

You may want to check out these two topics:
An Attack on Indexicality - http://t-lea.net/issues_from_the_internet.html#AAI, I haven't been able to locate the topic on this board so I've therefore provided the link to it on my website.
My version of Time - viewtopic.php?f=16&t=3869. By this, you may want to pay particular attention to:
"McTaggart is wrong in presenting his A and B bands/tracks dichotomy. I believe the origin of time historically has its roots in the seasons, the Sun and possibly the life span of human kind by every single person. The clock is thus determined by the 24 hrs cycle of the Sun (on Earth), essentially giving the time when the Sun is highest through the day. Later, one has divided the Earth into 24 time zones with few exceptions. McTaggart comes out weak in his academic life of presenting time as he does. Let me guess he has lived an incredibly relaxed life with few necessary daily routines. This is from the reason that everyone, historically, has their primary activities during the day and catches the sleep during the night. This is undeniable if one goes back to the medieval times, at least. It is eventually the objective time, given by the Sun and the passing of years, historically, that triumphs the notion of time whether you sense time in this way or that or have funny thoughts about time."

and

"Time is, of course, a physical requirement, being at least, 1 of 4 dimensions. This is not the question. The question is how we as human beings have come to know time, both as concept and our cognition of it. Historically, I believe one has addressed "a day's worth of work, but the revolve of the Earth making the days has been essential of this formation. I believe the timing of motion is quite recent (1400 CE or so, just as a guess, especially in referring to the feather and stone experiment in testing gravity). One can perhaps check out the invention of the first time-taking pieces or clocks on Wikipedia.
Clearly then, there's no questioning of time as such, but it's worth noting that we all live under the sun and it remains our compasses of time until then! This may change if we settle in a new star system, but this is not some time soon, I can predict."

and

"In responding to Charles Taylor, Metaphysics, 4th ed., this fleeting moment, referring in particular to The Elusive Present, pp. 85-87, of the present can only float in one direction, forward!
Time is also stuck to the time-track. 1980/01/01 CE will always be 1980/01/01 CE even if you consider it as 1980 CE + 13,7 x 10^9 CE years. This will always yield present time point, X CE + 13,7 x 10^9 CE where 13,7 x 10^9 CE is the most precise scientific estimate of the universe relevant to time and X is current date by year or date. I can write it like this: X + S being the X years from 0 CE and the scientific estimate from 0 CE to the beginning of the universe according to the Big Bang theory and scientific community's consensus."

Cheers!

athayworth wrote:I've got this question for a philosophy class of mine, and would like some input, if anyone has any to give.

--> There is a story that Yogi Berra was once asked for the time, and replied "You mean now?"
What is the deeper point of this story both from the viewpoint of someone who believes that the reality of time presupposes the existence of an Absolute Now and from the viewpoint of someone who believes the idea of an Absolute Now is incoherent?

I've gone through some readings that involve this concept, though I'm not quite sure how to answer this neatly. It seems to me that it can be answered in a short bit of writing, as the question in this instance doesn't necessitate a complete and thorough explanation of concepts, only a general explanation.

Should anyone have any input as to the main points that should be observed in answering such a question, it would be appreciated.

the deeper point is that time is relative to events...

Mr. Berra was probably considering time in relation to the second game of the double header that his team was playing that day (or something like that.)

and keep in mind that history is personal... things that happen outside your experience are less believed than those that present themselves to your senses...

dustbowl empiricism is wonderful, ask Hume

-Imp

I wrote this some time ago, and I think covers the question quite well:

We believe in the passage of time, even though we cannot perceive time’s passage, and our belief in time is so confident that we assume to assign the objects we encounter at various points along time’s passage.

Our friend hands us two objects: one is a fossil and the other a terracotta jug, which, he tells us, is freshly baked from the kiln.

When we first look at these two items there is nothing about them that necessarily reveals their age. They are just two pieces of matter, albeit different in colour and constitution. The only way we can age them is to first recall our belief in time’s passage and then assume that the objects are of different age – in this case we assume that the fossil is older than the terracotta. Why? Because the word fossil means 'old'.

But there is never any justification for this - we only ever perceive things in the present; the fossil in our hand is, at this point, still as fresh or as ancient as the terracotta.

But, for no reason, we do get misled by the words and assume the fossil as ‘old’, and then we analyse it and discover certain attributes about it – for example we might notice varying proportions of chemical isotopes. These proportions are then also assumed to be characteristic of age, because they are associated with the ‘old thing’ – the fossil.

And henceforward, each time we encounter an object whose chemical constitution is similar to the fossil, we call that thing ‘old’ also, forgetting that the fossil’s antiquity was only ever assumed in the most arbitrary fashion.

This is an error. We only perceive things in the present. The fossil in our hand is as timeless as the terracotta – both of them exist only in the here-and-now that completely transcends our arbitrary and conventional designations of age.

The age of the fossil is a story we tell…in the present. At what other time can such a story be told?

To say that time exists is like saying 'goodness' exists. Just as every good thing could also be a bad thing, every thing we think demonstrates the passage of time (like a fossil) also demonstrates timelessness, from a different perspective.

All items of evidence for good are counteracted by being also items of evidence for bad. Good and bad hold each in balance and so neither attain independent existence. It is the same for Time - it exists only as an arbitrary and subjective judgement on events.

When we ask the time we can either say 'quarter to eleven' or we can say 'now' - and both are completely accurate answers in their own way. We are rather apt to forget that latter answer, which is why we need people like Yogi Berra to remind us every now and then that Time is just a convention, a story, a myth, and nothing more.

Hope this helps, Nikolai

athayworth wrote:I've got this question for a philosophy class of mine, and would like some input, if anyone has any to give.

--> There is a story that Yogi Berra was once asked for the time, and replied "You mean now?"
What is the deeper point of this story both from the viewpoint of someone who believes that the reality of time presupposes the existence of an Absolute Now and from the viewpoint of someone who believes the idea of an Absolute Now is incoherent?

I've gone through some readings that involve this concept, though I'm not quite sure how to answer this neatly. It seems to me that it can be answered in a short bit of writing, as the question in this instance doesn't necessitate a complete and thorough explanation of concepts, only a general explanation.

Should anyone have any input as to the main points that should be observed in answering such a question, it would be appreciated.

How do you define "Absolute Now"? Is it a point in spacetime?

Seeing that this is a philosophy class, I would try and abandon most empirical and scientific solutions, and merely give a purely experiential (phenomenological) interpretation of the two opposing views. If you would like to incorporate some analytical philosophy, I may suggest A Treatise on Time and Space by Lucas. Otherwise, keep it simple and easy to understand. Just imagine the two opposing viewpoints, their justifications, and don't use confusing language.