Time is a tricky thing, though not a “thing” in a metaphysical sense. Some would try to mystify it as such, to turn it solid—or, perhaps more fittingly, liquid. Some would even take it a step further and try to control it with the aid of science-fiction and the theoretical ramifications of relativity. Fortunately, faster-than-light travel is still impossible, and humanity is yet safe from temporal anomalies. However, it is equally strange when some make the claim that time doesn’t exist at all. What do they mean by this? It is probably true that time is not a thing itself, but to attempt to use the same vocabulary we ascribe to actual things—“existence” or the lack thereof—is simply inappropriate considering the word “time” itself. After all, “time” is merely a succinct word for the natural phenomenon of the earth rotating around the sun. Still, philosophers and crackpots alike have a peculiar fondness with trying to explain the nature of time. Metaphysicians, too, have frequently explored the subject in their individual explanations on the nature of “being” itself. This has produced several different interpretations, approaches, and interesting thought exercises; which explanation is best or, at least, the most useful? Both Emanuel Kant and Henri Bergson would seem to have very different accounts on the nature of time, but the major difference is in their respective approaches. Kant provides a very fitting explanation of how time appears to work for humans in his discourse on the nature of human reason. Bergson, on the other hand, more adequately describes the actual nature of the world as constantly in motion, or in “flux,” to use his terminology. However, both philosophers, as well as those who came before and after them, provide useful accounts of what this whole “time” business is all about.
The basic premise of my research topic would be to examine the different ways metaphysicians have approached the subject of “time” throughout the evolution of the discipline. Besides simply enumerating the different interpretations, I want to focus on how, exactly, each philosopher uses the subject in their overall arguments and how convincing their approach to time is. This would involve raising possible objects as well as acknowledging each argument’s strengths. A logical starting point would be the works of Aristotle, but I don’t really recall there being any in-depth discussion of “time” therein. This might not be a problem, however, if I start by examining how the common man thought about time over the course of history. I wouldn’t go too in-depth; I would simply take into consideration how people kept track of time and how their ability to do so improved. Initially, one would assume, man merely paid attention to the sun’s relative position in the sky, acknowledging that there were regular intervals of light and dark. Eventually, sundials were developed, followed by more and more sophisticated means of dividing the interval between each of the earth’s rotations. It took awhile for them to realize that this was, in fact, what brought about the phenomenon of “days,” but that’s beside the point.
So far, the most useful example of how the passage of time appears to humans is found in Kant’s “Critique of Pure Reason.” Because we can remember what we were doing the last time the earth rotated around its axis, the concept of “the past” is readily understandable. Likewise, we tend to be preoccupied with what is yet to come after the next rotation, so we have the concept of “the future.” Of course, we can only ever inhabit the present, a fact I’ll explore later in the paper. The focus of this section is simply of Kant’s conception of time as the “inner sense” of the human mind: singular yet divisible—there are no “times”—infinite, and one-dimensioned. As it appears to us, we can only move forward through time, unless any of the aforementioned science-fiction theories turn out to be possible. If interpreted incorrectly, one could raise a few objections. Is time actually infinite or divisible? However, Kant’s point is that it cannot appear to work in any other way due to the structure of human reason, which, common sense dictates, is certainly true. While there are possible objections raised by Kant’s explanation of said structure, his overall argument is not within the scope of this paper.
When it comes to the question of how time actually works, I believe Bergson offers the best explanation. With his interest in genetics and evolution, he sees the world and all beings in a constant process of change—what he calls “flux.” His overall criticism of science’s tendency to describe every minute detail of a given object or process, failing to really expand our understanding of said object in and of itself, applies to time as well. Whereas science tries to freeze a given moment of time—or a particular facet of an object—in order to study it and understand it, it ignores the fact that time itself never freezes. It is the continual process of the earth revolving around the sun and itself. However, he does not think that we should do away with watches, clocks, or even sundials. Our intellect cannot help but study things in a scientific way, and it is actually useful to do so. This is obvious to anyone who tries to organize an event, such as a philosophy class. Our division of a single rotation of the earth around its axis into hours, minutes, and seconds allows us to more easily comprehend a given stage in the earth’s rotation as a given time; then, we’ll know when during said rotation we need to show up in a given class room. This is in keeping with Bergson’s belief that scientific thought is a good thing as long as we realize that it does not adequately explain the true nature of the world.
Judging by the title of Heidegger’s work which we are yet to read, it seems like he will be another useful lens through which to examine the subject of “time.” However, as I have not started reading him yet, I have no idea exactly what he will contribute to my overall project. I have also come across a few other philosophical considerations and arguments about time that may be of use for this project. One of the main debates of the nature of time is the spilt between those who believe that there was a past, is a present, and will be a future and those who believe that time has no tense, that it simply appears to because of how our brains view causes and effects. However, there are many pseudo-mystical explanations involved with some of these arguments that may simply bog down my topic in thought experiments. While these arguments are certainly entertaining, they attempt to approach time from outside the human experience, which really isn’t all that useful. They seem to try to turn time into a thing in and of itself when it is basically a word created by people to encompass the ceaseless motion of the earth and—more broadly—the universe. If we could examine the entirety of existence in a semi-godlike fashion (i.e. see everything, but through a human perspective), an individual action on earth would most likely coincide with whatever else is happening in the ever-present now. If, on the other hand, the past and future exist alongside the present (as some believe) and God is able to see it all, such a sight would surely blow our fucking minds. However, this thought process raises a whole slew of arguments about the possibility/nature of such a being and the actual nature of existence. Such considerations are simply outside the scope of my topic, any answers outside of the scope of human reason.
No comments:
Post a Comment