|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: John JonesJohn Jones Date: Sep 21, 2007 11:31
The last stronghold of the realist is time. Surely, no-one can deny
succession, duration, before and after? These are things in
themselves, despite our cognitions- they exist in spite of us. Yet
time is easier to dispose of than space:
That A comes before B is a statement made in respect of a third event
C that is associated with either A or B. C could be the positions of
hands on a clock, for example. Let us say that C (we can call it a
clock event) is associated with B (as BC). We then say, after a rule,
that if B is associated with C, then A comes 'first'. If we now ask
whether C comes 'before' or 'after' B, then this is an invocation of
D. If D is associated with C and not with B then, after a rule, we may
say that C does (or does not) come 'after' B. The process can be
carried out indefinitely.
|
| Show full article (1.34Kb) |
|
| | 96 Comments |
|
|
Date: Sep 21, 2007 12:44
> I can write about this now, because I have taken it from a
> copyprotected thesis.
Typo, I'll bet. You cannot write about it now. Right?
In any event, under Fair Use you can post relevant snippets.
|
| |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: Michael GordgeMichael Gordge Date: Sep 21, 2007 15:10
On Sep 22, 3:31 am, John Jones aol.com> wrote:> The last stronghold of the realist is time. Surely, no-one can deny
> succession, duration, before and after? These are things in
> themselves, despite our cognitions- they exist in spite of us.
What about the carrot, the dog and the elephant's poop, (ALL each and
every single one of man's concepts) how come they aren't things in
themselves "despite our cognition-", how come everything else doesn't
exist in spite of us?
What makes you Kantians believe that time must be identified in a
different manner to an elephant's poop?
MG
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: S. JouannyS. Jouanny Date: Sep 21, 2007 15:46
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 11:31:54 -0700, John Jones aol.com>
wrote:
>The last stronghold of the realist is time. Surely, no-one can deny
>succession, duration, before and after? These are things in
>themselves, despite our cognitions- they exist in spite of us. Yet
>time...
|
| Show full article (1.61Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Malrassic ParkMalrassic Park Date: Sep 21, 2007 17:05
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 23:46:58 +0100, S. Jouanny
hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 11:31:54 -0700, John Jones aol.com>
>wrote:
>>>The last stronghold of the realist is time. Surely, no-one can deny
>>succession, duration, before and after? These are...
|
| Show full article (1.78Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: kevirwinkevirwin Date: Sep 21, 2007 17:45
On Sep 21, 2:31 pm, John Jones aol.com> wrote:> The last stronghold of the realist is time. Surely, no-one can deny
> succession, duration, before and after? These are things in
> themselves, despite our cognitions- they exist in spite of us. Yet
> time is easier to dispose of than space:
>
> That A comes before B is a statement made in respect of a third event
> C that is associated with either A or B. C could be the positions of
> hands on a clock, for example. Let us say that C (we can call it a
> clock event) is associated with B (as BC). We then say, after a rule,
> that if B is associated with C, then A comes 'first'. If we now ask
> whether C comes 'before' or 'after' B, then this is an invocation of
> D. If D is associated with C and not with B then, after a rule, we may
> say that C does (or does not) come 'after' B. The process can be
> carried out indefinitely.
>
> 'Before', 'after', 'simultaneity' and 'duration', and time itself, are
> traditional semantic ellipses employed in describing classes of
> association, where 'events' are atemporal, 'clock-events'. Our claimed
> familiarity with a concept 'time' is not with an incomprehensible ...
|
| Show full article (1.95Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: ImmortalistImmortalist Date: Sep 21, 2007 21:26
On Sep 21, 3:10 pm, Michael Gordge xtra.co.nz> wrote:> On Sep 22, 3:31 am, John Jones aol.com> wrote:
>>> The last stronghold of the realist is time. Surely, no-one can deny
>> succession, duration, before and after? These are things in
>> themselves, despite our cognitions- they exist in spite of us.
>
> What about the carrot, the dog and the elephant's poop, (ALL each and
> every single one of man's concepts) how come they aren't things in
> themselves "despite our cognition-", how come everything else doesn't
> exist in spite of us?
>
> What makes you Kantians believe that time must be identified in a
> different manner to an elephant's poop?
>
> MG
|
| Show full article (3.95Kb) |
| 3 Comments |
|
|
Author: Michael GordgeMichael Gordge Date: Sep 21, 2007 21:58
On Sep 22, 1:26 pm, Immortalist yahoo.com> wrote:> On Sep 21, 3:10 pm, Michael Gordge xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>>> On Sep 22, 3:31 am, John Jones aol.com> wrote:>
>>> The last stronghold of the realist is time. Surely, no-one can deny
>>> succession, duration, before and after? These are things in
>>> themselves, despite our cognitions- they exist in spite of us.
>
>> What about the carrot, the dog and the elephant's poop, (ALL each and
>> every single one of man's concepts) how come they aren't things in
>> themselves "despite our cognition-", how come everything else doesn't
>> exist in spite of us?
>
>> What makes you Kantians believe that time must be identified in a
>> different manner to an elephant's poop?
>
>> MG
>
> Kant "accepted" logic as his rules of engagement, therefore he has a ...
|
| Show full article (1.22Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Michael GordgeMichael Gordge Date: Sep 21, 2007 22:25
On Sep 22, 1:26 pm, Immortalist yahoo.com> wrote:
> If we remove from our empirical concept of a body,
That doesn't make any sense to me, but lets
pretend you're pulling apart a car, where are you
placing all of the bits Mortal?
I know, you're just placing them somewhere else
in space.
Hint: You can destroy a car Mortal but
you cant destroy the matter which it was made from,
you can only change its form.
Not being able to "remove space" is not what makes
space different or unique to anything else, try again.
Dust to dust ashes to ashes space to space, it all stays.
> Time is not an empirical concept that has been derived from any
> experience.
Time is a relational concept, its only a trigger-word used
to ignite inside your mind an abstraction of a nature
of any and all action, called duration.
|
| Show full article (1.41Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Michael GordgeMichael Gordge Date: Sep 21, 2007 23:20
On Sep 22, 1:26 pm, Immortalist yahoo.com> wrote:
> Time itself does not alter, but only something which is in time.
The universe is not in time, time is in the universe.
Duration exists as a nature of action / motion.
Measuring duration / motion is a what time does,
time therefore requires a standard.
Over thousands of years man has used many standards
to measure time / duration.
e.g. 2 pm and 10 minutes ago mean NOTHING without
also explaining the duration and process of the earth
orbiting the sun.
> The
> concept of time thus presupposes the perception of something existing
> and of the succession of its determinations; that is to say, it
> presupposes experience.
No it doesn't, oh and there is no need, in the
formation of man's knowledge, to pre-suppose any
such thing, you're regurgitating Kantian piffle Mortal.
Michael Gordge
|
| |
| no comments |
|
RELATED THREADS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
