This guy thinks that time is something other than a sequence of moments. When you ask him what this "something other" is, he tells you that it is something that cannot be described using words. — Magnus Anderson
What you are describing is not mysticism but denial. i.e. hiding from valid distinctions. The trouble is that a great deal of discrimination takes place without us being aware. It seems to me that Bergson takes a phenomenological approach to time so he would be interested in discussing distinctions as they appear rather then by comparative measurements of different observers via the objectification of space-time. — Perplexed
↪Magnus Anderson What you are describing is not mysticism but denial. i.e. hiding from valid distinctions. The trouble is that a great deal of discrimination takes place without us being aware. — Perplexed
It seems to me that Bergson takes a phenomenological approach to time so he would be interested in discussing distinctions as they appear rather then by comparative measurements of different observers via the objectification of space-time. — Perplexed
Bergson is opposed to any conception of time as a succession of moments. — Magnus Anderson
Bergson opposes spacialization of time. If you don't understand what I just said, you have to either think about it or read about it. — Rich
"Spatialized time" is precisely the kind of time that I am talking about i.e. the kind that can be thought of as a succession of moments. For Bergson, everything that is divisible is considered "spatial". — Magnus Anderson
Meditation is the holy grail of mysticism. Why is this so? Is it not because meditation is a form of denial? — Magnus Anderson
Bergson is opposed to any conception of time as a succession of moments. — Magnus Anderson
Time is exactly as you are experiencing it. Is time starting and stopping for you as a succession of moments? Mine is continuous. — Rich
I believe meditation is a technique for focusing ones mind, no? I suppose it could be considered a denial that unfocused use of the mind delivers the truth, or perhaps there is the denial of the ascetic who runs away to live on a mountaintop. There's good and bad denial right. Denial of a lie could be pretty important. — Perplexed
Are you sure it is not just the conception of time as only a succession of moments that he is opposed to? As this is a very simplistic and linear way of describing it. — Perplexed
It's a very useful too but in the case of those who consider themselves mystics it is a tool used to simplify their process of thinking to a degree that is quite astonishing. — Magnus Anderson
No, he says that such a conception falsifies the reality of time. — Magnus Anderson
What does it mean for time to be "starting and stopping"? The point is that my past is a succession of moments. You have one moment coming after another moment. — Magnus Anderson
If the moments are continuous there are no moments. That was Bergson's point. This is what Zeno's paradoxes are all about. When you do away with points (the arrow never stands still) the paradoxes vanish. Whenever there are paradoxes there are problems with the ontology. Moments are the problem. Spacialization of time creates these paradoxes. — Rich
But I don't agre — Magnus Anderson
Well then you have an expected paradox. It is an outgrowth of your ontology which brings us right back to my first question, if you think you are moments then do you feel each moment starting and stopping. — Rich
But moments are durationless by definition. — Magnus Anderson
If you understand the paradox, then you understand why moments and spatiality yields it. — Rich
If a moment is without duration, exactly how many moments does it take to make one second? The stuff that the clock is measuring. That science it's measuring. — Rich
If an object is at rest at every point in time, it does not follow that it is not moving. — Magnus Anderson
There can be any number of moments within a second. — Magnus Anderson
Well apparently you are fine with this so nothing is going to convince you otherwise. For me, it is strange and doesn't coincide with every day experience. — Rich
How does this issue keep recurring? — Banno
What I am describing is denial. — Magnus Anderson
In speaking of the fear of religion, I don’t mean to refer to the entirely reasonable hostility toward certain established religions and religious institutions, in virtue of their objectionable moral doctrines, social policies, and political influence. Nor am I referring to the association of many religious beliefs with superstition and the acceptance of evident empirical falsehoods. I am talking about something much deeper–namely, the fear of religion itself. I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers.
I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that.
My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and that it is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time. One of the tendencies it supports is the ludicrous overuse of evolutionary biology to explain everything about life, including everything about the human mind.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.