It is what it is.

Since it seems, according to some folks, that language is somehow more important than ontology, I claim the following.

The following music video is the Absolute, Ultimate Truth about the Ontology of Time:

Heidegger’s notion of temporality deconstructs both subjectivity and objectivity, replacing the subject-object binary with Dasein’s being in the world.
— Joshs

But would he agree that time is inseparable from lived experience? — Wayfarer

Absolutely

As I thought. That's the main point as far as I'm concerned. I think I get why he would be critical of the attempt to boil everything down to subject/object terminology, it was just the kind of abstraction he believed was ruinous.

Heidegger’s notion of temporality deconstructs both subjectivity and objectivity, replacing the subject-object binary with Dasein’s being in the world.
— Joshs — Joshs

Is there a Dasien/being-in-the-world binary in Heidegger's philosophy? If there is, then it's just a historicized version of the good old subject-object binary from The Good Old Days.

EDIT: With a bit more form:

1) If there is a Dasien/being-in-the-world binary in Heidegger's philosophy, then it's just a historicized version of the good old subject-object binary from The Good Old Days.
2) There is a Dasien/being-in-the-world binary in Heidegger's philosophy.
3) So, it's just a historicized version of the good old subject-object binary from The Good Old Days.

Which premise would you like to deny, if any?

Is there a Dasien/being-in-the-world binary in Heidegger's philosophy? — Arcane Sandwich

For Heidegger the subject-object relation consists in the theoretical attitude in which man tries to free himself from that which constitutes him (language, prejudices, culture, etc.) in order to reach an object also devoid of its being with man (for example when instead of using a hammer we ask what a hammer is and ask about its essence or objectivity). Being in the world is the way of being of man and things in which the theoretical attitude has not taken place or is secondary.

To me this fits into the American pragmatism of Dewey and so on. Only in transcendental terms

To me this fits into the American pragmatism of Dewey and so on. Only in transcendental terms — JuanZu

To me it sounds like that, and it also sounds like Marx, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, and Augustine.

Heidegger was an intellectual thief.

Well, one of the things that makes Heidegger original is that he breaks down something like being-in-the-world, being-for-death, the authenticity, inauthenticity of his conception of temporality that he reinterpreted from Kant in "Kant and the Problem of Metaphysics."

Well, one of the things that makes Heidegger original — JuanZu

Yeah that, and being a Nazi.

Is there a Dasien/being-in-the-world binary in Heidegger's philosophy? If there is, then it's just a historicized version of the good old subject-object binary from The Good Old Days. — Arcane Sandwich

For Heidegger , subject implies self-consciousness, S=S. Dasein is neither subject nor world, but the in-between. The self does not pre-exist its world, but is reflected back from what it is involved with.

The label is irrelevant; that's just semantics. What's relevant is the relations between the parts, things like their individual lengths, angles between them, distance between parts, etc. These are ontological.

If you think tables have an essence, tell us what it is. — Banno

To be clear: I do not believe in essences nor "natural kinds".

For Heidegger , subject implies self-consciousness, S=S — Joshs

I hope you see the irony there.

To me this fits into the American pragmatism of Dewey and so on. Only in transcendental terms
— JuanZu

To me it sounds like that, and it also sounds like Marx, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, and Augustine.

Heidegger was an intellectual thief. — Arcane Sandwich

Are you saying that his work is more derivative
than these other thinkers?

No, that's clearly not what I'm saying. What I'm clearly saying in that quote is that Heidegger was an intellectual thief. Those were my words.

Thompson argues, Bergson's fundamental insight about the significanc of 'lived time' remains valid, in Thompson's argument. — Wayfarer

Could "lived time" be similar idea to Wittgenstein's "memory time"? I recall seeing Wittgestein's idea of time diving it into "Memory time" and "information time".

Not enough information to form a judgement.

:ok:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_testing_of_time_dilation — jgill

Today is 13th of January in Chinese lunar calendar, and 12th of Magha Shukla in Hindu calendar. In Gregorian Calendar it is 10th February 2025.

Could they be also a form of Time dilation?

I see space like time - they are like measurements and measuring sticks at once. They are bound up with each other, as well as mass. — Fire Ologist

Space is not like time. Space exits without measuring anything. Does time exist, if you didn't measure it? Can you tell time without looking at a watch or clock? But watches and clocks are not time. Even if your watch and clocks stop, changes motions and movements in reality still happen.

There must be something that makes a table what it is, and this we will call tableness, and we will generalise this to other stuff, and say that what makes something what it is, is its essence. — Banno

I think you need to differentiate between primary substance and secondary substance.

A particular, individual thing, as a material object, is an instance of primary substance. As such, it has an "essence" within itself, as its identity, which accounts for it being the thing which it is, and not something else.

Secondary substance is the type, or species, which we assign to a thing, such as "table". This sort of 'identity' which we assign to a thing, is a tool which we use for communication, and logic. If we say that "table" as secondary substance, has an essence, then we may name the essence of a table and this may provide us with a type of necessity, logical necessity, which we can use as a tool.

So we need to be careful not to equivocate between the two types of contingency involved here. "A thing's' essence" in the sense of secondary substance, is contingent on the condition we place on being that type (what we say about the thing). From that contingency we create a logical necessity. But "a thing's essence" in the sense of primary substance, is contingent on the thing's material existence. The thing's material existence is a different sense of "necessity". Recognizing the difference between the necessity produced by what we say, and the necessity produced by material existence, allows for the reality of human fallibility.

To apply this to the quoted passage, "what makes something what it is", refers to "essence" in the sense of primary substance. "Tableness" refers to "essence" in the sense of secondary substance.

Space is not like time. Space exits without measuring anything. Does time exist, if you didn't measure it? Can you tell time without looking at a watch or clock? — Corvus

Both time and space are reference frame dependent. Space isn't an existent; it doesn't have properties. Rather, space (distance; length) is a relation between things that exist.

Time doesn't exist either. It's not a relation between things that exist. Rather, it's a relation between events.

And it is neither a brief interval between the past and future nor a fleeting absence of being.
— Number2018
Isn't it just a mental state? The ability to tell the difference between past, present and future using different type of mental operations in human mind i.e. memory, consciousness and imagination?

Thus, the present moment's reality is shaped by a virtual time, existing as neither what is no longer nor what is not yet, but as the difference between past and future.
— Number2018
Virtual time? Remember when you were a baby and child? You couldn't have known what time is about. As you grew older, you learn about it, read about it, and think about. You have a concept of time. But the nature of time itself is still abstract. When you get older, they say time feels going a lot faster than when you were younger. What does it tell you? Isn't time just a mental state? — Corvus

Time cannot be solely attributed to the primordial activity of mental faculties or the outcomes of the learning process. Such a position would inevitably reaffirm the primacy of a transcendental subject behind an individual’s time-related actions. Instead, we can refer to a temporality shaped by the rhythmic practices of society. Individual time-related orientations emerge not through reading, learning, or understanding but through shared collective experiences. A baby’s or child’s entire life is organized according to the temporal structures of their immediate environment. Later, as an adult and member of an organization or institution, one’s sense of time is primarily affected by the organization’s structure of time. Thus, the present moment becomes an operational time of activity, guided by organizational memory and oriented toward an uncertain future of a newly redefined accomplishment. In this sense, the present moment's reality is shaped by a virtual time horizons of the past and future.

Are willing to stomach those conclusions above? If not, what are you keeping and what intuitions are you choosing to get rid of? — substantivalism

The OP doesn't deny time is real. We use time daily. But when it asks does time exist, it means does it exist as a physical entity in the universe? Space exists in the universe.

Without space, nothing can exist. But space itself is invisible. Could we say something exists, when something is not visible, has no mass and no energy?

Time has similar properties. It is not visible, not sensible to our senses as an entity. So where is it coming from? When the OP asks does it exist? It means where is it coming from?

The nature of time is an interesting topic, because there are many folks talking about time travel. If time is some sort of shared mental state of humans, then any talk of time travel would be a fantasy.

Does it imply that God, souls and Thing-in-itself are also real as time? Or are they just figments of human imagination? If time is real, why aren't the other abstract concepts real?

Time doesn't exist either. It's not a relation between things that exist. Rather, it's a relation between events. — Relativist

Yes, this sounds very close to the OP's perspective in the implication.

space (distance; length) is a relation between things that exist.

Time doesn't exist either. It's not a relation between things that exist. Rather, it's a relation between events. — Relativist

This is what Bunge himself says. Here's the evidence:

More precisely, according to Leibniz, space is the “order” of coexistents, and time that of successives. Hence, the scientific materialist adds, if there were no things there would be no space; and if nothing changed there would be no time. Moreover, for either to exist there must be at least two distinct items: two things in the case of space, and two events in that of time. — Bunge (2006: 244)

I'm not sure that I agree with this, though.

Hey @Banno here's a book you might like, it's free to download and it's called Indigenous Sovereignty and the Being of the Occupier: Manifesto for a White Australian Philosophy of Origins

CONTENTS

1. Introduction: The Call for a Manifesto

2. The Need for a White Australian Philosophical Historiography

3. The ‘Hypothetical Nation’ as Being Without Sovereignty

4. A Genealogy of the West as the Ontological Project of the Gathering-We

5. Ontological Sovereignty and the Hope of a White Australian Philosophy of Origins

6. The World-Making Significance of Property Ownership in Western Modernity

7. Sovereign Being and the Enactment of Property Ownership

8. The Onto-Pathology of White Australian Subjectivity

9. Racist Epistemologies of a Collective Criminal Will

10. The Perpetual-Foreigner-Within as an Epistemological Construction

11. The Migrant as White-Non-White and White-But-Not-White-Enough

12. Three Images of the Foreigner-Within: Subversive, Compliant, Submissive

13. The Imperative of the Indigenous - White Australian Encounter

References — Toula Nicolacopoulos and George Vassilacopoulos

Indigenous people cannot forget the nature of migrancy and position all non-Indigenous people as migrants and diasporic. Our ontological relationship to land, the ways that country is constitutive of us, and therefore the inalienable nature of our relationship to land, marks a radical, indeed incommensurable, difference between us and the non-Indigenous. This ontological relation to land constitutes a subject position that we do not share, and which cannot be shared, with the postcolonial subject whose sense of belonging in this place is tied to migrancy. — Aileen Moreton-Robinson

----------------------------------------------------------
Source:

Aileen Moreton-Robinson, ‘I Still Call Australia Home: Indigenous Belonging and Place in a White Postcolonising Society’, in Sara Ahmed, Claudia Cataneda, Ann Marie Fortier and Mimi Shellyey (eds.), Uprootings/Regroupings: Questions of Postcoloniality, Home and Place, London and New York, Berg, 2003, pp. 23-40.

A spectre is haunting white Australia, the spectre of Indigenous sovereignty. All the powers of old Australia have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre: politicians and judges, academics and media proprietors, businesspeople and church leaders. — Toula Nicolacopoulos George Vassilacopoulos

True heirs to this tradition of power and self-denial, white Australians are today still refusing to become free. In our two centuries-long refusal to hear the words—‘I come from here. Where do you come from?’—that the sovereign being of the Indigenous peoples poses to us, we have taken the Western occupier’s mentality to a new, possibly ultimate, level. Unable to retreat from the land we have occupied since 1788, and lacking the courage unconditionally to surrender power to the Indigenous peoples, white Australia has become ontologically disturbed. Suffering what we describe as ‘onto-pathology’, white Australia has become dependent upon ‘the perpetual-foreigners-within’, those migrants in relation to whom the so-called ‘old Australians’ assert their imagined difference. For the dominant white Australian, freedom and a sense of belonging do not derive from rightful dwelling in this land but from the affirmation of the power to receive and to manage the perpetual-foreigners-within, that is, the Asians, the Southern European migrants, the Middle Eastern refugees, or the Muslims. In an act of Nietzchean resentment, white Australia has cultivated a slave morality grounded in a negative self-affirmation. Instead of the claim, ‘I come from here. You are not like me, therefore you do not belong’, the dominant white Australian asserts: ‘you do not come from here. I am not like you, therefore I do belong’. Might the depth of this self-denial manifest dramatically, not in any failure to embrace a more positive moral discourse but, in the fact that white Australia has yet to produce a philosophy and a history to address precisely that which is fundamental to its existence, namely our being as occupier? — Toula Nicolacopoulos George Vassilacopoulos

Dead can Dance - Yulunga

Dead Can Dance are an Australian world music and darkwave band from Melbourne. Currently composed of Lisa Gerrard and Brendan Perry, the group formed in 1981. They relocated to London the following year. Australian music historian Ian McFarlane described Dead Can Dance's style as "constructed soundscapes of mesmerising grandeur and solemn beauty; African polyrhythms, Gaelic folk, Gregorian chant, Middle Eastern music, mantras, and art rock. — Wikipedia

The Rainbow Serpent is known by different names by the many different Aboriginal cultures.

Yurlunggur is the name of the "rainbow serpent" according to the Murngin (Yolngu) in north-eastern Arnhemland, also styled Yurlungur, Yulunggur Jurlungur, Julunggur or Julunggul. The Yurlunggur was considered "the great father". — Wikipedia

For Kant time is a pure intuition, i.e. it is an a priori structure that allows us to organize events. — JuanZu

Sure. I agree.

The movement is as it is represented in physics, for example as a trajectory through time. Motion as we see it is the same, we see a before and an after of the thing moving, otherwise we would not notice the motion. — JuanZu

Do dogs perceive time? When you throw a ball in the air, the dogs could jump and catch it before it falls on the ground. Surely they notice the motion of the ball. Is the motion noticeable to the dog, because of time? Or time has no relation to the motion, because dogs are not able to perceive time?

Time is already acting on the motion. A thing that moves is a thing that passes from one state to another, but then the difference we see between one state and another is different from the thing [cause we apply it to different things] , we call it temporal difference, a now with respect to a before. — JuanZu

One night in my dream, I was fighting with an unknown bloke. He hit me first, so I hit him back. I could see my punch moving towards his face, and hit him hard vividly in the dream. Does it mean that time was involved in seeing the motion in the dream? Can time be acting on the motions in dreams? What is the difference between time in reality and time in dreams?

Is time a kind of perception of mental beings, or some concrete property of objects and motions in space?

The OP doesn't deny time is real. We use time daily. But when it asks does time exist, it means does it exist as a physical entity in the universe? Space exists in the universe. — Corvus

Can I bump my foot up against it? I can't. . . then it's not exactly material in the traditional sense of the word. This was well versed and known far before my birth.

Without space, nothing can exist. But space itself is invisible. Could we say something exists, when something is not visible, has no mass and no energy? — Corvus

. . . and yet people have constructed philosophies that don't make use of what you typically call 'space' and things turn out just fine. Don't confuse or define space as 'what is needed for things to exist' otherwise its rather uninteresting and tautological why you think it's needed. Then the word 'space' is just a substitute word for "whatever grounds all physical things".

Second, energy and mass can be considered mere properties. . . not things. So it's not mysterious to suppose anything doesn't have them or lacks them.

Mass is either defined, or has been defined, as a measure of how much stuff there is but over time its become more coincident operationally with a measure for the resistance to having ones state of motion changed. It's inertia. . . and if you don't exert a force on something to measure its inertia does it make sense to suppose there is this liquid abstraction 'mass' that such a thing possesses?

Time has similar properties. It is not visible, not sensible to our senses as an entity. So where is it coming from? When the OP asks does it exist? It means where is it coming from? — Corvus

You're asking the wrong questions. What concepts do WE think are related to it? Of these which can we diminish or rid ourselves of and still get to keep the majority of our time-intuitions?

The nature of time is an interesting topic, because there are many folks talking about time travel. If time is some sort of shared mental state of humans, then any talk of time travel would be a fantasy. — Corvus

Presentists who use non-spatialized language to talk about time with metaphors that liken it closer to our lived experience would agree as well.

However, that would mean that any actual 'time-travel' scenarios would have to be heavily re-interpreted perhaps in fashions that make it seem no less peculiar.

Say, for example, that an individual appears in strangely advanced looking machinery in the heart of New York as if they appeared right out of thin air. They appear Human but analysis of their biology indicates the proper inference that they are rather heavily changed into terms of genetics or physical make up that coincides with possible predictions on future Human evolution. He attests to this and even makes proclamations about the future with the utmost precision as if his knowledge is pure prophecy. However, he only ever says it's because he 'lived' through a time when these event or occurrences became well known.

We are reasonable people, however, and the future doesn't exist beyond mere mental prediction and the past as mere memory or creative retrodiction. So where did he come from?

Not from the future, but one possibility is that he is a random statistical fluke of nature which just happened to have the atoms around where he appeared change on a fundamental level in a highly improbable manner. To yield a person with full fledged memories of a past life coming from the future with technology that seems advanced but possible for us to create.

We can even add in the future part of the 'beginning' of his journey but it wouldn't be so much a great embarkment as it would be him vanishing out of existence the second the time-machine fully energizes instantly vaporizing him.

To be a presentist is to have to accept such horrifying a reality that may statistically create fully fledged individuals with false memories.

Does it imply that God, souls and Thing-in-itself are also real as time? Or are they just figments of human imagination? If time is real, why aren't the other abstract concepts real? — Corvus

As far as they may be needed for simple ordinary cognition; they are 'real' to me.