Space exits without measuring anything. — Corvus
I would not say that the 90 degree angle exists (it's not an object in the world), but rather: a state of affairs exists (the carpenter's square), and that the 90 degree relation is a component in this state of affairs. So in this sense, 90-degree angle does exist- immanently, within the state of affairs. — Relativist
You acknowledge a future, and I assume you also acknowledge a past. This suggests a ordered relation: past->present->future.
We can label this ordered relation, "time". It's not a complete account, but it's a beginning. — Relativist
And I would say, that this relation exists as an intelligible relationship, a regularity that registers as significant for an observing mind. Furthermore that while right angles might exist immanently in particular a carpenter's square they also transcend any specific instantiation. That it is actually a principle, or a form, which can be grasped by an observing mind, and existent in the sense that you and I can both grasp what a right-angle is. — Wayfarer
The right angles don't EXIST transcendently, nor does any "form". That would entail reifying abstractions. — Relativist
We can evidently say, for example, that mathematical objects are mind-independent and unchanging, but now we always add that they are constituted in consciousness in this manner, or that they are constituted by consciousness as having this sense … . They are constituted in consciousness, nonarbitrarily, in such a way that it is unnecessary to their existence that there be expressions for them or that there ever be awareness of them. — Source
A bit too far off topic here. — Banno
Because of Heidegger's Being and Time, that's why. To discuss Time is to discuss Being. And to discuss Being is to discuss Nietzsche. And to discuss Nietzsche is to discuss whiteness and non-whiteness. You're a white Australian. When you discuss the ontology of time, you do so as a white Australian, not merely as a Kantian transcendental subject. — Arcane Sandwich
A topic that might be more pertinent is notions of time in other cultures - cyclic time, for example. — Banno
Could it imply that time is being or a part of being in Heidegger? — Corvus
Being is never entirely present. Even when it reveals itself, something remains hidden. We will never access Being. Not even through divine revelation. — Arcane Sandwich
Moreover isn't all Being temporal? — Corvus
I am not sure also what divine revelation means. — Corvus
You recognise it as a result of having been taught what a right angle is. Right angles area part of your culture as well as a part of the world.
What's problematic is supposed that they are either in the world or they are only in the mind. — Banno
It means that not even God could grant you access to Being. — Arcane Sandwich
The way I see it, Being is historical. Existence is not. Both them (Being and existence) are temporal, but not in the same way. Existence has no history. — Arcane Sandwich
This sounds like a denial that they exist immanently. Existing entails them actually existing, but immanently- not as independent objects.because they're not existent objects, then naturalism is obliged to say that whatever reality they possess is derivative - products of the mind — Wayfarer
Could God be a Being himself? — Corvus
Time doesn't exist. Only space and objects exist. — Corvus
Each successive ‘now’ of the clock contains nothing of the past because each moment, each unit, is separate and distinct. But this is not how we experience time. Instead, we hold these separate moments together in our memory. We unify them. A physical clock measures a succession of moments, but only experiencing duration allows us to recognise these seemingly separate moments as a succession. Clocks don’t measure time; we do. — Aeon.co
Isn't it natural to presume such a dichotomy?
— Wayfarer
Sure. Is it right? — Banno
That's the nub of the issue. In the Einstein-Bergson debate, Einstein, a scientific realist, insisted that time is real irrespective of whether anyone measures it or not. Bergson, as I interpret it, insists that measurement is an intrinsic aspect of time, and that therefore, time is not only objective. And if that goes for time, then the implications are far-reaching. — Wayfarer
?I was imagining and meaning some present moment in the future, — Corvus
No, he could not. God has being, as does everything else. Think of it like this: all animals have life, but there is no animal called "Life". All entities have being, but there is no entity called "Being". — Arcane Sandwich
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.