Great. The next question is: what is the ontological status of relations?

Consider 2 straight objects, touching at their ends, and lying at a 90 degree angle to one another (a carpenter's square). 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.

This may, or may not, extrapolate to the time-relation, but it's at least a step in that direction.

Space exits without measuring anything. — Corvus

But then, space is also no-thing, empty of things that could be said to exist. Things that take up space are the best approximation of "space exists". And things that take up space have to be measured to be identified.

I'd be happy to look into this in another thread. A bit too far off topic here.

A topic that might be more pertinent is notions of time in other cultures - cyclic time, for example.

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

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.

And I say the nature of time is analoguous to that.

Perhaps right angles are not a thing in the world, but a way of talking about and treating the stuff in the word.

"And I say the nature of time is analogous to that".

Point being that both time and right angles "exist" becasue we treat stuff as if it includes right angles and time. And we cannot not do so.

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

But when you are reflecting the events in past, present and future, they don't need to always in the order of the past -> present -> future. You could think about the future on what will happen to your project or the world in next year, and then you could go back to the past, when you have started the project, and then think about the present state of the world economy.

There is no law saying you must always perceive the events in your mind in the order, is there?

Perhaps right angles are not a thing in the world — Banno

How? Look at a pool and mentally see a right angle in the water. It's right there

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.

Yep. You see a right angle. Read the rest of the sentence... "...a way of talking about and treating the stuff in the word".

The right angle is there becasue we put it there as much as that it is there in some transcendent fashion. Perception does not only proceed from world to mind, but also from mind to world.

Duckrabbits.

The right angles don't EXIST transcendently, nor does any "form". That would entail reifying abstractions. — Relativist

Such forms don't exist in any material sense but they're nevertheless real, as their forms are givens. It would only be a reification if they were regarded as existent objects, which they are not. But then, because they're not existent objects, then naturalism is obliged to say that whatever reality they possess is derivative - products of the mind, is the usual expression. But that is a reflection of the shortcomings of a naturalist ontology.

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

The right angle is there becasue we put it there as much as that it is there in some transcendent fashion. — Banno

We don't get to do that. We recognise it. That's how come we could build, you know, pyramids, and the rest.

A bit too far off topic here. — Banno

You're wrong. As I told you via Inbox:

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

Which is to my point about Heidegger's Being and Time, and about you being wrong that my comment was a bit too far off topic. What is Heidegger's Being and Time if not an Ontology of Time? The Ontology of Time?

As for cyclic time, see Nietzsche's concept of the Eternal Return, and Heidegger's commentary on that concept. Then consider the concept of the Eternal Return in ancient Stoic thought, particularly in the works of Marcus Aurelius.

EDIT: But feel free to continue it in the Australian politics, Banno. It's the same thing. It's called Political Ontology. The term already exists, I didn't invent it. How's your knowledge of Badiou's work, mate?

To discuss Time is to discuss Being. — Arcane Sandwich

Could it imply that Time is Being or a part of Being in Heidegger?

Could it imply that time is being or a part of being in Heidegger? — Corvus

That's not the way I see it. I agree with Graham Harman's interpretation of Heidegger, which he sets forth in his first book, Tool-Being: Heidegger and the Metaphysics of Objects.

Harman's interpretation would then evolve in his subsequent works. In a nutshell, here's the idea:

Heidegger was a correlationist realist, something unfathomable for Quentin Meillassoux. Being is never entirely present. Even when it reveals itself, something remains hidden. We will never access Being. Not even through divine revelation.

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

Time doesn't reveal itself either. Moreover isn't all Being temporal? Therefore time is a part of Being. That idea just passed by me. It could be wrong. I need to get back to Heidegger. But fair enough on your idea. I am not sure also what divine revelation means. Does he say something about it? As you indicated, I am sure Heidegger says a lot about Time, hence Sein Und Zeit.

Moreover isn't all Being temporal? — Corvus

The way I see it, Being is historical. Existence is not. Both of them (Being and existence) are temporal, but not in the same way. Existence has no history.

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.

I am not sure also what divine revelation means. — Corvus

It means that not even God could grant you access to Being.

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

Isn't it natural to presume such a dichotomy?

It means that not even God could grant you access to Being. — Arcane Sandwich

Could God be Being himself? From my memory of flicking SUZ, man is Dasein i.e. Being at now and here. What would Being as God be?

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

:ok: :up:

because they're not existent objects, then naturalism is obliged to say that whatever reality they possess is derivative - products of the mind — Wayfarer

This sounds like a denial that they exist immanently. Existing entails them actually existing, but immanently- not as independent objects.

Abstractions are mental attitudes, which are derived by considering multiple objects with common elements, and mentally substracting the aspects that distinguish them. These mental attitudes ("abstractions") have no bearing on the ontology of the objects. They pertain only to how we might think about them.

Isn't it natural to presume such a dichotomy? — Wayfarer

Sure. Is it right?

Could God be a Being himself? — 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".

Time doesn't exist. Only space and objects exist. — Corvus

Now that I've joined this thread, I will say something about this statement, namely, that I think it's fallacious. Time can be measured according to intersubjectively validated standards, hence the existence of clocks and other time-measurement devices. Every phenomenal existent, and all mechanical and electronic artifacts, are subject to the vicissitudes of time, and regulate their activities, or have them regulated, by or according to time.

What I've been arguing for in this thread is that despite all of this, time is not solely objective. Time has a subjective pole or aspect that can neither be eliminated, nor directly perceived. My first post quoted an Aeon essay to that effect, about the philosophy of Henri Bergson:

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

But this emphatically doesn't mean that 'time doesn't exist', simpliciter. Try holding your breath for a minute while you say that.

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 - in other words, completely objective. 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.

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

Were they talking about the same thing?

Well as far as Einstein was concerned, there could only be one subject of discussion. Again, as a scientific realist, he believed that the world is just so, irrespective of how anyone interprets or measures it. We strive for better and better approximations of what is real, but that is something independent of your or my mind. That's what makes him realist.

What did you mean by "future" when you said:

I was imagining and meaning some present moment in the future, — Corvus

?

Incidentally there was an earlier thread on the Bergson Einstein debate. The video lecture at the head of that thread is by the author of a book on the subject.

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

Fair enough. Good explanation, gracias. I also feel that Time is closely related to Being.