Philosophers About Time

Uncover the mysteries of time with Augustine of Hippo, Martin Heidegger, and Gilles Deleuze. Experience Augustine's subjective time and its tie to memory. Discover Heidegger's authentic time and the power of being present. Explore Deleuze's multiplicity of temporalities and fragmented experiences. Embrace diverse perspectives on time, enriching your understanding. Join us on this philosophical journey through the tapestry of time.

Art By Pinterest

[edwardlawrence]

Time is the awareness, feeling and measure of motion, of things that are before and after. Thanks Aristotle!

[dostoevsky]

Please never stop making videos. You are doing great💪✨️

[lauren]

You’re all over thinking it. Time simply does not exist.

[czarquetzal]

A philosophy of history is incomplete without a consideration of the philosophy of time.

[brynbstn]

Nice effort. It's a good topic. Your text is a bit flowery, something with straight up rational thinking is more appropriate to the topic, imo. After Heraclitus we get some ideas from Zeno about time/space/motion. Aristotle refuted Zeno's paradoxes but emphasized that Time is dependent on Motion and vice versa. Plato thought, through the voice of Timaeus, that Time was part of creation. This theory has come back now with questions about Time before the Big Bang, or was created by the Big Bang. The new wave of experimental science of the 15th century refuted Aristotle's ideas about gravity, and we get new thoughts about motion, including time and space, culminating with Newton who treated time/space as an absolute frame or reference, and infinite. Kant wrote about time/space in the context of idealism vs realism, resulting in his theory that it is the wiring of our minds that cause us to perceive space/time the way we do. No one took up the question again until 1880's with Henri Bergson was the first to differentiate between authentic time i.e. “Duration” and the counted time of the scientists/mathematicians. He inspired Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty, Sartre, Deleuze and Whitehead.

[liasplace]

When we look up at the night sky we are looking into the past.

[kallianpublico]

What is the difference between time and change? Consciousness is awareness of sameness and change only. Not time. Time is the inference that between our awareness of sameness and change there is a relationship. A continuous “reality” coinciding with our existence.

[VOIDEARTH_Official]

Amazing content! Very precise and well spoken! Keep it up!
Have a great day!

[mrcat]

Great video. Would Augustine of Hippo be categorized as part of "phenomenologist" line of thinkers then?

[alwaysgreatusa]

How can you comprehend any fundamental concept, when a fundamental concept is itself the means by which you comprehend ?

[mohamedahnach]

keep making videos, love your content 👍👍👍

[That_Freedom_Guy]

We mistake entropic change, for time. We mistake memory for the past and anticipation for the future. In fact all we really have is one, eternal now. Time is fixed, it is objects that flow. The present DOESN'T slip immediately away to anywhere! Those are just words we have learnt to repeat. Look for yourself and see! The present is the most fixed and stable thing in this objective world on fire with entropic flux. This is valid. If not, show me, please. 😐

[tomaszniemirowski]

In my opinion, time is the creative activity of God.

[mohhannif]

Fantastic exposition and revelation of intricate dimension and experience of authentic time.

[Dyslexic-Artist-Theory-on-Time]

Time can be explained as a process of energy exchange formed by photon electron interactions. We have photon ∆E=hf electron couplings continuously transforming potential energy into the kinetic Eₖ=½mv² energy of matter, in the form of electrons as an uncertainty ∆×∆pᵪ≥h/4π probabilistic future comes into existence. All it takes for this to be logical is for the spontaneous absorption and emission of light waves to precedes absolutely everything that happens in our three-dimensional world.

[devildoc]

So many experts of time here and all are dated by a time of posting.

[Johanliebertwife]

Istg I wrote my own theory bout time and thought of making a YouTube video, next day this came to my feed.

[SaloMusic]

Wouw you need more attention if you keep going

[alwaysgreatusa]

The statement 'a man steps in the same river twice' is only meaningful if there is a man and a river. But a man by definition is something that lives beyond a single moment, and a river by definition is something that flows constantly. So, once you take-away the passing of time, you take-away the meaningfulness of the statement. It is not false, it is just meaningless. In order for it to be true or false, it would have to first be meaningful. If there is a man, and if there is a river, then it becomes a real possibility that he might or might not step into the same river twice. He might step into the river once, and step into it again, thus making the statement true; or, he might only step into the river once, withdraw his foot, and never step into it again, in which case the statement would be false. But to say a man cannot step into the same river twice because neither one endures is nonsense, for stepping itself is something that requires time, as does the existence of the man and the river. Take-away the passing of time, and you take-away the context in which the statement is meaningful. This kind of word-play belongs in Wonderland with the White Rabbit and the Mad Hatter, and it is mere sophistry to take Heraclitus literally.

Of course, it can be maintained that Heraclitus is just using a metaphor here. Now, strangely, his point seems to be akin to that of Parmenides and Zeno -- who are supposed to be his polar opposites. Time, motion and change are not real for Parmenides and Zeno because Being simply exists and it is the only thing that exists, thus there is nothing else for it to become, or to change into, (and, as they would have it), time itself must be illusion, for time is simply a kind of change, but change is, (as we have seen in their theory) impossible. Now, Heraclitus, in contrast, is supposed to believe that change is the only reality, and Being (or permanence) is only an illusion. But, as the first paragraph above demonstrates, without endurance (meaning existence over a period of time), there is nothing in existence in the first place that can possibly change. In other words, Heraclitus' notion of 'pure change' is absurd ! No less absurd is Parmenides and Zeno's idea of 'absolute permanence'. 'Permanence' itself is only meaningful in the context of the passing of time. So, both positions turn-out to be a denial of time, motion, real change, and real permanence, and even real existence in any form whatsoever. Which is to say, they are both utter nonsense !

[l.g.harris]

Are memories real? Is the future real? I believe it’s a no to both questions. There is only now. There is power in presence and mindfulness. Theory: Time was the apple eve chose over God. To know the lie of time, created death.