Timeline for How is "time" defined in modern philosophy?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 21, 2017 at 12:21 | comment | added | user20253 | Nice answer, infatuated. Mulla Sudra gives the traditional view. The OP might also like to check out Douglas Harding, who explains in some detail the relation between time, space and change as endorsed by the perennialists. Not sure which title is best. . | |
| Feb 19, 2017 at 15:08 | comment | added | infatuated | @Arjun Aristotle defined motion as the actualization of the potentiality. Speed can be defined as intensity of motion. | |
| Feb 19, 2017 at 12:20 | comment | added | Arjun | And what is speed? | |
| Feb 19, 2017 at 12:19 | comment | added | Arjun | If time is dependent on motion then what is motion? | |
| Apr 28, 2014 at 19:09 | comment | added | Mozibur Ullah | I think Aristotle theorises time as synonymous to the motion of bodies. | |
| Apr 28, 2014 at 7:38 | comment | added | infatuated | @AsphirDom Dreams are sequence of thoughts that are individually static and unchanging. This is also contrasted against the motion inherent to natural/material entities. So time in dreams has a different basis than in the material world. It is also noteworthy that dreams occur on the astral realm which serves as an intermediary world between the natural world and the purely intellectual world. On the intellectual realm there's no change or flow whatsoever and everything is absolutely unchanging and perfect. | |
| Apr 28, 2014 at 7:33 | history | edited | infatuated | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
short answer added.
|
| Apr 27, 2014 at 23:25 | comment | added | Asphir Dom | How do you think/feel is there any time in dreams? | |
| Apr 27, 2014 at 7:50 | history | edited | infatuated | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
made more accurate
|
| Apr 26, 2014 at 21:14 | comment | added | infatuated | @GlenTheUdderboat, well, the essence of Mulla Sadra's theory can be laid out with different phrasings. In the paper I linked, when the author describes time as an abstraction from instability as a mode of existence for material things, it clearly implies that time is just a perception rather than an actual independent thing in which other things happen. And that's all I meant by saying time being a perception. | |
| Apr 26, 2014 at 16:47 | comment | added | user3164 | I looked at the paper, in particular at 9.6 The Interpretation of Time. I don't find anything that relates time to perception. | |
| Apr 26, 2014 at 12:10 | comment | added | infatuated | Also notice I made minor edits to highlight that I used change and motion interchangeably as in Mulla Sadra's theory of substanial motion they are identical. | |
| Apr 26, 2014 at 12:06 | history | edited | infatuated | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
made more accurate
|
| Apr 26, 2014 at 12:04 | comment | added | infatuated | @GlenTheUdderboat What I wrote was a conclusive summary of various interrelated theories of Mulla Sadra. I did link the Stanford's article in the beginning where the idea that time is a perception of change/motion is mentioned implicitly where it descries "time as a dimension of existence, as an analytic property of substantial motion, having no existence independently." But I could also locate a paper where his theory of motion, change and time are discussed separately. wab.uib.no/ojs/agora-ontos/article/viewFile/2046/2253 | |
| Apr 26, 2014 at 11:13 | comment | added | user3164 | "Mulla Sadra defines time as perception of change." Reference/source? | |
| Apr 26, 2014 at 10:38 | history | edited | infatuated | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
rephrased, errors edited
|
| Apr 26, 2014 at 9:42 | history | answered | infatuated | CC BY-SA 3.0 |