"What is" versus "What could be".

What role does language as a way of knowing play in determining “what” something is? Is the desire to change the way we view the world in Art connected to or related to the desire to change the world itself and is part of the techne and logos that we call “technology”?

The “present” as the “what is” is contrasted with the “future” as the “what could be”.

Picasso for example, like most artists, questions “why the why?” as our experience of being-in-the-world. The “present” and “future” relate to time, so art as producere, “a bringing forth” of something that was not, is implied in the contrast.

Thus in this vein, is there an objective difference between the present, the past and the future in the first place?

  • From the point of view of epistemology "there an objective difference between the present, the past and the future": we know the past and the present, but we do not know the future. – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Oct 23 '19 at 13:37
  • "What is" is often applied to what persists through time, so future/present/past is largely moot. "What could be", but is not, was not and never will be, is merely a speculation. Of course, what is/was/will be may also be unknowable for practical reasons, but, at least in principle, it is more than a speculation. It can (ideally) be observed/found somewhere in space and time. – Conifold Oct 23 '19 at 20:08

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.