Voyage of Philosophy 107: Aristotle's Theory of Time: Now and Time

[안재오]

107. Aristotle Theory of Time, Now and Time.hwp

51.50KB

Voyage of Philosophy 107: Aristotle's Theory of Time: Now and Time

(1) My thesis : Aristotle left us with the proposition that "time is the number of motion". However, its meaning is still uncertain. For example, some theorize that it means that (1) time is measurable. (2) Other theory asserts that time-number proposition means that time is continuous. (3) Another theory maintains that time is a kind of order. However, the author's (Ahn Jae-Oh) opinion is as follows: The word "number" here refers to "before" and "after", i.e. the number of time is two. It is the same as saying that the movement has a before and an after as the time. Moreover Aristotle connects the subjective concept of time and the objective concept of motion through a third concept, number.

(2) The great master of the theory of time: Aristotle

In Western philosophy, the concept of time is an important topic in philosophy. In the 20th century, it gained even more prominence when Heidegger identified time as an important aspect of human existence in his philosophy.

However, there are many different concepts of time. First, there's the idea of time, and then there's the idea of an hour. This is the very basic meaning of time from elementary school math. Time is a temporal position. For example, March 15th or 2:30pm. Time is more precisely a "length of time," for example, three days or a year.

In the case of Aristotle, the most famous 5th century B.C. definition of time, the distinction between the two is often blurred, making his ideas difficult to follow at times. However, Aristotle was the first to identify the most important feature of human existence: temporality, or historicity.

In the 2500 years since then, there hasn't been much progress in the theory of time.

Of course, the ancient theologian and philosopher Augustine's theory of time is also important. However, if we look at Aristotle's theory of time in his Physics, we can already see Augustine's problem: "the problem of time and the soul".

Augustine says that it is only in our minds that we recognize the existence of time. Time is not an externally observable phenomenon, but exists within our own consciousness: "It is in my mind that I measure time". He teaches that our consciousness is a powerful tool because it allows us to distinguish between what has happened, what is happening, and what will happen.

Before Augustine, Aristotle always linked the question of time to consciousness. In that sense, he is already ahead of 20th century philosophy. We usually think of Aristotle's definition of time as the so-called "number of movements," but we can see that this is not entirely a physics story. In other words, Aristotle's story of time already presupposes a subjectivist perspective.

We'll come back to this later, but when he establishes the concept of Now, he has in mind the involvement of consciousness and the soul.

The theory of time is so important because of our temporality. Human survival and behavior is time-conscious. For example, we are always conscious of the past, present, and future. We always aim for change and development. We look forward to tomorrow rather than today.

The profound thing about the concept of time is that, as mentioned above, it is both objective and subjective. If we look at time chronologically, it is of course 100% objective: in 1945, there was liberation of Korea. In 1950, the Korean War took place, etc. But this objectivity doesn't capture any of the important meaning of time in my life. What matters to me is the flow of past, present, and future, and the division of time into before and after. This includes the here and now. In this sense, time is completely subjective. Aristotle's concepts of motion, locomotion, and change actually encompass both the subjective and objective meanings of time.

This is why many scholars have misunderstood the number of movements as an objective, physical concept. In this sense, Aristotle's concept of time is dialectical. Let's take a look at some of Aristotle's theories of time from this perspective.

(3) Time and now

The most important thing when investigating the problem of time is to understand the relationship between now and time. In this respect, I say that Aristotle's theory of time is subjective because, as we know, the word now is produced by me, i.e., the concept of now cannot be established without my consciousness and my soul. This is the essential element of the phenomenon of time.

Subsequent philosophers have missed this. Aristotle does not begin his theory of time with the length of a day or two or a year or two.

The crucial sentence is that the now is not part of time. Or to put it another way, "time does not consist of nows" (218a). In another context, this means that the present is not a part of time in the time flow diagram of past, present, and future. The present is the dividing line between past and future. This idea is not new, but what I find interesting is that Aristotle's time begins with this awareness of the present. The question is, does the concept of now have a kernel? A word with a kernel is the existence of the object that the character refers to. For example, we may have a written representation of a rounded square. But there cannot be a shape that corresponds to a rounded square.

In Saussure's structuralist linguistics, they are called signifiant and signifier. Signifier (French: signifiant) and signified (French: signifié) are linguistic terms defined by Ferdinand de Saussure.

Aristotle also asks questions about time in this context. We use the word time a lot, but does it have a corresponding signifier? First of all, as we saw above, Aristotle defines time through the present signifier and signified. Without the meaning of time, human conversation and behavior would be meaningless. However, since time is an invisible concept, it is extremely difficult to define its meaning.

Augustine expressed the difficulty of exploring the problem of time in the following words. "When I was not asked the question, What is time? I thought I vaguely knew the answer. But when I tried to explain the question, I realized that I didn't know the answer." Augustine's argument about time illustrates the enigmatic nature of time, where we seem to know something but can't explain it.

We all use the word "now". Then there's the prior now, i.e. the now as seen from the past. We can also think about the uncountable now and the infinite now. Now has these relative aspects.

In terms of time, the now becomes specific, that is, what the content of the now is will be different in every given situation, but it is a borderline in the sense that it cuts and divides the before and after. (218a) It is like cutting a radish in two with a knife. This story has a strong connection to our existential life: the knife that cuts the past and future is the present. It is the now that separates the past from the future. Of course, in our existential life, now implies will and determination.

(4) Time and movement

Having revealed the nature of time from the concept of now, Aristotle pursues the objective meaning of time through movement and change. Time is the evidence of human historicity, that is, human beings always think, speak, and act in terms of before and after. Action is also part of movement. The fundamental characteristic of movement is temporality.

Movement and change are fundamentally a function of time. Movement progresses through time. Just as external objects move, so does the human mind. The perception that time has passed is also predicated on change and motion. In other words, we feel that time has passed when there is a change of mind. In this respect, we can see that Aristotle does not view time simply in terms of its length, but also in terms of the soul. In other words, his theory of time is already ahead of Augustine's immanent temporality or Heidegger's existential temporality.

The starting point of the Aristotelian theory of time is the definition of now and time. The most important place in time is now. The most important time and place in life is "now, here". The present is more important than the past or the future. Aristotle also thinks this way. He starts from the now and derives the past, the future, and the before and after. He sees before and after as variations of now, which is why he refers to them as two nows. This is because the before was once the now, and the after is the future now.

The now is the most certain time, but at the same time, there are aspects of time called before and after, or past and future.

Before and after are what Aristotle called polarities. Between the extremes, there is of course a middle. The middle is the now. The now is the point of reference between before and after. For example, imagine when we talk about before and after 1945, the present is already the present of the past. Therefore, the present is not necessarily the moment we are talking about, but the time that separates before and after, or past and future. As already mentioned above, this now is called the "now as seen from the past" prior now.

Aristotle says: "When we think of the extremes as different from the middle, and when the mind says that there are two 'nows,' one before and one after, we say that there is time, and what we say is time." (219a)

In this way, Aristotle refers to a before and an after, starting from the now, and the word that encompasses them all is called time. The before and after simultaneously refer not only to time but also to the phenomenon of motion.

This is because before and after always refer to some event. Events are connected to concepts like change and motion. Philosophically, motion is also part of change. In other words, motion is the spatial and temporal change of an object.

In fact, the concept of before and after is more important for motion than time. Since its inception, movement has had concepts such as before, after, and succession. In this sense, before and after is a common concept that connects time and motion.

Aristotle says: On the other hand, when we recognize 'before' and 'after', we say that we have time. For time is nothing but the number of these movements with respect to 'before' and 'after.' (219b)

In the above, now does not necessarily refer to the moment being spoken of, but also to the now prior to the now as seen in the past. Similarly, the concepts of before and after do not always refer to the same thing. Before and after can actually refer to different events. For example, before 1945 was the Japanese occupation, and afterward was the independence of South Korea. There are countless other examples like this.

In this sense, Aristotle says that time is the number of movements. Here, the number is not the length of time, but rather the division of time into befores and afters, and as mentioned above, the befores and afters can be multiplied in various pairs.

This is the core of Aristotle's theory of time. In fact, it's a very simple fact, but this basic definition is necessary in order to reveal the nature of time.

In this sense, Aristotle said that "time is the number of movements in terms of the relation between before and after".

Since time is a concept of before and after, it is closely related to motion. Furthermore, the number of movements does not necessarily indicate the length of time, but rather the time of day.

However, it is self-evident that motion and time are inseparable but different. "Time is not motion, nor can it be independent of motion" (219a).

But motion presupposes an object in motion, which is to say that motion is actually always something in motion. Let's call that something a body, and as mentioned above, time presupposes the now.

Aristotle describes the relationship between these two things as follows.

Furthermore, Aristotle makes the connection between motion and body, and time and now.

“But the 'now' corresponds to the body that is carried along, as time corresponds to the motion”. (219b)

From the point of view of modern physics, the motion of an object is not a property of the object because it is always caused by a force external to the object. Newton, the father of modern physics, called this phenomenon the law of inertia. Since this scientific law was not known in Aristotle's time, Aristotle's natural philosophy approached motion as a property. As we see in the quote above now and time are distinguished, and an object and its motion are distinguished. However, the combination of an object and its motion is contingent, i.e., object A can either be in motion or not. The above sentence does not apply to objects at rest, which means that neither now nor time can apply to objects that are not in motion. But the reality is that time and now apply to objects that are at rest, i.e. a stone 10 minutes ago and a stone 10 minutes later is the same stone. In this context, Aristotle's theory of motion and time has limitations.

Aristotle recognizes this and applies the logic of time and motion only to objects that are always in motion.

Aristotle ignores stationary objects and develops his theory of time with only moving objects. Here he applies his philosophical theory of substance and attribute: objects are substances and motion is an attribute. It is as if objects have motion as an attribute.

In time, now is the substance, and before and after are the properties. The same is true for objects. An object is a substance or substratum, and motion is a property. To put it another way, the paradox is that now is not some time that passes through time, but the essence of time, the eternal moment. This is contrary to common sense.

The same goes for objects in motion.

From this premise, Aristotle brings in the now and time, which is the quoted sentence above. He expands this theory further by saying as follows.

To illustrate this connection between objects and the now, Aristotle uses the argument of the Sophists. The Sophists argue that "the Coriscus in the marketplace is not the same as the Coriscus in the Lacium". Aristotle interprets this as both correct and incorrect: Coriscus is the same person, but he is also different because he is in different places. Of course, a person who is in two places must have been in two different places at two different times. In other words, we can say that the number of Coriscus is either 1 or 2. We usually think of it as one person. However, if we say, as the Sophists did, "The Coriscus in Lacium and the Coriscus in the marketplace are different," they become two people.

In this sense, Aristotle is saying that time is the number of movements.

The entity Coriscus is the same, but his situation is different. For example, before the vacation, he was at school and afterwards at the market. To see Coriscus at school and Coriscuscus in the marketplace as the same person is to know that we know the immutable substance of Coriscus. And we know the immutable human being who is distinct from the human beings in these different places and states.

Summary of

Voyage of Philosophy 106: Aristotle's Theory of Time

In Western philosophy, the concept of time is an important topic of philosophy. In the 20th century, it has gained even more prominence, with Heidegger identifying time as an important aspect of human existence in his philosophy.

Aristotle was the first philosopher to properly identify temporality or historicity as the most important characteristic of human existence. In the 2500 years since then, the theory of time hasn't evolved much.

Of course, the ancient theologian and philosopher Augustine's work on temporality is also important. However, if we look at Aristotle's theory of time in his book Physics, we can already see Augustine's problem: "the problem of time and the soul".

Augustine says that we recognize the existence of time because it is only in our minds. Time is not an externally observable phenomenon, but exists within our own consciousness: "It is in my mind that I measure time". He teaches that our consciousness is a powerful tool because it allows us to distinguish between what has happened, what is happening, and what will happen.

Before Augustine, Aristotle always linked the question of time to consciousness. In that sense, he is already ahead of 20th century philosophy. Aristotle's definition of time is commonly known as the so-called "number of motion". But this is not the story of physics: he starts the concept of time from the now. He defines time through the concepts of now and before and after, which in turn are linked to motion. Aristotle's account of time already presupposes a subjectivist perspective. When he establishes the concept of Now, he has in mind the involvement of consciousness and the soul.

He connects the subjective concept of time and the objective concept of motion through a third concept, number. It is the valid meaning of Aristotle’s saying that the time is the number of motion.

https://youtu.be/BCiv1QXBaq4