Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Understanding Time

Expand Messages
  • decker150 <decker150@yahoo.com>
    Both Heidegger and Sartre, as leading existential thinkers got around to discuss time . For Heidegger, the meaning of being was temporality. Heidegger was
    Message 1 of 5 , Dec 12, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Both Heidegger and Sartre, as leading existential thinkers got around
      to discuss 'time'. For Heidegger, the meaning of being was
      temporality. Heidegger was moving in the direction to make a big deal
      out of 'Time' in his work Being and Time, but failed to carry through.
      Both Heidegger and Sartre wrote about 'ecstasis', (standing outside
      oneself) and the modes of time; past, present and future.

      I would imagine that a relevant discussion on existentialism, would
      get around to discussing time as an issue. Part of our falling prey
      to 'the they' and living a less than authentic existence has to do
      with our entanglement / vulgar orientation to 'psychological time',
      the orientation that conceptualizes time in terms of miniutes,
      seconds, hours and numerical representations; an instrumental /
      efficient concept of time, somewhat detached from authentic Dasein.
      Anyone have any wisdom to share about time, especially in it's
      psychological dimension, related to consciousness.

      Joe
    • Leon McQuaid
      I have been thinking about this very topic alot lately, though unfortunatly I dont have much knowlege to fall back on. Studying philosophy, concentrating on
      Message 2 of 5 , Dec 12, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        I have been thinking about this very topic alot lately, though unfortunatly
        I dont have much knowlege to fall back on. Studying philosophy,
        concentrating on cognition and language. I am becoming confortable with
        with an idea that has been hinted at in many thinkers yet not explicitly
        discussed. It seems that language is defficent. Not only can I refer to
        not existing things (the past), but my memory would have me believe they
        still exist in some other way. Both Sartre and Nietzsche seem to hold a
        distain for ancestral worship. And see the danger in believeing one is
        enslaved by the past. Yet it is still pretty impossible to seperate ones
        self from it, as in the end we are a product of it. But that is a bit off
        topic.
        Sartre believe in free will. That is his axiom. At first that seems
        pretty bland but as we know the repercusions are actually huge. It seems
        Sartre believes that all precieved quailites that one displays in the past
        are in a word inconsequential as they cannot describe the being, since the
        being has no qualities in the instance of "pre-reflective consciousness".
        How one precieves ones self is a form of self deception (I have been like
        this in the past, therefore I will repeat this in the future). Not so!
        Also if one is free, the future is impossible as well. It doesnt exist.
        Not only can we not know it, but the hypothosises of how things are going to
        be, are built upon the past (doesn't that seem kinda silly). Also if
        prediction was possible in a concrete kinda way, we wouldnt be free would
        we? Nietzsche, too was very much about hating the idea of fate. It is a
        product of the slave morality!





        >From: "decker150 <decker150@...>" <decker150@...>
        >Reply-To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
        >To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
        >Subject: [Sartre] Understanding Time
        >Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 19:23:47 -0000
        >
        >Both Heidegger and Sartre, as leading existential thinkers got around
        >to discuss 'time'. For Heidegger, the meaning of being was
        >temporality. Heidegger was moving in the direction to make a big deal
        >out of 'Time' in his work Being and Time, but failed to carry through.
        > Both Heidegger and Sartre wrote about 'ecstasis', (standing outside
        >oneself) and the modes of time; past, present and future.
        >
        >I would imagine that a relevant discussion on existentialism, would
        >get around to discussing time as an issue. Part of our falling prey
        >to 'the they' and living a less than authentic existence has to do
        >with our entanglement / vulgar orientation to 'psychological time',
        >the orientation that conceptualizes time in terms of miniutes,
        >seconds, hours and numerical representations; an instrumental /
        >efficient concept of time, somewhat detached from authentic Dasein.
        >Anyone have any wisdom to share about time, especially in it's
        >psychological dimension, related to consciousness.
        >
        >Joe
        >


        _________________________________________________________________
        The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*
        http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
      • decker150 <decker150@yahoo.com>
        I m intrigued with the idea of no-longer-being-here. In the potentiality of being, the future indicates the not-yet realized potential, which not only
        Message 3 of 5 , Dec 12, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          I'm intrigued with the idea of no-longer-being-here. In the
          potentiality of being, the future indicates the not-yet realized
          potential, which not only includes death, but whatever projecting
          possibility one can initiate by making plans and being-active.
          Heidegger directed his attention towards two aspects of the future;
          making up your mind about it (resolution) and the foresight of
          looking forward (the ecstasis and moment of vision) (being-ahead-of-
          itself) (carried away with anticipation). Anticipatory resoluteness,
          promotes the authentic existence, whereas the general state of the-
          they, is irresolute and grounded to the immediacy of one's nearest
          entanglements, to which we become misdirected by, distracted, etc.

          But back to time as a subject. I try to understand the difference
          between physical time (original primordial motion) and the
          psychological time (cultural / common meaning) indicated by clocks,
          numerical measurement for the sake of an efficient consciousness. I
          understand that time is related to being, both in a primordial as
          well as a conscious experience. At the point of death, psychological
          time ends for the dead (being-no-longer-here /being-no-longer-
          conscious), while physical times continues to 'be'. For Heidegger,
          the meaning of being was expressed as temporality. Also, time is
          related to consious beings, but for mere objects (the ready-in order-
          to-be-used / useful things in general), are 'within timeness' and
          have no perception of time or change. It would seem that time as
          perceived by human beings, who are conscious of time, had to be
          explicated in order to pursue the full scope of being's meaning. I
          wish Heidegger had gone on to finish his third phase of Being and
          Time. Ultimately, both in Sartre and Heidegger's writings, time is a
          major subject matter for existential reflection.

          Joe



          aANTICIPATIONplorepresco--- In Sartre@yahoogroups.com, "Leon McQuaid"
          <leonpmcquaid@h...> wrote:
          > I have been thinking about this very topic alot lately, though
          unfortunatly
          > I dont have much knowlege to fall back on. Studying philosophy,
          > concentrating on cognition and language. I am becoming confortable
          with
          > with an idea that has been hinted at in many thinkers yet not
          explicitly
          > discussed. It seems that language is defficent. Not only can I
          refer to
          > not existing things (the past), but my memory would have me believe
          they
          > still exist in some other way. Both Sartre and Nietzsche seem to
          hold a
          > distain for ancestral worship. And see the danger in believeing
          one is
          > enslaved by the past. Yet it is still pretty impossible to
          seperate ones
          > self from it, as in the end we are a product of it. But that is a
          bit off
          > topic.
          > Sartre believe in free will. That is his axiom. At first that
          seems
          > pretty bland but as we know the repercusions are actually huge. It
          seems
          > Sartre believes that all precieved quailites that one displays in
          the past
          > are in a word inconsequential as they cannot describe the being,
          since the
          > being has no qualities in the instance of "pre-reflective
          consciousness".
          > How one precieves ones self is a form of self deception (I have
          been like
          > this in the past, therefore I will repeat this in the future). Not
          so!
          > Also if one is free, the future is impossible as well. It
          doesnt exist.
          > Not only can we not know it, but the hypothosises of how things are
          going to
          > be, are built upon the past (doesn't that seem kinda silly). Also
          if
          > prediction was possible in a concrete kinda way, we wouldnt be free
          would
          > we? Nietzsche, too was very much about hating the idea of fate.
          It is a
          > product of the slave morality!
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > >From: "decker150 <decker150@y...>" <decker150@y...>
          > >Reply-To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
          > >To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
          > >Subject: [Sartre] Understanding Time
          > >Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 19:23:47 -0000
          > >
          > >Both Heidegger and Sartre, as leading existential thinkers got
          around
          > >to discuss 'time'. For Heidegger, the meaning of being was
          > >temporality. Heidegger was moving in the direction to make a big
          deal
          > >out of 'Time' in his work Being and Time, but failed to carry
          through.
          > > Both Heidegger and Sartre wrote about 'ecstasis', (standing
          outside
          > >oneself) and the modes of time; past, present and future.
          > >
          > >I would imagine that a relevant discussion on existentialism, would
          > >get around to discussing time as an issue. Part of our falling
          prey
          > >to 'the they' and living a less than authentic existence has to do
          > >with our entanglement / vulgar orientation to 'psychological time',
          > >the orientation that conceptualizes time in terms of miniutes,
          > >seconds, hours and numerical representations; an instrumental /
          > >efficient concept of time, somewhat detached from authentic Dasein.
          > >Anyone have any wisdom to share about time, especially in it's
          > >psychological dimension, related to consciousness.
          > >
          > >Joe
          > >
          >
          >
          > _________________________________________________________________
          > The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*
          > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
        • Will Brown <wilbro99@yahoo.com>
          Joe, I am not sure about the wisdom part, but I do have a few thoughts on the relation of time to one s sense of self, all of which derives from what I have
          Message 4 of 5 , Dec 28, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            Joe, I am not sure about the wisdom part, but I do have a few thoughts
            on the relation of time to one's sense of self, all of which derives
            from what I have experienced of it. I have discovered that there is a
            temporal sense of self that depends upon being remembered and when
            that remembered identity is cut loose of, so to speak, when it is no
            longer being remembered, there is a sense of the timeless, as if there
            is only presence without a past or future. It is also my experience
            that after a while of just "being there," that while takes on a sense
            of a past and the experience ends. The experience itself then becomes
            a past experience and the remembered self now has a hole in it, a
            discontinuity which presents a paradox for the remembering self. ----willy

            --- In Sartre@yahoogroups.com, "decker150 <decker150@y...>"
            <decker150@y...> wrote:
            > Both Heidegger and Sartre, as leading existential thinkers got around
            > to discuss 'time'. For Heidegger, the meaning of being was
            > temporality. Heidegger was moving in the direction to make a big deal
            > out of 'Time' in his work Being and Time, but failed to carry through.
            > Both Heidegger and Sartre wrote about 'ecstasis', (standing outside
            > oneself) and the modes of time; past, present and future.
            >
            > I would imagine that a relevant discussion on existentialism, would
            > get around to discussing time as an issue. Part of our falling prey
            > to 'the they' and living a less than authentic existence has to do
            > with our entanglement / vulgar orientation to 'psychological time',
            > the orientation that conceptualizes time in terms of miniutes,
            > seconds, hours and numerical representations; an instrumental /
            > efficient concept of time, somewhat detached from authentic Dasein.
            > Anyone have any wisdom to share about time, especially in it's
            > psychological dimension, related to consciousness.
            >
            > Joe
          • praxistence@aol.com
            Actually, Sartre was not a great proponent of free will; he admitted many times in the 50s & 60s that he d altered his views from his B&N period. We re always
            Message 5 of 5 , Dec 30, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              Actually, Sartre was not a great proponent of free will; he admitted many
              times in the 50s & 60s that he'd altered his views from his B&N period. We're
              always restricted by custom & circumstance. (We can pretend we are not, but
              then that's bad faith.)

              He made the point about Flaubert. Flaubert's bourgeois upbringing left some
              avenues closed to him. Flaubert could've been a mediocre country doctor, he
              could've been a clergyman, & then he could've been, as Sartre said,
              "Flaubert." Sartre also cited in his "Search for Method" the incident of the
              black RAF airplane mechanic who stole a plane, flew across the English
              Channel, & was arrested & court-martialed. In the RAF, a black man could
              never be a pilot, & this was the man's only chance to fly a plane.

              Although we can, as idealists, decry the social restrictions that preclude
              people from fulfilling dreams, it is as Sartre might've said a brute reality
              that such restrictions are made. Should we choose to ignore them & "break the
              law," then we're stuck with the consequence of that action.


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.