Time and Change.

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

Hello again.

T.jpg
Time and Change.

Just as time without change, change without time is not perceptible, recognizable.

We have become accustomed to interpreting time in a one-sided way: linear. Before that, it was natural to interpret time as you experience it in your immediate environment: cyclically. Think of the course of the day, the seasons and the dependent growing, blossoming, flourishing and passing of the experienced nature. Harvest is dependent on it. Our rhythm of life is dependent on it, apart from the unnatural to counternatural rhythms caused by technical inventions. We have forgotten that we are dependent on a cycle.

Time is the perceived form of the change: of the coming into being, becoming, flowing, passing away in the world and/or this itself together with all contents affected by it. The “objective” time, measured by the distances of the celestial bodies and other phenomena, is to be distinguished from the “subjective” time, which is based on the experienced time consciousness.

Only the “now” is “time and opportunity”; it lies between “too early” and “too late” and must be “perceived”, noticed, seized, so that something can be done at all. Past, present, future are abstractions of these concepts of time, in which the “too” is a sign for the worry character of dasein (cf. Martin Heidegger’s concept of “time”, “being”, “worry”, “dasein”). According to Heidegger, time is neither in the subject nor in the object, neither “inside” nor “outside”; it “is” earlier than any subjectivity and objectivity because it is the conditions of possibility itself for this “earlier”.

Reflect more on how you experience time and change(s) in everyday life.

2

Alf. Hi. :smiley:

How have you been?

Is this thread (again) about the difference between linearity and cyclicity?

19.png

3

You opened another thread that goes in this direction.

4

The Indo-Germanic root of the word “time” is *di and means “to divide”, “to cut up”, denotes in a sequence of events the succession in a non-reversible direction.

An example of cyclicity:

Culture cycle means that a culture undergoes fluctuations. The course can be divided into phases of depth (analogous to the phases of the primeval-/pre-culture), up (analogous to the phases of the early culture), height (analogous to the phases of the high culture), down (analogous to the phases of the late culture), which are again subject to fluctuations.

The similarities with the business cycle of the economy are particularly striking: low (depression, stagnation), up (revival, expansion), high (boom, bull market), down (recession, crisis, contraction).

In economics, conjuncture is the name given to (cyclical) fluctuations in the production volume of an economy caused by interacting changes in certain economic variables, because they denote a situation resulting from the combination of various phenomena. Many economists still claim that the economy grows into infinity, but the responsible persons of the economy have to deal constantly with the business cycle and not seldom admit that there can be an unlimited growth only if also the raw materials, the access possibilities to them, their usages, thus also the market (where supply and demand meet) and the population continue to grow into infinity. The economic history runs only temporarily like the positive slope of a parabola or hyperbola.

Also the cultural history does not run at all only steeply, but follows a cycle, which itself again follows a linear or steeper form, which follows a cycle, which follows a steepness … etc. All developments have similarities with positive or negative gradients, but also with cycles or periodicities.

Cultures emerge depending on the climate, on the seasons, on the landscape as environment.

[tab]S4.png[/tab]

5

Thank you, Kathrina.

This thread should not only be about the difference between linearity and cyclicity, but first and more generally about what „time“ as „change“ means.

Time has a linear and cyclic course. If one takes both courses together, then he gives a spiarl cycle. But if the linearity turns out to be also cyclic, then there is only cyclicity.

4_J.jpg
But what is time, if one sees it not only under the aspect of form, but also and - in this thread - perhaps especially under the aspect of change?

If there were no changes, then we would also not notice that time passes; and if there were no time, then we would also not be able to notice any changes; or, in other words, we cannot even imagine how it is without time/change. It would have to be like death. … Or …?