Tag Archives: time

forgetting stuff

Standard

Remember a while back I was complaining about Sartre going on about temporality and it not making a lot of sense. Well of course not seeing the relevance of it my brain confined it to the okay to forget pile. Now of course it is needed. Apparently it all ties in to freedom. You choose yourself and the choice plays out in your life in a kind of flow. There are no instants, no moments, just flow of time, and your freedom is bound up in the flow. To get a moment where you choose to change direction you have to make the moment, and in a kind of circular fashion you make the moment when you choose. Of course it all rests on the previous arguments about time, which I wish I could remember, because if I didn’t agree with them then none of the present stuff stands.

Of course in 20 years time the idea about time will probably pop out of my head at some random moment when I need it least in some vague fashion along the lines of “I  remember reading some thing some where once…”

In sewing news… I have decided I just have to stop thinking about it too much. If I think too much about targets or deadlines or how much I have left to do it all gets a little too overwhelming where if I just keep plugging away at it, doing what I can do right now then I actually get more done. At the very least I enjoy myself more.

The ontology of temporality

Standard

The sub-chapter I am currently reading is called the ontology of temporality. Now according to dictionary.com an ontology is  “An explicit formal specification of how to represent the objects, concepts and other entities that are assumed to exist in some area of interest and the relationships that hold among them”. At least that is the definition that seem to fit most with the way Sartre is using the term at the moment. So it is looking at the objects, concepts and entities associated with temporality or time. I don’t know why he didn’t just call it the nature of time. Sometimes I think he is making it more complicated just because he can.

 

Temporality

Standard

I am currently struggling my way through the section of Being and Nothingness about temporality, hoping that not too many of the book’s future arguments rest on what is said here. At the moment there is far too much to disagree with, which throws into doubt any arguments that are based on it. Not that Sartre every really argues as such, in any structured logical way. Most of the time it just seems like a stream of consciousness, mildly interconnected.

Other bits I am wondering how it could fit into current understandings about space-time and relativity. Essentially I think Sartre is arguing that people create time through their being, that things don’t have pasts and futures they just have states. I don’t know how I feel about that. The idea about time coming from people might fit in quite well with relativity. However, if time is a dimension in the same way that space is, then surely an object has a progression through time even if it is not conscious of that progression? Sartre would probably reject the scientific interpretation of time because it tries to tie us down to actualities. He wants to the future to be about possibilities. Just because you can accurately predict what state a thing will be in at any particular point in time does that mean the thing doesn’t have a future? I think if you want to say that you have to radically change your interpretation of the word future.    

Hopefully that makes some kind of sense. I woke up at 4 am this morning and couldn’t get back to sleep, so I am very sleep deprived.