Time management from Aristotle’s point of view
Introduction
In the conception of time from the point of view of Aristotle, he raises the questions of time about the problem of existence and what was its nature, the affirmation about the composition of time in two dimensions determine that time does not exist absolutely, The future and the past are the considerations of two intertemporal states that do not contribute to the participation of being, because it is considered something visible and that is determined by the now, that is, for the present.
However, it should be noted that Aristotle does not raise the now as a temporary state but as the limit, which turns out to be inextensible and indivisible. For Aristotle if we fraction the time we find that each fraction is different from another, that is, they cannot coexist two fractions at the same time, because they do not represent extensions of time, time extensions are fractions understood by limits, and the ‘now ‘Not being understood, when considered a limit is indivisible.
Developing
Aristotle considers that the movement is different, in the sense that each fraction of the movement is different from any other, the time was considered different because each specific period does not identify with another, but if we consider the time in its entirety it is the same in which Each period of time is takes place on the same planet and at the same time, that is, he is now always the same in itself but different in another, if we consider “being now” the lapses are totally different because each now possesses a different being to the other.
Aristotle lies an analogy between the "now" and the "mobile" and expresses that he now is at the same time what mobile is to the movement, but they constitute as something different in each period of movement for example a date in the calendar is the same , but it is different in each period of time.
Definition of time
It is not possible to give a definition about the problem of time, but now it guarantees us a clear in its way of being great elements to give way to the question of the nature of time. In the same way, Aristotle constitutes an exam about the opinions that have left their predecessors around the subject, with this exhibition, despite the brief and simplified that it turns out to be and in this way introduces the first elements for a definition of time, of this way two hypotheses 1 time arises is the movement of the celestial sphere and 2 time is the same sphere.
For the first Hypothesis Aristotle rejects ownership of time with the movement of the sphere because, although the sphere does not of the complete return, you can still talk about time, in addition in the existence of other plants they would have different times because the movements circulatory depend on the sphere. Otherwise the consideration of time as the sphere itself, which Aristotle dismisses as naive, because as all things are happening in the same sphere then they are the same time.
Time is not homogeneous with the movement, but it must be considered that when talking about time in the same way there is talk of change. Well, when in our soul nothing changes or not noticed that something changes, we do not notice the passing of time, otherwise expressed time we only consider it, while the soul captures change or movement. Every time we analyze the time we perceive movements and that is why we must talk about the time related to movement.
We know that when a movement occurs, it occurs from something to something, that is, it occurs in a ‘continuous’. And for Aristotle the ‘continuous’ by antonomasia is the space or ‘magnitude’ in this way the movement is considered continuous depending on the magnitude, but the time is also continuous depending on the movement.
In this way he yesterday and tomorrow is first given in space or magnitude and gives rise to the ‘antero-posteriority’ of the movement and this in turn gives rise to yesterday and today of time. Therefore, it can be said that we consider time when we determine a movement according to yesterday and today, that is, when the soul manages to distinguish two limits or ‘now’ recognizing that they are different from each other and the contained between them, for what So much, time is the movement between yesterday and today.
In this way, when it is said that time is the ‘number’ of the movement according to him yesterday and today, what is being number is not the movement itself or the ‘now-limits’ or an alleged succession of now certain now by limits, but the magnitude or amplitude of the movement between the ‘now’ (previous and posterior) is numbered (previous). In this way we cannot identify time and movement in a total way, but only as the movement is numbered. According to Aristotle if the greater and the least measured by number, and if a greater or lesser movement is measured by time, then time is a kind of number.
For the following we can say that Aristotle’s analogy between now and the movement is not exhausted in the simple fact that both share the characteristic of being in one sense the same thing and in another always something different, but that they are also a determinant Key to the knowledge of the continuum to which they belong; We could consider that we have the knowledge of movement through mobile and another -if we attend to the definition of time already formulated, that is, ‘movement number according to the past and the future’ and we identify that the ‘past’ and ‘the future ‘refers to two cuts or limits in time, so we can say that we also have knowledge of time through the’ now ‘.
The subsequent fractions of this work will have to address the implications derived from the time/soul and time relationships/world. The concepts elaborated by Paul Ricoeur in time and narration around the two modes in which our problem is presented, on the one hand, an approach to time analysis is observed from a perspective that we could call psychological, in which the main question To respond would be the one that investigates the existing relationship between time and soul.
In addition, we face a perspective that we could call cosmological, which would aim to answer the questions of time and their relationship with the world. In this way, the measurement of movement by the soul is constituted as the instance in which the existence of time becomes a sense, this relationship is not in any way the condition of absolute possibility of the existence of time.
The same definition of time that our philosopher delivers definitively implies the existence of the soul, we will argue that an attentive reading of the treaty in question will allow us to outline an eventual conception of time independent of its relationship with the soul (cosmology of time), because still Without a soul we can talk about a ‘time substrate’ thanks to which it is possible to study the time/world relationship. Let us observe what is the importance and function that fulfills the ‘motion motionless’ in relation to the cosmological budgets that found the notion of temporality in Aristotle.
Time Psychology
To solve the function that the soul fulfills according to Aristotle in relation to time, the aforementioned must be remembered regarding time and movement, it can be considered that there is a direct relationship between these two ‘continuous’ because, as the Estagirita affirms, we know Time through movement and movement over time, from this relationship we can clearly obtain appealing to its own definition of time. "Well, this is the time: movement number according to the above and later".
By establishing that ‘number’ can be understood in two different dimensions, as a numbered number and as a number number, for Aristotle the definition of it clearly operates the sense of numbered number, that is to say what is ‘measuring’. This measurement must be obviously considered by a numerator agent; In this way the soul intervenes within the Aristotelian conception of time.
It is the soul, or its intellect, who by discerning two different ” now ‘in time, that is, the past and the future in movement, and establish that these limits are also different from the content between them, but is it possible that it is possible , having defined time as a movement number, we can conceive it as something that is capable of independent existence of the soul?
Aristotle raises the answer the following question would exist or not time if the soul did not exist? Because if there could not be someone who number could either could there be something that was numbered, and consequently there could be no number, because a number is or the numbered or the numbable, in addition to Aristotle’s response to this apparent complication turns out to be quite unstable, And it is based substantially on the appeal to its definition delivered because the time is the number of the movement, the existence of an agent capable of numerating this movement is necessary so that time can exist effectively.
In this way, the existence of time without the existence of the soul. As Alejandro Vigo has timely pointed out from several complications for his interpretation, this is due in large part to the reading that has been applied to the passage from the perspective of modernity, involving the categories that allude to the problem of the essence of the essence of the essence of the knowledge , a saber, realism and idealism.
Vigo affirms that the essential problem is precisely because These categories. Indeed, an idealistic interpretation vanishes immediately when considering that what Aristotle affirms is not that time is given from the soul or that it is the one who constitutes it, but that it is only argued that time, being number of the movement, is is closely related to what is carried out by numbering.
Time cosmology
For Aristotle and for Greek thought, the world is unique and incorruptible, there is no place for a creation from nothing or for the passage of being not being absolute in the world. But in the essence of the arguments where the differences become patent in this field, while for Plato the world turns out to be according to the myth of the Timeo formed and established by a demiurge that works on a pre -existing raw material in a ‘chaotic and indefinite time , Aristotle states that the world is all its components and conditions, such as space, movement and time, they are coetern to an eternal and first reality, which is such because it is the first cause of the movement.
The need to affirm the existence of a still engine that, although, is not directly involved with the world, we could say that thanks to him the latter subsists, but Aristotle believes absurd that the world is generated and it is something that logic does not can allow. The clearest demonstration of this doctrine occurs in physics VIII.
Aristotle refers specifically to the eternity of the movement, it is possible Well, before and after they are first of all attributes of a place, by virtue of its relative position, since in the magnitude there is a before and after, also in the movement there must be a before and after,
The movement can only be given through spatial magnitude, since the movement is movement of something and not of itself. That is, it is given in need of a subject that supports the change and serves as a substrate. Therefore, when we affirm the eternity of the movement, we also do it with respect to time and the world.
Eternity of the world, movement, and time
Aristotle apart from the figure taken about the finitude or perpetuity of the world, it can be said that all or most have talked about cosmogonies, and have also welcomed or reciprocally welcomed the existence of the universe, because everyone has departed about the generation or corruption, which means in models of change. It should be noted that the movement is something that was already discussed in the third book of physics. It is understood that the movement began at some point or space, considers two alternatives:
- Admitting that the world was created so that the movement subsequently began, we must attend to the fact that this generation already constitutes an exchange rate therefore of movement, because, if something does not exist, and it has the power to exist, in The precise moment in which an existence comes is generated a significant use of a power, and due to the use of the power, a movement is generated, therefore it would be prior to the supposed start of the movement. Otherwise, if it is thought that the world originates at the same time as the movement, it cannot be accepted, because when it is discussed of generation it is believed in an existing time where the world is neither the world nor the movement, and like time It is only possible when it has movement; This statement will be seen as a false hypothesis.
- But if we assume that the world is eternal and that the movement originates in this, it is a bit irrational. Because, if in circumstances such as you are at some time the universe originated, it is also thought that a first mobile and first engine was originated; However, what is motor, to get walking must possess in itself and this is only transmitted by another engine, and thus constantly becoming an infinite cycle.
conclusion
In this way we can say that the object of knowledge has an independent existence of the determinations that the soul can capture in it. However, it is convenient to clarify between what would be a primary object of perception such as color, taste, and any type of determination belonging to matter as sensitive and what would be the substrate of these determinations; Well, as long as the first does not have the current existence of independent of the act of perception, the second can exist regardless of the perceptual activity of the soul since it is only what the sensitive takes place.
In short, we must recognize that time is not a substantial object, that is, it is not something independent of the soul, but that they coexist with each other, time is closely linked to the perception of it carried out by the soul. The moments of the past and the future occur in change, but time occurs as long as these moments can be counted. Then we can affirm with Aristotle that time does not consist of a mere inspection of the soul or a mere determination of the movement, but rather it turns out to be where they converge in one and the same update, the power that the soul has to number with the power that the movement has to be numbered.
Leave feedback