Augustine and Time

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

I just want to lay out his argument, some of my thoughts on the subject to see what people's criticisms are:

Argument against the idea of intervals of time:

1: The past and future do not exist
2: Whatever does not exist cannot be long or short, so cannot be interval.
3: Therefore intervals of time cannot exist in the past or future.
4. So intervals of time must exist in the present.
5: When time is divisable not all of it is in the present.
6: No divisable time is more than an instant.
7: An interval of time is not an instant.

Therefore intervals of time cannot exist in the present.

So my thoughts on Augustine and his views on time:

Ausguntines inquiry into the nature of time arises from his attempt to understand how God, who is in eternity could create the world which is in time.

Because God creates Time itself it does not make sense to ask what God was doing before Time.

The creation of Time and becoming must somehow be a timeless act.

Augustine see's all time as an unfolding within the eternal present.

Augustine says we are actually measuring changes in mental impressions. This is a psychological insight into the conception of Time as a measurement of change derived from memory.

He explores how humans manage to measure time intervals but leaves times creation to the mystery of God.

Some short criticisms:

Obvious one is that this is based on an acceptance of Gods existence proved as is usual among scolastics by the ontological argument.

Kant's view is familiar and better developed (with the benefit of time of course and developement in the field of philosophy etc.). We create time as a means of understanding the world, recognition of human reason and power. Also space cannot be understood from our experiences of events that occur both simultaneously and in succession for the two presupose time.

What are your criticisms and thoughts on Augustine and even just Time in general, ideas on Kant are always good!

[El Che]

Damn, you're really a philosophy nut aren't you? :)

On questions of time and space, etc, isn't it better to leave this stuff to the pros? Physics, mathematicians, etc.? Thats my feeling anyway.

[Essential Insignificance]

I have just taken up my study of time… and Augustine’s name "popped" up in the texts that I have read so far. His theories are very interesting but I think it "fails" because of his reliability on the existence of "God".

I hope to add more soon.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Well imagine that the ontological argument is not a problem we still have some valid input onto the nature of time, some of it way ahead of its time.

[Trissy]

Argument against the idea of intervals of time:

1: The past and future do not exist
2: Whatever does not exist cannot be long or short, so cannot be interval.
3: Therefore intervals of time cannot exist in the past or future.
4. So intervals of time must exist in the present.
5: When time is divisable not all of it is in the present.
6: No divisable time is more than an instant.
7: An interval of time is not an instant.


Well I don't know that much in regards to the philosophy of time and space but I have a few objections to Augustine's reasoning. Firstly from a logical basis how does he establish the first premise? (i.e. The past and future do not exist). To follow on from that idea we could ask what does the first premise actually means. Logical Positivists such a Schlick, the earlier works of Wittgenstein and Hume would have us asking how we could possibly verify such a statement. Popper and other Falsificationists would have us asking how we could falsify such a statement. If we cannot verify or falsify it, and it is not logically necessary (e.g. 'a batchelor is an ummaried man'), then of what use is it to us?

If we look at Augustine's argument from a purely deductive perspective then if we can doubt 1 then we can doubt 3, and so the argument begins to fall apart (since for 3 to be true, then 1 and 2 must be true). Augustine makes a few claims which are of very little use to us unless we can understand what he is trying to say. Premises 1 and 5 pose the biggest problem for me in this regard, and as such I believe it poses a large problem to what Augustine is trying to say overall.

From a theological standpoint I can see what Augustine is trying to do because in Catholicism the idea of time to a transcendant God beyond time and space is very confusing indeed. However if we ignore the theology and concentrate on the philosophy I feel that Augustine doesn't make a lot of progress despite his valient effort. I'm more inclined to agree with Kant because I feel time is a devise used by humans in order for us to measure change (as partly hit upon by Augustine). If the Universe is in a state of constant change like Heraclitus suggested ('you can never stand in the same river twice'), then time is necessary in order to measure change. Our understanding of it as such can never progress beyond our phenomenological experience of it.


On questions of time and space, etc, isn't it better to leave this stuff to the pros? Physics, mathematicians, etc.? Thats my feeling anyway.

That would be to assume that they could come up with a more sound argument then philosophy. I feel that logic, epistemology, philosophy of science and philosophy of maths have just as important a role to play...