|
|
This is only a preview of the paper
Click here to register and get the full text.
Existing members click here to login
|
|
|
Aristotle’s book IV of Physics tries to tackle the question of time. “Time is either altogether nonexistent, or it exists but hardly or obscurely” (Aristotle, Physics IV, 217b34). But the question of time can’t be limited only to time’s own existence; for how can their be being without time? Or should we ask how could their be time without being? Aristotle solved the Parmenidies problem by saying that being doesn’t contradict itself by coming in and out of existence, but rather changes from one form to another through different actualizations. Today, it seems then that these changes must take place over time. But is it simply the way we describe time that leads us to explain change in such a way, or is the way we perceive change that leads us to explain time in such a way? Aristotle’s explanation of time shows how being is intertwined with motion, and how it is the way we describe change and being that leads us to explain time. Though it is often the case today that the way we describe time accounts for the way we explain change.
His first question is does time exist. Aristotle points out regarding time in book IV 217b35 that if time is composed of parts; the past, which is not anymore, the present which is, and the future which is not yet but will be, should make up the whole of time. This notion of time is held by many modern day thinkers and is referred to as linearity.
Approximate Word count = 1244
Approximate Pages = 5
(250 words per page double spaced)
|
|
|
|
|
|