I found it interesting how Augustine states that there was never a time when God was not creating because time itself is a creation and to say God was doing nothing before time is irrational because you are using the term "before time". He tries to clarify the proper way to understand God's relation to time by stating that He does not precede time but rather that God is just always in a sort of state of present-ness. He explains this by stating that there is no yesterday or tomorrow for God but rather only to-day which is eternal.
Augustine also tries to explain that the way we think of time from a human perspective is all wrong by the language we use concerning past and future time. We speak about the future as though it already exists and the past as though it still is in existence. I get the impression that Augustine is trying to make the case that we should base our language and perspective of time on how time relates to God, namely that only present exists.
I genuinely enjoyed the begging of this selection of readings, the notion that all time is within the present is written in both a clear and concise manner, and on top of that is a fun ontological tool. If he was indeed the first person to come up with this concept there is a lot that we owe this philosophical innovation, or at least a version of me that likes the occasional meditation.
However the rest of the readings lacked the clarity and simplicity of Augustine’s argument about time. In the Moses Maimonides reading I definitely had to read and re-read passages and still I believe it much harder to grasp. Also when he says “spheres” is he referencing Aristotelian cosmology? I found Aquinas to be more concise and to the point than Moses; I am hoping I did not mis-read this but is he essentially saying that creation ex-nihilo essentially gets around the problem of temporality?
1. I enjoyed reading Augustines argument for God and Time because it made sense to me to say that it was impossible to state that God had created anything that was outside of time because God had created time itself and therefore God must have been creating for all of time because had created time itself.
2. It was also interesting to me to read Augustine's argument on time and how that for God there is only present time there is no existing future or existing past. This is an interesting way to think about time as we know it to the human species. I don't know that I fully got all of the argument so it will be interesting to hear it from another perspective in class.
1. I enjoyed Augustines reading in the beginning where he talks about time, and how we talk about timing is long or it's short. The example he gives us with the one hundred years, and ten days really stuck out to me because he says, not to say "It is long" but to say "It has been long". This makes me think in those years that something has changed for it to be "long". And for the future "It will be long" makes me think for what is up ahead of us that there will be some obstacles or hard work that will change the time.
2. Another thing I found interesting from Augustine is that he holds the past and the future in the present. It's odd but true when we talk about memories from the past, and we can think of that exact moment in time and we relive that moment in our head like it's present. Also when we think about our futures we hope for those actions that we think of will come true, but only time will tell if those things we want in the future will actually come true.
1. Humans slide through time and possible outcomes (probabilities) like planets slide through warped space in their orbits around the sun. The time-slide exists in the same way that the three dimensional space planets exist in does; all at once. All of time is present (or at least that is my understanding of relativity). As individual consciousnesses, we perceive our travel down the time-slide as a movement through a series of presents; limited by the spatial and temporal reach of our bodies. We travel down the slide because the arrow of time has its own sort of gravity. Augustine's concepts remind of a sort of block time. It appears that he is arguing that God made space and time. He exists outside of the block and not only precedes time but exists throughout all of time. He exists through all time because all time for him is but a moment; like looking at a four dimensional globe. What is also interesting about the 'space' God occupies is that there is no time. Augustine addresses the doubts that God would have spent such a long time doing nothing, creating nothing by showing the reader that time itself is part of the world God created and does not exist outside of it. God did not wait. He simply started.
2. I wonder why Maimonides described Epicurean thought so aptly. Though I admit the description was brief, I was tantalized. At first I imagined that he might be trying to inject a subtle hint of his real thoughts on the matter (without being executed for heresy). Then I realized that I was interested in his brief account of Epicurus because of the era in which I live. Most modern minds believe in the happy accidents of the cosmos. Still, it seems that Maimonides could have given the Epicurean position a less favorable description and that he may have seen some merit in it.
1) What does St. Augustine mean in Chapter 16 when he argues that the past and future can not be 'measurable' like the present can. If by measurable he simply means observable, I don't see any opposing argument for that at the time. It's quite easy for us now to observe the past with cameras. I agree with Augustine about the difficulty of grasping the idea of time, but what I think may be even more difficult is grasping the idea of the 'present moment'.
2) I actually laughed out loud when I read the last two paragraphs of the third theory that Maimonides proposes in Chapter 13. He begins by explaining that the previous arguments only pertained to those who believe in God, not to those like Epicurus. I found this to be a funny caveat, mostly because he makes no attempt to parse out the views of Epicurus, which I think could be quite poignant here. However, in regards to Maimonides' argument as a whole, I find it quite ironic the current state of the existence question now. Creationists now criticize the 'Big Bang Theory' for being an argument for 'creatio ex nihilo' that lacks an explaining factor. Maimonides argues for the possibility of creation from nothing but it is completely grounded upon God, as is his definition on the origin of time.
Agreeing with my classmates, augustines argument on God having been the creator of time, could not have created anything outside of time, and that he is the sole creator of all things in, and throughout time. The argument is sound and easy to follow which I didn't see in the last reading.
Another interesting aspect to Augustine was his notions on past and future instances and how they don't make sense in modern day English definitions and perceptions of time. Augustine points out that all things are present. (?) and even in instances of recalling the past or referencing the future, it s the present day.
I really like how Augistine argues for time is only in the present for god. It reminds me of what I learned in temple about how god only sees time non linearly. This was the only way I could grasp the concept of creation put in place with time.
I also understand Augustines argument about why we use language wrong when refering to time, and he thinks we should speak in acordance to god time. But i feel like that would be far more inconvenient in day to day life.
Augustine’s conception of time makes it so that before the world there simply was no time, as God had not created it. When he goes on about the past and future he specifies that only the present “really is.” This is interesting because we perceive time as things that have happened, are happening, and will happen, but to an eternal omniscient being like God, time is simply irrelevant. The past is full of things we know, and the future is full of mysteries still undecided, but to God, they are equally knowable, so God has no need for them, and instead only need exist in a present state. However, the imperfectness of humans means we cannot experience the whole of the universe at once, so we do so over time. It reminds me of more modern sciences linking space and time as two things that really ought to be considered as one. When God created the world, he created time as well.
I am surprised to see some of these authors entertaining the idea that the world too, in addition to God, is eternal. I would have thought that this kind of idea was heresy, and not allowed. After all, it follows that if something other than God is eternal, then God need not have created it, and God may not appear to be necessary for creation—rather existence—after all. I wonder how far these men took their thoughts in private. Were they subject to thoughts that if recorded would have ended their careers, and even their lives?
An interesting part of the reading is when author mentioned in the beginning of the reading that God created hell before heaven and earth. After saying this the author said “for those who pry into mysteries.” Essentially the author was saying that God created hell for those you are curious and look into mystery’s. This is interesting because the author is essentially alluding to Adam & Eve. Adam & Eve were curious so they ate from the tree that God told them not to eat from. This sin got Adam & Eve sent to hell.
A part of the reading I agreed with is when the author wrote about the confusion surrounding time. What I mean by this is people for the most part do not fully grasp the concept of time. In the reading the author mentions that if someone asks him if he knows what time is he would say yes but if they asked him to explain it he would be unable to. This is an interesting point because I feel I would face the same conundrum as the author of I was put in that situation. Time is a difficult concept to grasp because people do not have all the answers. In addition the answers we have are based on prediction and not actual knowledge of facts because people have not been on the earth for that long.
1. It seems to me that Augustine is establishing that time is essential to existence. This seems like an important discussion because I feel like it is something that we haven't really come to understand even today. I think that he is cutting through some of the biases that we have as a result of our human experience of time and getting at its true nature. 2. I was a little overwhelmed by Maimonides treatment of creation. I suppose this is because I don't really know what to think about it all for myself. I wonder how much he let his "duty" to argue on behalf of his religious beliefs influence what he believed. I also wonder how much modern discoveries in physics could have informed inquiries such as these.
1. I like in the Maimonides reading where he used Aristotle's method's to prove the eternity of the universe by using the theory of motion and an inactive and active God.
2. I find it interesting how the underlining problem in today's reading is trying to figure out to why God would create the universe if he is eternal.
I found it interesting how Augustine states that there was never a time when God was not creating because time itself is a creation and to say God was doing nothing before time is irrational because you are using the term "before time". He tries to clarify the proper way to understand God's relation to time by stating that He does not precede time but rather that God is just always in a sort of state of present-ness. He explains this by stating that there is no yesterday or tomorrow for God but rather only to-day which is eternal.
ReplyDeleteAugustine also tries to explain that the way we think of time from a human perspective is all wrong by the language we use concerning past and future time. We speak about the future as though it already exists and the past as though it still is in existence. I get the impression that Augustine is trying to make the case that we should base our language and perspective of time on how time relates to God, namely that only present exists.
I genuinely enjoyed the begging of this selection of readings, the notion that all time is within the present is written in both a clear and concise manner, and on top of that is a fun ontological tool. If he was indeed the first person to come up with this concept there is a lot that we owe this philosophical innovation, or at least a version of me that likes the occasional meditation.
ReplyDeleteHowever the rest of the readings lacked the clarity and simplicity of Augustine’s argument about time. In the Moses Maimonides reading I definitely had to read and re-read passages and still I believe it much harder to grasp. Also when he says “spheres” is he referencing Aristotelian cosmology?
I found Aquinas to be more concise and to the point than Moses; I am hoping I did not mis-read this but is he essentially saying that creation ex-nihilo essentially gets around the problem of temporality?
1. I enjoyed reading Augustines argument for God and Time because it made sense to me to say that it was impossible to state that God had created anything that was outside of time because God had created time itself and therefore God must have been creating for all of time because had created time itself.
ReplyDelete2. It was also interesting to me to read Augustine's argument on time and how that for God there is only present time there is no existing future or existing past. This is an interesting way to think about time as we know it to the human species. I don't know that I fully got all of the argument so it will be interesting to hear it from another perspective in class.
1. I enjoyed Augustines reading in the beginning where he talks about time, and how we talk about timing is long or it's short. The example he gives us with the one hundred years, and ten days really stuck out to me because he says, not to say "It is long" but to say "It has been long". This makes me think in those years that something has changed for it to be "long". And for the future "It will be long" makes me think for what is up ahead of us that there will be some obstacles or hard work that will change the time.
ReplyDelete2. Another thing I found interesting from Augustine is that he holds the past and the future in the present. It's odd but true when we talk about memories from the past, and we can think of that exact moment in time and we relive that moment in our head like it's present. Also when we think about our futures we hope for those actions that we think of will come true, but only time will tell if those things we want in the future will actually come true.
1. Humans slide through time and possible outcomes (probabilities) like planets slide through warped space in their orbits around the sun. The time-slide exists in the same way that the three dimensional space planets exist in does; all at once. All of time is present (or at least that is my understanding of relativity). As individual consciousnesses, we perceive our travel down the time-slide as a movement through a series of presents; limited by the spatial and temporal reach of our bodies. We travel down the slide because the arrow of time has its own sort of gravity. Augustine's concepts remind of a sort of block time. It appears that he is arguing that God made space and time. He exists outside of the block and not only precedes time but exists throughout all of time. He exists through all time because all time for him is but a moment; like looking at a four dimensional globe. What is also interesting about the 'space' God occupies is that there is no time. Augustine addresses the doubts that God would have spent such a long time doing nothing, creating nothing by showing the reader that time itself is part of the world God created and does not exist outside of it. God did not wait. He simply started.
ReplyDelete2. I wonder why Maimonides described Epicurean thought so aptly. Though I admit the description was brief, I was tantalized. At first I imagined that he might be trying to inject a subtle hint of his real thoughts on the matter (without being executed for heresy). Then I realized that I was interested in his brief account of Epicurus because of the era in which I live. Most modern minds believe in the happy accidents of the cosmos. Still, it seems that Maimonides could have given the Epicurean position a less favorable description and that he may have seen some merit in it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1) What does St. Augustine mean in Chapter 16 when he argues that the past and future can not be 'measurable' like the present can. If by measurable he simply means observable, I don't see any opposing argument for that at the time. It's quite easy for us now to observe the past with cameras. I agree with Augustine about the difficulty of grasping the idea of time, but what I think may be even more difficult is grasping the idea of the 'present moment'.
ReplyDelete2) I actually laughed out loud when I read the last two paragraphs of the third theory that Maimonides proposes in Chapter 13. He begins by explaining that the previous arguments only pertained to those who believe in God, not to those like Epicurus. I found this to be a funny caveat, mostly because he makes no attempt to parse out the views of Epicurus, which I think could be quite poignant here. However, in regards to Maimonides' argument as a whole, I find it quite ironic the current state of the existence question now. Creationists now criticize the 'Big Bang Theory' for being an argument for 'creatio ex nihilo' that lacks an explaining factor. Maimonides argues for the possibility of creation from nothing but it is completely grounded upon God, as is his definition on the origin of time.
Agreeing with my classmates, augustines argument on God having been the creator of time, could not have created anything outside of time, and that he is the sole creator of all things in, and throughout time. The argument is sound and easy to follow which I didn't see in the last reading.
ReplyDeleteAnother interesting aspect to Augustine was his notions on past and future instances and how they don't make sense in modern day English definitions and perceptions of time. Augustine points out that all things are present. (?) and even in instances of recalling the past or referencing the future, it s the present day.
I really like how Augistine argues for time is only in the present for god. It reminds me of what I learned in temple about how god only sees time non linearly. This was the only way I could grasp the concept of creation put in place with time.
ReplyDeleteI also understand Augustines argument about why we use language wrong when refering to time, and he thinks we should speak in acordance to god time. But i feel like that would be far more inconvenient in day to day life.
Augustine’s conception of time makes it so that before the world there simply was no time, as God had not created it. When he goes on about the past and future he specifies that only the present “really is.” This is interesting because we perceive time as things that have happened, are happening, and will happen, but to an eternal omniscient being like God, time is simply irrelevant. The past is full of things we know, and the future is full of mysteries still undecided, but to God, they are equally knowable, so God has no need for them, and instead only need exist in a present state. However, the imperfectness of humans means we cannot experience the whole of the universe at once, so we do so over time. It reminds me of more modern sciences linking space and time as two things that really ought to be considered as one. When God created the world, he created time as well.
ReplyDeleteI am surprised to see some of these authors entertaining the idea that the world too, in addition to God, is eternal. I would have thought that this kind of idea was heresy, and not allowed. After all, it follows that if something other than God is eternal, then God need not have created it, and God may not appear to be necessary for creation—rather existence—after all. I wonder how far these men took their thoughts in private. Were they subject to thoughts that if recorded would have ended their careers, and even their lives?
An interesting part of the reading is when author mentioned in the beginning of the reading that God created hell before heaven and earth. After saying this the author said “for those who pry into mysteries.” Essentially the author was saying that God created hell for those you are curious and look into mystery’s. This is interesting because the author is essentially alluding to Adam & Eve. Adam & Eve were curious so they ate from the tree that God told them not to eat from. This sin got Adam & Eve sent to hell.
ReplyDeleteA part of the reading I agreed with is when the author wrote about the confusion surrounding time. What I mean by this is people for the most part do not fully grasp the concept of time. In the reading the author mentions that if someone asks him if he knows what time is he would say yes but if they asked him to explain it he would be unable to. This is an interesting point because I feel I would face the same conundrum as the author of I was put in that situation. Time is a difficult concept to grasp because people do not have all the answers. In addition the answers we have are based on prediction and not actual knowledge of facts because people have not been on the earth for that long.
1. It seems to me that Augustine is establishing that time is essential to existence. This seems like an important discussion because I feel like it is something that we haven't really come to understand even today. I think that he is cutting through some of the biases that we have as a result of our human experience of time and getting at its true nature.
ReplyDelete2. I was a little overwhelmed by Maimonides treatment of creation. I suppose this is because I don't really know what to think about it all for myself. I wonder how much he let his "duty" to argue on behalf of his religious beliefs influence what he believed. I also wonder how much modern discoveries in physics could have informed inquiries such as these.
1. I like in the Maimonides reading where he used Aristotle's method's to prove the eternity of the universe by using the theory of motion and an inactive and active God.
ReplyDelete2. I find it interesting how the underlining problem in today's reading is trying to figure out to why God would create the universe if he is eternal.