The second and the third demonstrate the inherent problem. To define time is tautology. You speak of location and of distance, respectively; location in what; distance of what; time!

The first definition is funny, but too informal to matter.

The second and the third demonstrate the inherent problem. To define time is tautology. You speak of location and of distance, respectively; location in what; distance of what; time!

. . . 'Location' relative to other moments, in Consciousness/Mind.
. . .

Y'know, this is a symptom of our language. Finding time words that are not spatial is next to impossible. We have 'earlier' and 'later' and 'now' but have to use 'location' and 'distance' in any extended discussion.

It is probably due to the Indo-European roots of many of the most popular languages and their original reference to aspects of the physical body and its relative motions and functions. Just a guess.

Are you familiar with E-Prime language (English Prime)?

... now that's just plain cool :a-ok: ... the only truth allowed in that language is phenomenological truth ... nothing "is" - at most, a thing "appears as" or "seems" ... can't get much more philosophy-of-science than that ... now for the $64,000 Question: can you express "time" and other elementals in E-Prime?

nameless wrote:

We speak a medieval language which 'is' the medieval way that we see 'the world'. Soon, though, to change.

Quite right nameless. How will it change though?

The essential problem with language, the falsehood that it imposes, is related to subject/object division in my opinion; that is also the essential component; without that, I don't think a language would be very functional.

Language is definition, which is division, which is false in a world that is a unity.

Regardless of the specific way in which the world is divided by language (medieval, classical, prehistoric, etc.), the fact of division is the problem.

I'm not some strict scholastic; i just meant that that definition, while expressive, did not really address the issue.

There is no reason to assume that time is "that which is necessary to keep everything from happending at once." Everyone, by definition, cannot happen at once; that has no meaning.

To refer to time as a series of moments may be true, but that definition already implies the passage of time.

A series of events cannot be understood exept as they occur, which occurance is called the passage of time.

It is tautology. That is fine, by the way.

Sorry, gotta go. Time for dinner! *__-

. . .
Are you familiar with E-Prime language (English Prime)? . . .

Yes. It resembles bad Latin we created in high school. In the search for being we come across the idea that the originating metaphor excludes itself from metaphor, but when we see that mind itself AS originating metaphor, metaphoricity, must exclude itself from being we have a solution to the enigma.

"Search for being"?? "Originating metaphor"?? Sorry... my BS detector is flashing...

The IS detector has detected the IS. Derrida identified the originating metaphor, which falls under literary criticism, AS not a metaphor but metaphoricity itself. Another, possibly another literary critic, postulated mind AS this metaphoricity. Heidegger spent his entire professional life searching for the being of being in Dasein, which philosophy claims AS its domain.

. . . a deadman's personal jargon... but I'd probably have disagreed with his premises long before having to deal with his jargon! *__-
Peace

Heidegger spent his entire professional life searching for the being of being in Dasein, which philosophy claims AS its domain.

Hello, I'm new here, but I've been intrested in this question over the years.

So, my question to the philosophers; Does having free will actually imply free action or does it simply mean the freedom to desire an action.

Ex: I have the free will to fly, but not the ability. Do restrictions in the physical world actually limit my will?

Or simply: What is will?

Thanks for reading.