[C] [Wittrs] Re: On Time
- From: Anna Boncompagni <anna.boncompagni@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 2 Jan 2010 00:17:58 +0100
Time is not a “something”, we cannot speak of time as we speak of something.
More correctly: we do often speak of time as we speak of something, in our
ordinary language, and there’s nothing wrong with it. But if we are talking
consciously directing our attention on language, then, if we speak of time
as it were a something, we fail to catch it, because we don’t realize that
we are using a metaphor.
We don’t experience time. Our experience depends on time. Time is not part
of the world. Since language speaks about facts and time is not a fact, but
more like a condition for facts, language can’t speak about it. So, we can
talk of logs coming to an end, not of time coming to an end.
Do you think that this characterization of time is somehow kantian? I feel
strong analogies with Kant in here. But analogies end when W. explains to us
how problems arise – e.i. when we use language looking at it, when we first
make a sentence and then look at it and see time as an object. I can find no
awareness of the mistakes of philosophical language, in Kant.
Thank you
Anna B.
Other related posts:
