I suppose part of my problem is that I so strongly associate a linear view of time with the Hegelian notion of progress--a view that defined Modernity by regarding each successive generation, each successive society, as a move closer to perfection--which is one that seems neither like a logical conclusion nor like an actual fact. We are no closer to a utopian society than we were a couple of centuries ago when Hegel was forming these ideas.
My view has increasingly been one of balance and moderation. I view humans as a blend of evil and good in their hearts, and it seems to me that everything humanity comes does will have a mixture of good and evil. For instance those who say we are progressing will point to vast technological advancements that have improved communication and quality of living, but it is just as easy to point out loss of jobs due to automated manufacturing, decreased health due to more sedentary lifestyles, and pollution as negative drawbacks of these advancements.
In opposition to this view, it is also arguable that we are degenerating instead of progressing, perhaps to a dystopia or just to chaos. This negative view will point to things like moral degeneration, warfare, and particularly in America right now, increased government control. However, it is also simple to point out that where some morals have degenerated (sexual morals are often an example), they have come in conjunction with moral gains (individual rights, rejection of oppressive arranged marriages, equality of women); that warfare is a constant, and we have faced nothing like the massive slaughter of the World Wars; and that socialist governments have succeeded in helping their people across much of Europe.
It just seems that there are gains and losses. We measure time by the earth's movement, but the earth rotates on its axis and revolves around the sun. The season's are cyclical. There is life and there is death and there is life again--over and over and over. And this leads me to view time as cyclical.
And I mean, just think of the quote, "History repeats itself."
Here's the thing: according to the Revelation of John the Evangelist, we are progressing toward an apocalypse which will carry with it the second coming of Christ. According to much of what scripture says, the world is only going to get worse and worse, particularly for Christians. Then Christ will return and do away with evil for good. His followers have been waiting for this return since the day he left. This is referred to quite often as the end times.
End.
That means time is finite, and it means it is linear--not cyclical.
Or does it?
Naturally, if you assume time was created by God, which I do, then it must have a beginning, and therefore must be finite, and thus linear. So, what's the problem? Why is that so hard for me to accept? Is it just because time seems so cyclical? That would be a silly reason. After all, the sun seems to revolve around the earth, but based on the accounts of experts, I have accepted that this is not how it works. Maybe I am just being stubborn, unwilling to let go of a perspective I reached (somewhat) on my own. I'm sure that factors in, but I also think the consideration must be made that perhaps these two views are not mutually exclusive.
Time could be linear AND cyclical.
After all, this is the view that the pre-Reformation (or perhaps just pre-Modern) church held. That is how the holy calendar came about. Regarding certain days as related closely through time based on when in the year they fall rather than when in the sequence of many long days, months, and years they fall is a very cyclical notion of time. And yet, they too believed that the end times were coming. Why can't both exist? It may seem contradictory, but the whole world is contradictory if you look at it long enough.
And it is worth pointing out that the end times are not really the end. Rather, they are the most glorious of beginnings. This is the coming of the New Heaven and the New Earth. This is the beginning of an eternity with God for the Saints.
Eternity: time unbounded.
What if eternity is simply being removed from linear time or the dissolution of linear time? Does that mean the substance of this cyclical time is everything that is left, or must that disappear as well? I guess I don't know much what this new world will look like. Will it still have decay? Will there be a new sun as well? New stars? Will there still be a distinction between the New Heaven and the New earth just as there is between the present heaven and earth? And presumably there will no longer be a need for moral gains or losses if there is moral perfection, so what of that? Will we even perceive time?
I don't know. I guess that is what it really comes down to. But after all, "No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him." Thinking about what comes after the end doesn't really do much to help me grapple with the world before the end anyway. And whether I believe that time flows like in a circle or a line, it will flow as it pleases, just as it always has, and I'm just another stick floating in that stream, being carried along until I too reach the sea.
Time just blows my mind.
7 comments:
time is a curiosity to me as well.
"Time present and time past
Are both perhaps present in time future
And time future contained in time past.
If all time is eternally present
All time is unredeemable.
What might have been is an abstraction
Remaining a perpetual possibility
Only in a world of speculation.
What might have been and what has been
Point to one end, which is always present.
Footfalls echo in the memory
Down the passage which we did not take
Towards the door we never opened."
The Four Quartets by T.S. Eliot
I love that passage.
as do i. i had to reread through it about 5 times before i could even begin to wrap my brain around the ideas presented.
I like to think that time is a spiral, cycling in and out of itself while constantly moving toward the future.
do you know anything about the kantian notion of time (and space)? kant describes time as the inner form of intuition for experience. it is a filter that the subject cannot remove. all experience is conformed to it. it is quite compatible with a traditional christian notion of God as creator of time, because God, as part of the noumenal realm, is not bound by the same restrictions as humanity. thus, we have no idea of what experience sans time looks like, and cannot conceive of it. i don't know what the implications of that are for our perception of our experiences after the end of time, but i find it extremely helpful being within.
I've read some things that address Kant's notion of time, but never any primary texts. It makes sense. Stephen Hawking describes several different perceptions that I think are related to Kant's view as you've described it. There is our observation of entropy, of cause and effect, and of the sequence of events (which, admittedly, may be all cause and effect is sometimes); and when these observations combine in our brain (perhaps with Kant's "intuition") it gives us a perception of time.
close. what you're describing is more a humean view. the point with kant is that time is not an idea whose origins he's attempting to explain, because it is not actually an idea. although we can have ideas about time, time itself is a necessary precondition to ideas. we cannot strip away temporality from our perception. it's a backdrop for why things such as cause and effect, etc. appear to us as they do. you can imagine A preceding, following, or occuring simultaneously with B, but you cannot imagine them without temporal relation.
Post a Comment