Eric's Question for Book 6:
"Is time, being composed of a series of nows running into each other, a continuous, indivisible thing, or a series of divisible things all tied together by touching whole to whole? For if a now is a whole, time is not continuous, but if a now is merely an indivisible part of time, it does not really exist in and of itself. "
"Is time, being composed of a series of nows running into each other, a continuous, indivisible thing, or a series of divisible things all tied together by touching whole to whole? For if a now is a whole, time is not continuous, but if a now is merely an indivisible part of time, it does not really exist in and of itself. "
Just to put this out there (and I can come back with specific textual evidence), I think that when Aristotle talks about the "now" as the limit between the future and the past, he is calling the "now" just as real as a line. A mathematical line does not actually exist in nature; it is just a way of thinking about things we see. Maybe the now is the same way. I certainly don't know how to conceive of one, individual "now," much less a "now" that can be considered a whole.
ReplyDelete