Just a matter of time...
We have all heard the phrase "Time is of the essence" which discusses the importance and brevity of this concept we have labeled "time". It is something we all take for granted and very rarely do we stop and think about the concept of time and what it even really is. In the article, "The Unreality of Time" author J.Ellis McTaggart analyzes the idea of "time" through discussing two series called series A and B. McTaggart uses these series to emphasize his argument that time is unreal.
Before reading this article, my conception of the nature of time was fairly undeveloped as I had a very basic understanding of the implications behind the topic. To me, time basically amounted to the numbers I read off my phone or off the clock. I knew that time could be applied in different scenarios and I understood the concept of past, present, and future. Time always seemed like this quantity that there was too much of but at the same time never enough of. Like the article mentions, I treated time as a given constant and never questioned its legitimacy. Until now.
In regards to the series McTaggart presents, I recognized my own view of time in series A. I feel as though I have always viewed time and history as this idea of past, present, and future. Furthermore, I understood that as time passes it can shift from these three categories. Events that were once considered the present become a part of the past and events that were going to take place in the future, pass and become the present and then eventually become the past as well.
So what does McTaggart means by "The Unreality of Time" ?
McTaggart argues that time is unreal through presenting the series, A and B. Series A views time through categorizing it in future, present, and past while Series B presents time and events as earlier/later in relation to each other (McTaggart 458). Another important difference between the two is that series A includes change, as there will always be a new "present", and series B does not include change as relations do not change in regards to one another (McTaggart 459). McTaggart argues that change is of the essence of time and that it is a necessary component of time. Therefore series A is necessary for time and B is not and thus, the A series is ultimate. McTaggart then explains how the A series is contradictory since no event can be past, present, and future yet also every event at some time must be past, present, and future. Therefore, he concludes that time is unreal since it relies on a contradictory series.
Time is real...or is it?
I was personally surprised by McTaggart's argument that the A series is contradictory. His statement that no event can be past, present, and future yet also every event at some time must be past, present, and future was hard to wrap my head around at first. Once I gained a basic understanding of his argument, I was surprised at his logic as I have never thought of time in that sense. He made an interesting argument that we must first acknowledge that time exists in order to consecrate the idea behind series A, as we have to believe in time's existence to claim that no event is past, present, and future at the same time. Therefore, since the existence of time is in question, a contradiction arises. I was surprised at this conclusion as I came to realize that time was something that I took for granted and had always just assumed was real.
Hi!
ReplyDeleteI think that you have brought up great points on the analysis of the article. For me, I believe that the past, present, and future is something that was constructed by the idea of time and time being a reality in itself. The point that McTaggart is making is that time and reality do not co-exist and therefore I think that that makes the past, present, and future meaningless. If time is not real then everything else is subjective. If you think of time as a A and B series than what is stopping you from coming up with your own way of time in which is not the norm. My question to you is that if you could go back and change the way time was developed, would you? Would you make it so time does not exist?
Hey Grace! Good questions, honestly I'm not sure that I would go back and change how time was perceived. I think time is important because it adds structure to our lives and without it, I don't really know how society would function. I don't think "time" necessarily has to be how we define it now, but I do think we need something like it to add universal structure to civilization.
DeleteHi Mariam! Before reading his article I felt the same way about time. I had never really thought about it, it had always just been something that I never really questioned. It also took me a long time to figure out what McTaggart was arguing. I'm still not totally sure if I agree with his argument, but I found it very interesting. Do you agree with his argument?
ReplyDeleteHey Rylie! To be honest the idea of time has always confused me so it took me a while to really understand McTaggart's point of view. I don't agree or disagree with his argument because I think with such a complex issue like time there isn't really a right or wrong answer. It's kind of more what you personally believe. I do agree with his statement that we have always treated time as a given constant so some of our justification for why it is real can be contradictory. However, unlike McTaggart, I don't think that because of that contradiction time is automatically fake.
Delete