Pio Nono Posted July 22, 2004 Share Posted July 22, 2004 JMJ 7/22 - St. Mary Magdalene [quote]I think your definition of time is too narrow. I would argue that time is the characteristic of a state of being that necessitates that causes precede events, for said being.[/quote] Could you clarify that for me? As I see it, you're making time merely adjectival, when my definition would want to make it more of a measurement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmmerf Posted July 22, 2004 Share Posted July 22, 2004 [quote name='Pio Nono' date='Jul 22 2004, 02:06 PM'] JMJ 7/22 - St. Mary Magdalene Could you clarify that for me? As I see it, you're making time merely adjectival, when my definition would want to make it more of a measurement. [/quote] Well, the problem I have with your definition is the 'physical body' part, not so much the 'measure' part. I think that a measure of change is merely quantifying the distance between a particular cause and a particular effect. So in that sense we're saying the same thing. But I would say that my definition of time would include your definitions of both time and 'aeviternity'. Re-reading your earlier post, I see that I'm disagreeing with Aquinas. This isn't gonna be pretty. Why is the distinction between substantial physical change and accidental spiritual change necessary? Purgatory presumes change only on the non-corporeal level, and only accidental change (since our salvation is assured on reaching purgatory.) I suppose one could argue that my presumed definition of effect is too vague. Should an accidental effect be considered an effect in the same way as a substantial effect? Possibly not. This could be where my definition breaks down. Does that clarify, or merely obfuscate further? I am finding myself in deep waters here... Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pio Nono Posted July 22, 2004 Share Posted July 22, 2004 JMJ 7/22- St. Mary Magdalene Dave, As I take it, a substantial physical change is one that changes the substance entirely - a burnt log loses the substantial form of "log" in exchange for the form of "ash"; a dead body loses the substantial form of "human" in exchange for the form of "corpse". The concept of "time" is the measurement of change in this realm, because time relies on the physical world. An accidential spiritual change, on the other hand, is a change with regard to the spirit that does not alter a spirit's substantial form. For instance, when I grow in the virtue of prudence, my soul is altered accidentally. I'm still me, but with some more prudence. When I am purified in Purgatory, I am altered accidentally, but not substantially. The concept of "aeviternity" is the measurement of change in this realm, because it occurs only in the spiritual realm. Does this help at all? I'd like to eschew obfuscation if at all possible. I'm also trying to sidestep any sort of definition that assumes cause/effect relationships - many modern philosophers aren't hip with the assumption that there is any sort of relation between a cause and an effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qfnol31 Posted July 22, 2004 Share Posted July 22, 2004 Movement is a change, and it would seem that our resurrected bodies could move, therefore I would say that we would be in time. I had a discussion with a guy at my school about the angels being in or out of time. They're in Heaven and incorporeal (as are most men in Heaven), so it would seem that they would be outside of time. But I asked if they have free will, and they do (they made the one choice, maybe in the first moments of creation, whether or not to follow God). Since they have free will, it would seem that they would be in time. What got him is that they're incorporeal. My professor said that they just move temporally. Oh, can you feel or think without time? Our whole life in Heaven will be great because we will contemplate God, but can we really contemplate Him if we don't have time to move through? And for Jeff, what about a beginning? You say that death means there is no time, but what about a beginning, wouldn't that imply there is a time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmmerf Posted July 22, 2004 Share Posted July 22, 2004 [quote name='qfnol31' date='Jul 22 2004, 02:51 PM']Movement is a change, and it would seem that our resurrected bodies could move, therefore I would say that we would be in time. [/quote] Aha... but will our earthly forms ascend to heaven, or will heaven come to earth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmmerf Posted July 22, 2004 Share Posted July 22, 2004 [quote name='Pio Nono' date='Jul 22 2004, 02:41 PM'] Does this help at all? I'd like to eschew obfuscation if at all possible. [/quote] Yes, it helps, but your definiton of 'time' still irks me. While I accept that there is a clear difference between substantial change and acccidental change, are you suggesting that ALL change in the physical realm is substantial? Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JeffCR07 Posted July 23, 2004 Share Posted July 23, 2004 yes, creation would of course imply time, as (I think) I said in one of my posts. But if "time" exists only as a result of creation/regeneration and death/deterioration, then this would not, in fact, prove any sort of problem. Time did not exist before creation, but did exist afterwards. I would argue that mere "change" does not imply time, unless you are defining time in such a narrow manner as to be merely a vague notion of "before" and "after" - I would consider that less Time and more Cause and Effect. Under my proposition, motion and change do not create Time as we know it, but rather, it is only the "limiting factors" that create Time. Movement and change are not limiting factors, but rather, creation/destruction and regeneration/destruction are. If one could move without causing destruction to ones body, and if physical change can occur (like speaking) without any thought of death, then I would posit that Time as we know it would cease. Remember, Time is a construct of Man, and as soon as it becomes irrelevant (like when we undergo the Final Theosis) it ceases to be relevant and to exist. - Your Brother In Christ, Jeff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qfnol31 Posted July 23, 2004 Share Posted July 23, 2004 Time is the moving of the future through the present into the past. I believe that is St. Augustine. The present is a participation in Eternity, where God is, but is not eternity. Think of a rainbow. Each part participates in the white original light, but is only a small fragment of it. If there is a future where we will be praising God, and there is a time where we're praising God, and we were praising God, then there would have to be time just because of the past aspect. I hope that's not too confusing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pio Nono Posted July 23, 2004 Share Posted July 23, 2004 JMJ 7/23 - St. Apollinarius of Ravenna No, not all physical change amounts to substantial change; there are some changes that are accidental. Like all good philosophers, though, I won't try to make a hard-and-fast rule over what is substantial and what is accidental; if you want, though, take a look at Aristotle's [i]Physics[/i]. I'll have to pull out my ancient philosophy notes, but I think that a substance is that which has priority, quiddity, and something else that I can't remember... Check Aristotle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qfnol31 Posted July 23, 2004 Share Posted July 23, 2004 I shall then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qfnol31 Posted August 10, 2004 Share Posted August 10, 2004 I know this is a big bump, but I was just reading the Baltimore Catechism and had a comment on the original question. The question in the Catechism was: "Does not the Sacrament of Penance remit all punishment due to sin?" The answer was: "The Sacrament of Penance remits the eternal punishemtn due to sin, but it does not always remit the [b]temporal punishment[/b] which God requires as satisfaction for our sins. I just think that implies Purgatory, which remits the rest of these punishments, would be temporal, meaning in time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qfnol31 Posted September 15, 2004 Share Posted September 15, 2004 [quote name='Pio Nono' date='Jul 23 2004, 09:27 AM']JMJ 7/23 - St. Apollinarius of Ravenna No, not all physical change amounts to substantial change; there are some changes that are accidental. Like all good philosophers, though, I won't try to make a hard-and-fast rule over what is substantial and what is accidental; if you want, though, take a look at Aristotle's [i]Physics[/i]. I'll have to pull out my ancient philosophy notes, but I think that a substance is that which has priority, quiddity, and something else that I can't remember... Check Aristotle. [/quote] Pio Nono, I just wanted you to know I never forgot your advice. We're beginning the Physics and Metaphysics this week, but I found another answer in Holscher and Augustine. "everything that is moved in space can be moved only if it is also moved in time," which is in regards to the body. I know, I really bumped this... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now