Plato's Definition of Time in the Timaeus
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 сен 2024
- Here we analyze a small portion of the Timaeus to draw out the distinction between time and eternity. While time and eternity are opposite, Plato defines time as a "moving image of eternity." We bringing out the distinction between time and eternity, we see that "what is" is the common thread the unites the two so that time is the moving image of eternity.
This is very good. I recently read the Timaeus and it impressed me as something so esoteric, especially that passage on Time. Thanks for breaking this down.
Thanks John ... really good explanation ... i never got the mathematical side of it before :)
Very good simple and easy to
Understand
Incredibly clear!
Thank you! Really good and interesting class, learned so much!
Excellent explanation of eternal! 🙏
Excellent video!
Your attempt to help a modern mind understand a simple concept by interposing the virtual unknowns of ancient thought processes is baffling, John. Time is certainly what it takes for an object to move from one point to another. There is also no point in claiming that something 'changes' by the passage of time (or movement) when we are focusing on the meaning of 'time'. Better, I think, just to realize that time cannot be created or altered, but can be measured by linking it to processes that consume energy in exactly measurable quantities (clocks, for example)
Time and Eternity and not 'opposites', any more than 'kilo' and 'weight* are opposites - but I speak as someone who has lived in Greece for over 20 years without thinking that Plato and Socrates had much to offer on this fascinating subject. Thank you for for your thoughtful posting.
Am I right that Plato is attempting here to reconcile the Pre-Socratic Parmenides (being) with Heraclitus' (becoming)? Does he succeed? It seems one can argue that there is no now. The infinitesimal of Parmenides is infinite but does that infinite mean "being" being infinite, or does it actually infer, as Heraclitus would say that flux / becoming is eternal?
I think ur very right. He even wrote a dialogue called parmenidus
There is now - its an eternity. Being isnt infinite, but he is part of the infinity and can become conscious of it, and become closer to it by alligning mans soul with the intelect. If isness or now is part of an eternity, then, even though its becoming, it forms part in the infinite.
A better expression of Plato's views on the subject is found on the Euthyphro. He indeed does argue that there is no now, and that every now is but the thing becoming what was latent in its potential.
You asked an either or question for a yes and
He is implying the universe is unchanged. Eternity remains a constant, but only the image thereof moves. It is the image of eternity that moves, it isn't eternity progressing
Time is death. The number 4 (missing from the fibonacci sequence.) Phenomena/masses/magnitudes require time, beginning and end. Eternity is the opposite, ether/counterspace.
Timaeus Timaeus Timaeus
If we read the book and not recognize that Timaeus is the first demigod (who created the universe) paying us a visit, and ofcourse wearing the human shirt so we dont just freak out, we would be missing the content of it.
If you read Aristotle, it is obvious that Aristotle is God who authorized and provided for Timaeus to create the world.
You need to read Rémi Brague's book "Time in Plato and Aristotle". You will be amazed.
Brilliant
💜
Thank you very much :)
Very good👍
Based
I didn't really understand the tripartition of time in Plato.
"accordingly to the true account only 'is' is appropriately said of it" - this is about eternity. And then you say that there is no real 'is' in time. So i thought that the tripartition was just a bipartition, without time.
but at 20:59 you actually explained that 'is' is in time.
Were you saying that there is no real 'is' in time because if the 'now' is indivisible and just an instant we can't even catch it? And in the end the tripartition is just like the one for Aristotle or Agostino?
My wonder is why attribute the ideas to Timaeus and not Socrates? Unless one such Timaeus actually existed. Doesn't Plato usually use Socrates to show his own thoughts on matters?
That's very good question! As we study Plato more deeply I think we need to challenge the presumption that Plato only or even always primarily speaks through Socrates' voice. The Timaeus along with the Critias both present myths about the world: the Critias tells of Atlantis and the Timaeus a tale of creation. As a reader I think we are meant to take the words spoken through other voices as giving approximations of the truth, as all myths found in Plato's writings. I think the myth found in the Timaeus as a whole is meant to reveal philosophical truths rather than historical one's; putting in the voice is Timaeus in my opinion alerts us to this intention in my opinion.
@@JohnZak makes sense that way. I'll just forever be curious about how much we miss as modern readers so far removed from that society as far as context, dry humour, critique etc.
Shame the concept of the written interview didn't exist much to have been able to pick the brain a bit of these writers.
PS I always chuckle when I see a meme quote online that says ....- Plato
and it's from an Aristophanes line from Symposium.
Time is accumulation with spillover
Picture a birdbath
"Happy Thanksgiving"
He gave u a tongue so u cud say "Toung-ue" 😂
37037
I thought Plato understood the concept of infinity.
Timeness