A major stumbling block for discussions on the philosophy of Idealism is the implicit necessity for Eternity as a corollary. Plato’s timeless Forms could not exist in ever-changing reality. So a dialogue on ideal topics inevitably requires perspective switching from our familiar vantage of space-time to the exotic optique outside the known universe. For many of us the effort required to remain centered on a stable horizon is dizzying. Consequently, most people avoid sailing on the bounding main of metaphysics. But, this blog is already embarked, and it’s too late to turn back now. Besides, there may be un-explored intellectual worlds out there beyond the horizon.
The 20th century Argentine writer, Jorge Luis Borges, was intrigued by such paradoxes as Time within Eternity. So, in his 1947 essay, A New Refutation of Time, he had the temerity to argue that time is an illusion. But, he coyly referred to that publication as “the feeble artifice of an Argentine gone astray in the maze of metaphysics. . . . I have glimpsed or foreseen a refutation of time, one in which I myself do not believe.” First, he reviewed the opinions of philosophers favoring Idealism, such as Berkeley, then of those denying the existence of anything beyond the bounds of physical Reality, such as Hume. Along the way, he mentions the fact that mathematicians have been forced to deal with spatial infinities, as in the Calculus, which can only exist in in union with temporal eternity. Regard-less, Hume asserted, “I deny the existence of one single time in which each thing has its place.” However, that is exactly what Einstein concluded from his theory of Relativity : Block Time, a version of Eternalism1. That hypothesis was derived from pragmatic necessity, in order to make sense of relativity. But it also offered some satisfaction to theologians, for its scientific justification for the doctrine of an eternal deity.
An obvious objection to the negative notion of eternal universal time-lessness is : “If time is a mental process, how can myriads of men . . . share it all?” As suggested in post 90, the answer is that all men are able to, via reason and imagin-ation2, participate in the universal perspective3 of the Creator’s Mind. But then, looking through the wrong end of the telescope seems wrong-headed to the materialist mind. As Borges noted, “All language is of a successive nature : it does not lend itself to reasoning on eternal, intemporal matters.” The terminology of Science, especially, is based on the continuous stream of cause & effect. So, anything apart from that steady stream of time is also outside the purview of Science. Hence, when asked, “what existed before the beginning of space-time?”, some respond that the question makes no sense – like “what lies north of the North Pole?” But that earth-bound retort misses the point of “what existed – logically, not geometrically – prior to the Big Bang?”
For the philosopher of Idealism, Berkeley, “time is the succession of ideas in my mind”, and Einstein would agree. “And yet, and yet“, Borges demurs, “To deny temporal succession, to deny the self, to deny the astronomical universe, are measures of apparent despair and of secret consolation. . . . Time is the substance of which I am made.” That’s why the BothAnd principle advises us to reach an accommodation to the apparent paradox of particular Time within the holistic expanse of Eternity.
End of Post 91
Infinite Time
1. Block Time : All events in time, and points in space, are simultaneous and equally real & present relative to the Here & Now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternalism_
2. Generalization : Humans only experience particular things & events, but they are able to abstract common properties from the collection, via rational inference. We only percieve the parts, but we can conceive of the whole. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalization
3. Universal Perspective : God’s view of the universe from outside space-time. Here’s one perspective on the universal perspective : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kpvy0wzrtna
The Idealist Fallacy : Click here for popup.
The Idealist Fallacy :
In my view , tangible Matter and intangible Mind are two sides of the same coin. Both are components of ultimate Reality, but each refers to a separate face of the “coin”. The whole is G*D, while Matter is the substance that evolves, and Mind is an emergent function which experi-ences substances and forms theories. The concept of “Reality” itself is a theory that exists only as an abstract generalization in a mind. Reality is both Mind and Matter.
It’s true that all objects are experienced as perceptions in the mind, not as objective essences. But, it’s also true that, for practical purposes, we can act “as-if” matter really exists, because that assumption is a reliable guide for our actions — it works. Idealism is an abstract, rational, intellectual view of the world, and is not very helpful when you are hungry. If you want to eat, it helps to assume that the food is really out there. You won’t survive in the real world, if all you eat is ideas.
The Idealist fallacy is an attempt to deny the reality of the human condition. Humans are hybrids : part matter and part mind. And there is no division between Body & Soul. Only G*D is all mind all the time.
NEXT
BACK
Forum
