David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
International Journal of Philosophical Studies 4 (1):43 – 66 (1996)
Abstract This paper compares Heidegger's conception of time with more prevalent physical and broadly psychological analyses of time. The ?vulgar? notion of time, as Heidegger understands it, is based on the assumption that time, regardless of whether it is identified with tense or not, is something that is essentially measurable by clocks. Heidegger maintains that the vulgar notion of time is a distortion of his own preferred conception of temporality. I show how temporality may be understood as the non?sequential tensed structure underlying tensed discourse. I argue against any straightforward reduction of this tensed structure and the direction of time to physical occurrences. Nevertheless I argue that temporality can be distinguished from purely psychological analyses of temporal experience and from traditional conceptions of time as tensed experience. The selectiveness of demonstrative discourse provides the basis for Heidegger's critique and reconstruction of time understood as tensed discourse about things. Heidegger's scepticism about the interpretation of time as a sequence of nows that underlies the dominant interpretation of tense is due to his appropriation of the relativity of simultaneity from special relativity. But his interpretation of physical theory leads him to the thesis that time is pre?supposed but not completely analysed in physical theory. The meta?language of physical theory makes covert use of temporal notions, for entities can themselves only be understood in covertly temporal ways. I show how this claim may be understood and defended in the light of current physical theory. Heidegger's analysis gives us some basis for thinking that his own notion of temporality is built into an understanding of temporal experience. But I argue that Heidegger fails to make the case that physical time is ontologically dependent on human existence
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Hakhamanesh Zangeneh (2011). Phenomenological Problems for the Kairological Reading of Augenblick in Being and Time. International Journal of Philosophical Studies 19 (4):539 - 561.
Yoko Arisaka (1996). Spatiality Temporality and the Probelm of Foundation in Being and Time. Philosophy Today 40 (1):36-46.
Michael J. Futch (2002). Leibniz's Non-Tensed Theory of Time. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 16 (2):125 – 139.
Tony Fisher (2010). Heidegger's Generative Thesis. European Journal of Philosophy 18 (3):363-384.
D. H. Mellor (1998). Transcendental Tense: D.H. Mellor. Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 72 (1):29–44.
James Gilbert-Walsh (2010). Revisiting the Concept of Time: Archaic Perplexity in Bergson and Heidegger. [REVIEW] Human Studies 33 (2):173-190.
D. H. Mellor (1998). Transcendental Tense. Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 72 (1):29 - 56.
Heath Massey (2010). On the Verge of Being and Time: Before Heidegger's Dismissal of Bergson. Philosophy Today 54 (2):138-52.
Peter Gratton (2005). Heidegger and Levinas on the Question of Temporality. Journal of Philosophical Research 30:157-168.
William D. Blattner (1999). Heidegger's Temporal Idealism. Cambridge University Press.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads26 ( #56,566 of 1,089,062 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #69,801 of 1,089,062 )
How can I increase my downloads?