Things, space, and time

There are things.

By “there are” I mean without understanding the nature of reality. That I encounter it whatever it may be. I simply do not know, at least at this point. This is how we encounter the world, also called the physical reality, or just reality.

A thing is there. It is there for you and me. The qualities of the thing is that it agrees with it is being there. Suppose that thing is a tennis ball. Suppose we know the rules of tennis, and we have all the necessary equipment and conditions to play a game of tennis, and know how to play the game from experience. As we play we understand how the ball will react in the world. The agreement makes for an enjoyable game for the both of us. The relationship of the ball between you and me, the space, response from the ball struck against the racquet face conforms more or less according to my skills. It is evidence of my knowledge of it as an object, and of how I may manipulate it in the greater world at large.

Again, I must point out, what I encounter are things, not space, and not time. This point must be made clear. You cannot sense space and touch space directly. You can only infer it from things. This is true of time also. What we can know of space and time comes necessarily from things. I infer from things the space. And I infer from the relationship of things in space, time.

It should be pointed out also, the existence of things necessarily infers the existence of space and time. Things, space, and time exist as one, as the entirety of the world. To use Hume’s words, it is visible and tangible. A game of tennis should be enough proof for the consistency of the world.

2 thoughts on “Things, space, and time

  1. landzek

    I would submit that the only time such understanding of things occurs is when you are pondering it. When you’re not thinking specifically about the thing that is the “nature of existence“ or “reality“ you yourself are occurring in a way that has nothing to do with the moment of your pondering the ontology of things. In fact I would argue more of the primacy of the thing that you are involved with, say for example playing tennis, “I“ I’m not playing tennis as much as the ball is bouncing from racket and the racket is moving in such a way to your hands and legs and body, etc.. The tennis court, the people watching. “I” the thinker is not present , or better said, I have a thinker has nothing to do with whether or not or in what way the ball exists..

    So one might argue that it is really when one sits down in their chair and ponder is the things that have already occurred that they come to the conclusion that this pondering thing, this thinking subject encompasses the whole situation that they are pondering, when in fact the only thing that they are pondering is what is occurring right at that moment of the thing in itself called the brain or of the mind or the subject, and not really the tennis ball or the rachet or the game of tennis in itself at all . What is occurring sitting in the chair is the mind consciousness subject pondering its self in that moment. The tennis player has nothing to do with that subject pondering in the chair except when the subject is sitting and pondering in the chair and presuming it self into the rest of existence The tennis player has nothing to do with that subject pondering in the chair except when the subject is sitting and pondering in the chair and presuming it self into the rest of existence.

    I think this paradox lies at the heart of the problem that we see in the political social ideological world: The central human thinker is not recognizing its existence but rather is asserting its primacy at particular moments as if those moments extend out into a limited kind of infinite arena.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
    1. signature103 Post author

      We have to question, do we put ontology, epistemology or perception first (primacy).

      From a materialist perspective the material is the reality, irrespective of of whether it is experienced or perceived or not. We draw this conclusion with not complete surety because there is no other way to knowledge of this. Nonetheless we can and perhaps must because that is what we are.

      I don’t have “guilt” for being human. I do not beat myself up for being who or what I am, anymore than a rock would worry (if it could).

      Epistemology and perception is an activity, our activity. And it is a not a thing. This distinction (and I will not be afraid to make a distinction because that is what I do) is important … if you are me. Just as capitalism, socialism, ooo or King&Prince (a Japanese band my daughter likes) is important to others.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

Thanks for reading. Please leave a comment.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s