The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum - View Single Post - The Scourge of The Dark Side...Tolkien and Modernism

Kin-strife · 07-22-2008, 05:11 PM

[QUOTE=Ibrîniðilpathânezel;563090]There is also a scientific theory that postulates time as a construct of the human mind, a means by which we relate to the universe around us to give it some kind of order we can understand, but which doesn't actually exist.[QUOTE]

This sounds kinda like Kant's theory that time and space aren't necessarily properties of the outside world but rather the only means we have of perceiving it. We perceive everything as being extended in space and time. Is this because everything is or because its the only way we can make sense of it? If you think of the outside world as being a computer code and we are a type of computer programmed to interpret that code in a certain way. If we interpret the code in such away that it causes a lovely graphic of The One Ring spinning on our screen, how much is this a property of the code itself and how much our own hardwiring (I confess I don't know much about computers). Kant, (who lived in the 18th Century so certainly didn't know jack about computers), believed that time and space existed in our minds prior to our experience of the world, and that it shaped our experience of the world, and that therefore we don't experience the world as it really is in itself. Also he believed that worldly phenomena that is unable to be interpreted spatially or temporally we don't experience at all.

I know this is a tough concept to get your head around but I've always found the idea facinating. If this were the case then God or Eru (I don't believe in either by the way) would not suffer such limitations and perceive everything as a whole. We have no way of knowing what this would be like as we can't even imagine anything without spatial or temporal extension. But where does this leave free will?

I would not imagine that Eru's concept of time would be like a long tapestry that He could see all at once, tracing the initial event A right through to the inevitable end consequence Z. Thus leaving human history as nothing more than an extremely complicated document of cause and effect, so that from the first human action He could predict every human action that would follow. Rather perhaps free will would be like a moment of spontanoues imporvisation in a paint-by-numbers picture, a surprise ingredient in a cake. He wouldn't know the end result before adding it but immediately after he would see its every effect. But then "before" and "after" are temporal concepts which may undermine my argument.

The above is a bit of a mess but I'll have a think about it and try to clarify my meaning.

07-22-2008, 05:11 PM	#124
Kin-strife Haunting Spirit Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Dublin, Ireland Posts: 58	[QUOTE=Ibrîniðilpathânezel;563090]There is also a scientific theory that postulates time as a construct of the human mind, a means by which we relate to the universe around us to give it some kind of order we can understand, but which doesn't actually exist.[QUOTE] This sounds kinda like Kant's theory that time and space aren't necessarily properties of the outside world but rather the only means we have of perceiving it. We perceive everything as being extended in space and time. Is this because everything is or because its the only way we can make sense of it? If you think of the outside world as being a computer code and we are a type of computer programmed to interpret that code in a certain way. If we interpret the code in such away that it causes a lovely graphic of The One Ring spinning on our screen, how much is this a property of the code itself and how much our own hardwiring (I confess I don't know much about computers). Kant, (who lived in the 18th Century so certainly didn't know jack about computers), believed that time and space existed in our minds prior to our experience of the world, and that it shaped our experience of the world, and that therefore we don't experience the world as it really is in itself. Also he believed that worldly phenomena that is unable to be interpreted spatially or temporally we don't experience at all. I know this is a tough concept to get your head around but I've always found the idea facinating. If this were the case then God or Eru (I don't believe in either by the way) would not suffer such limitations and perceive everything as a whole. We have no way of knowing what this would be like as we can't even imagine anything without spatial or temporal extension. But where does this leave free will? I would not imagine that Eru's concept of time would be like a long tapestry that He could see all at once, tracing the initial event A right through to the inevitable end consequence Z. Thus leaving human history as nothing more than an extremely complicated document of cause and effect, so that from the first human action He could predict every human action that would follow. Rather perhaps free will would be like a moment of spontanoues imporvisation in a paint-by-numbers picture, a surprise ingredient in a cake. He wouldn't know the end result before adding it but immediately after he would see its every effect. But then "before" and "after" are temporal concepts which may undermine my argument. The above is a bit of a mess but I'll have a think about it and try to clarify my meaning. __________________ "Come away, O human child!/ To the waters and the wild/With a faery hand in hand,/ For the world's more full of weeping than you can understand."