[Buddha-l] Time Is Not Real

[Lambert Stepanich]

Erik Hoogcarspel wrote:

>This argument is already mentioned by Sextus Empiricus in Headlines of
>Pyrrhonism Book 3 XIX

Thanks for the reference.  Does Sextus use this argument to the same
effect?

Lambert


-----Original Message-----
From: buddha-l-bounces at mailman.swcp.com
[mailto:buddha-l-bounces at mailman.swcp.com] On Behalf Of Erik Hoogcarspel
Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2006 7:05 AM
To: Buddhist discussion forum
Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] Time Is Not Real

Lambert Stepanich schreef:

>At least, it appeared as if Diogenes stood up and walked away!  But
>appearances are not necessarily reality.
>
>I'm rather partial to Kant's argument in the First Antinomy: If time is
>something real (transcendentally, absolutely), time would be either
>finite or infinite.  But time cannot be either finite or infinite.
>Therefore, time is not something real (again, transcendentally, or
>absolutely).  
>
>Time cannot be finite because this would require there to be a
beginning
>to time, a time when time began, which is incoherent.  Equally, time
>cannot be infinite, for this would require an infinite period of time
to
>have actually lapsed for this present moment to occur (or for any
>present moment to occur).  However, an infinite series cannot be
>completed in time.  
>
>  
>

 This argument is already mentioned by Sextus Empiricus in Headlines of
Pyrrhonism Book 3 XIX

Erik


www.xs4all.nl/~jehms


_______________________________________________
buddha-l mailing list
buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com
http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l