The philosophy of the metaphysics Concept, Time and Eternaty: Kojeve, Kant, Plato, Aristotle;.HegelTemporal field mechanics.

The philosophy of the metaphysics Concept, Time and Eternaty: Kojeve, Kant, Plato, Aristotle;.HegelTemporal field mechanics.
by valpetridis @ 2008-10-24 - 19:23:29
The philosophy of the metaphysics Concept, Time and Eternaty: Kojeve, Kant, Plato, Aristotle;.HegelTemporal field mechanics.
The study of time as a field is called temporal field theory, or mechanics.Here is a discourse I posted on my University reading course blog, the personality profile I wrote for the university tutorial computer server called moodle.
The subject is Kojeve "Introduction to Hegel" chapter five.This is more indicative of the standard of common communication I partake in university.In Chapter 5 Kojeve engages in a lengthy explication of the idea of time, eternity and concept. He examines the differences in postulations made by Plato, Aristotle and Kant concerning these ideas (Kojeve pp.101-106): He determines that each philosopher conceives a different theory concerning these ideas. Plato refers to the eternal outside of time creating the form of the temporal within time. Both time and the eternal are perfect forms outside of time; Time for Plato means the eternal form of time. Concept is outside time and time relies on Concept for the creation of its temporal form or measurement. Furthermore, the eternal Eternal lies outside time as temporality is ephemeral and fleeting and not eternal; The eternal Eternal is an idea(form) of its Idea(perfect form). Temoprality is only eternal as Concept, or the perfect form of Temporality (Kojeve pp 102-104103)Kant posits that Concept is outside of time yet it is effected by time. For Kant the eternal is a product of the concept of being and being is in time. It is the concept that becomes eternal outside of the time it was created in(Kojeve pp.102-103). Aristotle places the eternal within time and concept within the eternal. For Aristotle, Concept is bound to the realm of being that allows it to exist and that realm is time (Kojeve pp.102-103). The difference between Kant and Aristotle is where they situate Time and Eternity in respect to the being(time) it is derived from. It is a matter of semantics where one places eternity metaphysically if it functions in the same way in regards to time. Hence, Aristotle and Kant are saying the same thing.Plato refers to Concept as being greater than the sum of the forms it is derived from (which is also what Hegel believes Time and Concept to be) (Kojeve pp. 102-104). For Plato as the concept is eternal the potential for actuality of any form makes that potential actual as concept that lies outside the time it was created. Kojeve notes that time for Plato is effected by being but remains unchanging (Kojeve pp 103-104). A hammer is a hammer even before we made the first hammer and named it by the various terms we use to signify it. The potential for anything to be called a hammer, or be referred to as a hammer, is the perfect form that encompasses every potential, or actual, hammer; this includes all concepts attributed to the signification and meaning pertaining to a hammer and any family resemblances categorised as such, which extends the Concept of the hammer as a concept but was potentially possible as actualisable ideas drawn from that which allowed the hammer to come into existence in what ever temporal form it took, include ideas and metaphors.For Hegel Concept is the phenomena of the self consciousness of being. It is “there” because we have conceived it as concept. It needs humanity to exist because humanity created the concept by which time is measured and understood as such. (Kojeve p101) It is empirical because it can be measured objectively based on the concept humans use to measure it. It is eternal because although ‘time ticks away into the future’, it is eternally referred to as such, by any term or means of signification, no matter the point in time one refers to it. Time is a synthetic product that is a concept and concept means something conceived or given birth to. Thus, it is the human that gives birth to Time(Kojeve p100). For Plato even the extinction of humanity does not negate the potential for time or the fact that humans had measured it. The potential of a form of time to be derived by another specious exists Eternally. For Hegel, time exists only as the temporal form in which it is measured, or observed, by a conscious being. For Kant the concept of time is eternal yet exists because its potential and form exists in time and allows for its conceptual apprehension. For Aristotle Time exists within time because its potential and being exists because of time.
Is Kojeve correct to believe that each of the above mentioned philosophers believes in different irreconcilable concepts of time and eternity, or are all these philosophers all explaining the same idea differently, yet each is explaining the same Eternal metaphysics of Concept and Time? Does it matter if one metaphysically refers to eternity as being within time or outside of time based on it being eternal? Does each philosopher’s explanation lend itself to a fuller understanding of the explication of Time, Concept and Eternity, or do they conflict and confuse each other’s clarity on the subject? Is absolute knowledge the apprehension of Concept as Eternal? Since absolute knowledge pertains to the ideas of Concept, Eternity and Time, is there as Kojeve says a congruency in the ideas pertaining to all theories of absolute knowledge? Do all theories of absolute knowledge lead to the metaphysics that is called theological and refers to the Eternal Concept as the divine or God (Kojeve p.112)?
Tomorrow more science, you should see how anthropology has caused a need for more work to incorporate indigenous peoples I did not encounter in a anthropology course I sat in undergrad into the description of the first book. See oldest archives of this blog.
Previous profile wisdom:
Truth is not forgotten as neither are those who touch our minds , souls and bodies causing us to be changed for the better esp. if we make better of all we are touched by