Introduction
Aristotle (384-322), the great master of philosophy, has been one of the prominent exponents of the concept of Time and Motion. He is considered one of the first philosophers to deal with the concepts of time and notion and the exposition that he develops has several characteristics of its own. Among the many contributions to these areas of philosophy, he has a great perception of the nature of Time. Aristotle is also significant a philosopher in that he relates the concepts of Time and Notion.
The most significant characteristics of all these ideas is that Aristotle ensures the conceptual differences between time and motion while conceiving them as being mutually dependent. It is the core of all his contributions towards these concepts. Therefore, it is most valuable to have and understanding of the various ideas relating to the nature of Time. It is also pertinent that the concept of Time is comprehended in relation to the concept of Motion.
The ultimate aim of any understanding regarding the concepts of Time and Motion is to find how and why Aristotle perceived Time and Motion to be mutually dependent on each other, although they are different concepts. Such a comprehension of the concepts of Time and Motion will definitely enhance one’s perceptions of these pertinent concepts. In this paper, an attempt is carried out to know how Aristotle ensures the conceptual differences between time and motion while conceiving them as being mutually dependent.
Aristotle’s seminal work Physics deals with the underlying principles that are associated with the physical world. He deals with concepts like matter, form, nature, change, motion etc, and shows how the concepts of change and motion are related to the concept of time. For him, nature operates as a principle of motion and change. He comes to understand that the infinite does not have an actual existence; on the other hand its existence is quite potential.
Similarly, the concept of time is not a permanent actuality; instead, it is in a process of coming to be. For him, the place of a thing is not subjected to motion or change and so he concludes that that the innermost motional boundary of what contains is place. After dealing with the concept of place, Aristotle then moves towards the concept of time. According to Aristotle, time is not movement altogether; however, one cannot perceive time independently of movement. In fact, he perceives time as the measure of motion and states that “Time is the numeration of continuous movement” (Physics, Book 4, 223b: 1).
In the fourth book on Physics, Aristotle deals in length with the notion of Time. First of all, he tells about “the difficulties connected with it… “First does it belong to the class of things that exist or of things that do not exist? Then secondly, what is its nature? To start then: the following considerations would make one suspect that it either does not exist or barely, and in an obscure way. One part of it has been and is not, while the other is going to be and is not yet…. One would naturally suppose that what is made up of things which do not exist could have no reality. Further, if a divisible thing is to exist, it is necessary that, when it exists, all or some of its parts must exist. But of time some parts have been, while others have to be, and no part of it is, though it is divisible. For what is ‘now’ is not a part: a part is a measure of the whole, which must be made of parts. Time, on the other hand, is not held to be made up of ‘nows’. Again, the ‘now’ which seems to bound the past and the future – does it always remain one and the same or is it always other and other? It is hard to say.” (217b 29 – 218a 10).
It is significant to note that, according to Aristotle, ‘now’ is not a separate part of time. It is, on the other hand, a very fugitive element and is difficult to comprehend. He remarks that “the ‘now’ in the one sense is the same, in another it is not the same.” (219b 12f) it is difficult to comprehend the concept. The element ‘now’ continuously moves and therefore it cannot ever be the same as the concept of ‘now’ exists now only, i.e. it exists at the present moment alone, not earlier or later.
As, on the other hand, it is the ‘now’ that moves or changes, we can find something identical that shifts. “Time… also is both made continuous by the ‘now’ and divided at it” (220a 4f) It may be well concluded that “‘now’ is a boundary which divides and does not divide, but unites past and future. The conclusion for Aristotle is evident: if we conceive time as a real thing, as an ontological item, we cannot escape absurdities.” (p 45, Jurgen Hengelbroke, “Some Reflections on Aristotle’s notion of time in an intercultural perspective in Time and Temporality in Intercultural Perspective, By Douwe Tiemersma, Henk Oosterling, published by Rodopi, 1996).
In this attempt of understanding the concepts of Time and Notion, it may be very well maintained that Aristotle deals in detail with the various significant concepts of that relate to nature. His philosophy of nature concludes that nothing that exists in nature is without its end and function, and everything has its purpose. We can find everywhere the evidences of design and rational plan. Therefore, it is important to find the exact meanings of the concepts such as time and notion. “No doctrine of physics can ignore the fundamental notions of motion, space, and time. Motion is the passage of matter into form, and it is of four kinds: (1) motion which affects the substance of a thing, particularly its beginning and its ending; (2) motion which brings about changes in quality; (3) motion which brings about changes in quantity, by increasing it and decreasing it; and (4) motion which brings about locomotion, or change of place. Of these the last is the most fundamental and important.” (Aristotle (384-322 BCE): General Introduction).
We can very well understand that Aristotle declines the definition of space as the invalid. It is because empty space cannot be possible. This is also a reason why he opposes the ideas of Plato and the Pythagoreans who maintain that all the elements of the universe are composed of geometrical figures. Aristotle understands space as the limit of the surrounding body towards what is surrounded. In this background, it is important to know what Time is and how Aristotle defines it. “Time is defined as the measure of motion in regard to what is earlier and later. It thus depends for its existence upon motion. If there were no change in the universe, there would be no time. Since it is the measuring or counting of motion, it also depends for its existence on a counting mind.
If there were no mind to count, there could be no time. As to the infinite divisibility of space and time, and the paradoxes proposed by Zeno, Aristotle argues that space and time are potentially divisible ad infinitum, but are not actually so divided.” (Aristotle (384-322 BCE): General Introduction).Therefore, it is important to undertake an analysis of the concepts of Time and Motion in order to have a clear idea about the relationship between these concepts as maintained by Aristotle. It is significant in the comprehension of the contribution of Aristotle to the philosophy of nature in general.
The Nature of Time
In an analysis of the nature of Time, it is most relevant to remember that Aristotle was the first of the thinkers to provide a central analysis of the nature of time. He also makes his contribution significant by the most pertinent arguments he puts forward. Whereas Plato considers time on the basis of the motion of the universe, Aristotle treats Time first on the smallest scale and very systematically and gradually comes to the universal level of Time. He seems to be more concerned on the understanding of the nature of Time.
The nature of Time, according to Aristotle, relates to the principles of Time, i.e. the principles of change and motion. Therefore, the relation between time and change or motion is the central of the several concerns relating to the concept of time. First Aristotle deals with the question whether and in what sense time exists and then he goes on to treat the nature of Time. The nature of Time can very well be understood in relation to the concept of Motion. He draws the ideas of his ancestors and makes his complete ideas of Time and Motion.
It is remarkable to note that there are two significant conceptions regarding the nature of Time that Aristotle mentions. First is Plato’s opinion that time is movement of the universe and the second that time is the sphere itself which is attributed to Pythagoras. It is clear that Aristotle was not satisfied with these opinions. “If time is defined as movement itself or revolution of the universe, there is again a logical absurdity: in this case a part of the revolution is also time in certain sense (because time is defined as revolution), but on the other hand this part is not the revolution itself. So if time was revolution itself, a part of it cannot be time simultaneously. Time can also not be the sphere of sky itself.” (p 45, Jurgen Hengelbroke) It is because there is a possibility for several spheres of skies and “the movement of any of them equally would be time, so that there would be many times at the same time.” (218b 1-5).
The Notion of Time and Motion
It may be noted that Aristotle original writings on the nature of time presented in his Physics book four provides a reasonable understanding of time. The importance of the writings of Aristotle is that they provide authoritative explanation to what time is and what the nature of time is. The relation between time and motion is very well established by Aristotle. “Instead of viewing both time and motion as a thing or as only seeming to be a thing, it sees motion as a real thing and time as a measure of motion. The crucial aspect of this is that time does not exist independently of motion, but instead is in the mind. However, it isn’t completely subjective, as the motion is real, and the measures (or durations) of time are based on the real measures of motion….
While the motion is real, time cannot exist apart from a mind to measure the motion. A mind organizes the motion and compares it to other objects in motion. The measure is in a logical order though… A better way of understanding this is to understand what Aristotle meant in comparing first intentions and second intentions. A first intention would be the actual place of the earth and the actual motion of the earth. A second intention is the mind measuring the position and motion of the earth and attaching a number to it. The second intention is based on the real position of the earth, but the measure of it (labeling it a year) is partly real and partly logical (as it is a number in a series).” (Is There Any Viability to Aristotle’s Theory of Time?)
In an analysis of the relation between time and motion it is important that the concept of Time as perceived by Aristotle is understood very cleverly. In this attempt, there have been various studies that concentrate on the concept of Time as Aristotle discusses it. One prominent explanation of the concept of Time perceived by Aristotle is Ursula Coope’s Time for Aristotle, which is a clear and succinct study of an exceedingly difficult section of Aristotle’s Physics: where he discusses on the concept of time. The concept of change, as explained by Coope, helps Aristotle in explaining the pertinent concept of time. Thus, “Aristotle conceives of the natural world as the realm of change: everything that is natural is subject to change (change is here to be understood in its broader sense, including qualitative and quantitative change as well as change in place).
Although Aristotle thinks that change and time are intimately related, he explains time in terms of change and not vice versa. He obviously thinks that the notion of change is more fundamental in his explanatory project. This helps us to understand why Aristotle’s first and overriding concern in the Physics is to secure a general account of change; that is, an account that can apply to change in all its manifestations. This account makes no reference, implicit or explicit, to time. Only when this account is firmly in place does Aristotle develop a number of notions essential for his philosophy of nature, including that of time.” (Time for Aristotle, Ursula Coope, Reviewed by Andrea Falcon). There, it is clear that the concept of Time is very much related to that of change. Here, Time’s relation with Notion comes to be applied.
To understand Time, it is important to know what Motion is. It is because Aristotle defines Time in relation to Motion. “According to Aristotle, time is ‘number of motion in respect of the before and after’ (IV. II 219 b2). I take this to mean that time is the quantity which motion exhibits in the dimension marked out by prediction of ‘before’ and ‘after’. The definition presupposes the existence of motion, and Aristotle repeatedly marks the close relation between time and motion. Moreover, the relation seems to be one of ontological dependence: ‘That time is neither motion nor independent of [literally: ‘without’] motion, is clear’ (IV. II, 219a 1-2). If, then, time is everlasting, as Aristotle maintains, he must be committed to having motion be everlasting.” (p 46, Physics By Aristotle, Daniel W. Graham, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1999).
It is important to have a thorough understanding of Aristotle’s views on motion to know better how he associates time with motion. Ursula Coope believes that, for Aristotle “the notion of change is more fundamental in his explanatory project”.
Aristotle believes that “only change from subject to subject is motion, and there are three kinds of change: qualitative, quantitative, and local. In respect to substance, there is no motion, because substance has no contrary among things that are.”(Frederick Sontag). In Book VII of Physics, he makes it clear that there should be something that causes movement to everything that exists in motion and he terms that something as the Unmoved, Prime or First Mover. The concept of time is closely related to motion and this is aptly suggested by Frederick Sontag when he states: “It is clear that there never was a time when motion did not exist and that the time will never come when motion will not be present. There must be three things: the moved, the movement, and the instrument of motion”(Physics. Essay by: Frederick Sontag. World Philosophers and Their Works, 2000. (Work Analysis).
The focus of Aristotle here is to prove that there always was motion in the past and it will be continued in the future throughout all time, whether it is caused by an eternal Unmoved movement or by the agent itself that is in motion. Aristotle “realized that motion can be understood by seeing how the location of an object changed. And that one could talk about “one object moving faster than another” by comparing how much the location of each changed in some interval of time.” (Space and Time according to Aristotle).
Aristotle’s Notion of Time and Motion: How these different concepts mutually depend on each other
One of the most significant factors to be noted in an analysis of the concepts of Time and Notion is that Aristotle has very well ensures the conceptual differences between time and motion while conceiving them as being mutually dependent. It means that Aristotle perceived Time and Motion to be mutually dependent on each other, although they are different concepts. We have been dealing with the nature of Time as perceived by Aristotle as well as the relation between Time and Motion. These discussions lead to the pertinent question of how and why Aristotle perceived Time and Motion to be mutually dependent on each other, although they are different concepts. Therefore, it is much significant to deal with these notions as mutually depending on each other while they are different concepts.
Aristotle conceives time as a divisible entity. For him, “one part of it has been and is not, while the other is going to be and is not yet” (Physics. Book IV, Chapter 10, R. P. Hardie & R. K. Gaye). On the other hand, he does not consider the ‘now’ as part of time or rather he believes that time is not made up of ‘nows’. For him, “no determinate divisible thing has a single termination” and the “now’ is a termination, and it is possible to cut off a determinate time.”( Physics. Book IV, Chapter 10, R. P. Hardie & R. K. Gaye).
Thus, he introduces the concept of motion or movement by stating clearly that the ‘nows’ depict time only when they are conceived in relation to a prior ‘now’ or a future ‘now’. He makes the idea clearer by stating that when one’s state of mind remains stagnant and does not change at all, one does not realize that time has elapsed. Another instance provided by the author to state his argument is that of a man sitting in a dark room without any movements. Such a person feels that time has elapsed obviously because some movements take place in his mind. According to him, one can apprehend time only when it is associated with motion: “and it is only when we have perceived ‘before’ and ‘after’ in motion that we say that time has elapsed” (Physics. Book IV, Chapter 11, R. P. Hardie & R. K. Gaye).
Thus, only when the mind recognizes that the ‘nows’ are two, one before and one after, one feels that time has passed. Aristotle makes clear the relationship between time and motion when he states: “When, therefore, we perceive the ‘now’ one, and neither as before and after in a motion nor as an identity but in relation to a ‘before’ and an ‘after’, no time is thought to have elapsed, because there has been no motion either” (Physics. Book IV, Chapter 11, R. P. Hardie & R. K. Gaye). Then he goes on to establish his theory that time is the “number of motion in respect of ‘before’ and ‘after’” and that “the ‘now’ measures time, in so far as time involves the ‘before and after’”. (Physics. Book IV, Chapter 11, R. P. Hardie & R. K. Gaye).
Aristotle also distinguishes between time and motion. Motion or movement takes place only in those objects that change whereas time is present everywhere and with all things. Similarly, motion can be faster or slower whereas time is not. In fact, it is time that determines whether the movement is faster or slower. Thus, time is not movement but no time elapses without movement. According to Ursula Coope, Aristotle “assumed that change is something dependent on time, since he believes that there is no change without time” (Andrea Falcon). Aristotle then goes on to enumerate that time is a kind of number as it is counted and states that “just as motion is a perpetual succession, so also is time” (Physics. Book IV, Chapter 11, R. P. Hardie & R. K. Gaye).
Aristotle is of the opinion that both time and motion define each other as one can measure the movement by time and vice versa. Both of them are continuous and divisible. Aristotle also distinguishes the concept of time with the concept of ‘in time’. According to him just as time is the measure of all motion, all rests are also done ‘in time’ which indirectly means that all rest also can be measured by time. He substantiates his argument by stating that only those subjects that are in motion can be in rest too. He makes the idea clearer when he concludes that all things that exist are in time and even those subjects that once existed are in time and could be measured by time.
Ursula Coope echoes this idea when she says: “Aristotle thinks that only the things that come into existence and go out of existence are, strictly speaking, in time. These things are in time because there is a time before they come into existence and there is a time after they go out of existence. Since they last for a finite length of time, this length of time is measurable” (Andrea Falcon). For example when one speaks of Homer who once was, he is referring to those prior ‘nows’ that are very much in time. All things come into being, perish, flourish, think, act and even forget in time.
Thus, for Aristotle, the ‘now’ acts as a link of time which connects the past and the future time and at the same time it acts as the limit of time. It could be the beginning or the end of different times- “the end of that which is past and the beginning of that which is to come” (Physics. Book IV, Chapter 13, R. P. Hardie & R. K. Gaye).. Aristotle then elaborately discusses the various meanings in which the ‘now’ can be understood. According to him, when someone uses expressions like ‘at some time’, ‘lately’, ‘presently’, ‘long ago’, ‘suddenly’ etc, he/she is obviously referring to the ‘now’ either in the past or future.
In the 14th chapter of Book IV, Aristotle concludes that “we say ‘before’ and ‘after’ with reference to the distance from the ‘now’, and the ‘now’ is the boundary of the past and future” (Physics. Book IV, Chapter 14, R. P. Hardie & R. K. Gaye), and because the ‘nows’ are in time everything in the past and future will also be in time. Aristotle rightly ends his discussion on time by referring to time’s relationship with the soul. The importance of time is under question if there existed no souls and it is evident that each of the actions of the soul are time bound. Referring to soul, Aristotle says that human life forms a circle where everyone comes into being and there is a circular movement until one passes away. This is very well suggested by Andrea Falcon when he states, “Time is dependent upon a mind which can count (I should say a soul which can count). For Aristotle the dependence of time upon the mind (the soul) implies that there would be no time without beings that are able to count”.
The relation between Time and Motion as Aristotle conceived it needs to be explained clearly. One of the best possible ways for this is to begin this exploration from the concept of ‘now’ that Aristotle proposed. Daniel W. Graham gives a very remarkable explanation to this relationship between Time and Motion which Aristotle explained in his Physics. He summarizes the main arguments of Aristotle as follows:
- The existence of the now is a necessary condition for the existence of time (from Bk. IV).
- The now intermediate between past and future.
- Thus, it is the end of the past and the beginning of the future.
- Thus, there is time before now (namely, the past) and after now (the future).
- For any arbitrary moment of time, whether past or future, the point four holds true.
- Thus, there is no beginning or end of time.
- But there is time if and only if there is motion.
- Thus, motion is everlasting. (pp 47- 48, Physics By Aristotle, Daniel W. Graham, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1999).
This is a clear explanation of what is true about the concepts of Time and Motion. The fifth conclusion is arrived at by supposing that what Aristotle considers moment is not that happens to be present. It is assumed that what he maintains is that the same applies to any arbitrary moment of time. From this conclusion, the fifth point is arrived at. To further explain these, the first argument expresses that time is a continuum and its dimensionless cross sections are nows. The idea of ‘now’ needs to be understood as a limit of Time and they mutually entail each other. The second argument is included in the fourth book of Physics and its explication and some addition of detail is found in the third argument.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it may be very well maintained that Aristotle has been very effective in making the relation between the concepts of Time and Motion. The nature of Time as perceived by Aristotle relates to the concepts of change and motion. The concept of Motion is very much integral to a clear understanding of the concept of Time. These are, of course, different concepts. However, Aristotle is successful in maintaining that there is a clear relation between the concepts of Time and Motion. In other words, Aristotle has been very effective in ensuring the conceptual differences between time and motion while conceiving them as being mutually dependent.
Work Cited
Physics Essay by: Frederick Sontag. World Philosophers and Their Works, 2000. (Work Analysis).
Ursula Coope, Time for Aristotle, Oxford University Press, 2005. Reviewed by Andrea Falcon, Concordia University. Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews, 2004. Web.
Physics By Aristotle. Translated by R. P. Hardie and R. K. Gaye. Book IV. Web.
Space and Time according to Aristotle. By Roberto B. Salgado, Syracuse University, 1995. Web.
Jurgen Hengelbroke, “Some Reflections on Aristotle’s notion of time in an Intercultural perspective in Time and Temporality in Intercultural Perspective, By Douwe Tiemersma, Henk Oosterling, published by Rodopi, 1996.
Is There Any Viability to Aristotle’s Theory of Time? Web. Physics By Aristotle, Daniel W. Graham, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1999.