FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   29   30   31   32   33   34   35   36   37   38   39   40   41   42   43   44   45   46   47   48   49   50   51   52   53  
54   55   56   57   58   59   60   61   62   63   64   65   66   67   68   69   70   71   72   73   74   75   76   77   78   >>   >|  
re of two fundamental relations, the space-ordering relation, which holds between points, and the space-occupation relation between points of space and material objects. [3] Cf. (for example) _Projective Geometry_ by Veblen and Young, vol. i. 1910, vol. ii. 1917, Ginn and Company, Boston, U.S.A. This theory lacks the two main supports of the corresponding theory of absolute time. In the first place space does not extend beyond nature in the sense that time seems to do. Our thoughts do not seem to occupy space in quite the same intimate way in which they occupy time. For example, I have been thinking in a room, and to that extent my thoughts are in space. But it seems nonsense to ask how much volume of the room they occupied, whether it was a cubic foot or a cubic inch; whereas the same thoughts occupy a determinate duration of time, say, from eleven to twelve on a certain date. Thus whereas the relations of a relative theory of time are required to relate thoughts, it does not seem so obvious that the relations of a relative theory of space are required to relate them. The connexion of thought with space seems to have a certain character of indirectness which appears to be lacking in the connexion of thought with time. Again the irrevocableness of time does not seem to have any parallel for space. Space, on the relative theory, is the outcome of certain relations between objects commonly said to be in space; and whenever there are the objects, so related, there is the space. No difficulty seems to arise like that of the inconvenient instants of time which might conceivably turn up again when we thought that we had done with them. The absolute theory of space is not now generally popular. The knowledge of bare space, as a system of entities known to us in itself and for itself independently of our knowledge of the events in nature, does not seem to correspond to anything in our experience. Space, like time, would appear to be an abstraction from events. According to my own theory it only differentiates itself from time at a somewhat developed stage of the abstractive process. The more usual way of expressing the relational theory of space would be to consider space as an abstraction from the relations between material objects. Suppose now we assume absolute time and absolute space. What bearing has this assumption on the concept of nature as bifurcated into causal nature and apparent nature? Undoubtedly the s
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   29   30   31   32   33   34   35   36   37   38   39   40   41   42   43   44   45   46   47   48   49   50   51   52   53  
54   55   56   57   58   59   60   61   62   63   64   65   66   67   68   69   70   71   72   73   74   75   76   77   78   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

theory

 

relations

 
nature
 

absolute

 

thoughts

 

objects

 

relative

 
occupy
 

thought

 

relation


knowledge

 

events

 

abstraction

 
relate
 
connexion
 

required

 

material

 
points
 

entities

 

system


experience
 

independently

 
popular
 

correspond

 

instants

 

conceivably

 

inconvenient

 

Boston

 

difficulty

 
Company

generally

 

Veblen

 

bearing

 
assume
 

Suppose

 
assumption
 
concept
 

Undoubtedly

 

apparent

 
causal

bifurcated

 
relational
 
expressing
 

differentiates

 

According

 

process

 

abstractive

 
developed
 
occupied
 

volume