digest

RUSSELL’S ANSWER TO ZENO: THE CINEMATOGRAPH What is significant for Ó Maoilearca and Ansell Pearson, is that Russell answers Zeno’s paradox with another paradox. The continuous motion of time is upheld by the continuity of an infinitely unspooling number of films. There is never any next film but

ZENO’S PARADOX: MOVEMENT AND THE NATURALIST VIEW The fact of this articulation points to another source in natural language. Language, in particular written language, gives the impression of there being a continuity underlying discontinuous discrete states of things. The letters don’t make sense without it. Then where does

TIME AS SUCCESSION: DURATION Since duration frees succession from predetermination, since duration saves time, so to speak, from the determinism where saying pre-, before and after, actually makes no sense, there does then seem to be something worth contesting. Bergson’s duration shows succession. It shows time to be of

VIRTUAL MULTIPLICITY Ó Maoilearca and Ansell Pearson in their introduction distinguish between this kind of multiplicity, where everything possible is actual and exists, of which temporal succession is no longer a necessary part, and what Bergson calls a virtual multiplicity. A virtual multiplicity is not composed of discrete and divisible

HISTORICAL TIME AND THE CONTEST BETWEEN CINEMATIC TIME AND SCIENTIFIC TIME Reading Bergson is difficult because of a set of metaphors wholly other to those found naturally in language, in fact allowing them to relinquish primacy and sink into the background. This is the same background of historical time and

DURATION OR NATURAL TIME Bergson realised that in science’s understanding time needn’t pass. For science there is no endurance. There is the passage between states but in themselves these do not endure. Science does not measure the time internal to their endurance. Rather states are measured at each