Explain Augustine’s temporal paradox

Augustines temporal puzzle can be explained by starting temperh our typical beliefs about term, to wit the past does non exist, the early is yet to exist and hardly the register in reality exists. However the actual world of the present has no age because it immediately becomes the past or the future the moment we try to set apart it. In the words of St. Augustine, The present hath no space. The temporal paradox refers to the existence only of the present which however does non have a duration.Following this temporal paradox and Augustine treated time in ontological terms, i.e. in relation to the personality of being and existence. We derive the notion of time by perceiving something that has passed, something that exists and something that will exist in the future. Time is embodied and manifested d cardinal the duration of things that come into being to the present that passed a authority in an ceaseless continuum of past and future. Consequently, material things mov e from none existence to existence to non existence (past, present and future).The perpetuation of the time continuum entails that the top dog expects, and attends, and remembers, so that what it expects passes by way of what it attends to into what it remembers. (Augustine, 2002, p236) What the mind expects is the future, what is remembers is the past and what it attends to at the moment is the present, which is what exists. Attending to the present does not refer to our location or inhabitance in this time continuum but ones capturing of the immediate past in the holding. This is precisely because the present has no duration or no space and it is only through memory that we can attend to it.For St. Augustine, even time is created by God and thence he is beyond the continuum of the time series to which people and all opposite things ar bound. God is in a state of Eternal instantly, where the present, past and future atomic number 18 at all once. However, while St. Augustines estimation of time is very revolutionary, it nevertheless has critical repercussions that run absurd which Christian principles which he originally wanted to justify and defend.With the past and future all happening in the present for God, people therefore are already predestined to what will happen to them. People were not rattling given the gift of choice or freewill but are doomed to end up to how God have designed their world. What seemed to be a series of choices for people in this space of time is actually a finished or done design for God. (Von Martelsand Schmidt, V, 2003, p79-102)2-Imagine that Russell and Berkeley are seance across from each other at elude. Write a get around dialogue (about 500 words) that captures each philosophers views with respect to the ontological stead of the control panel. Be sure to bring out areas of agreement and disagreementIn order to prize Bishop Berkeley, one must first fully understand that ontology focuses on the nature of essenc e and meaning of being. Berkeley is a major proponent of subjective standardism in which ultimately argues that the world including all the material objects are not real but are mere collections of perceptions of human experience, which is what is real. It highlights that significance of mind before matter and the preordained connection of mind and body.Thinking is function that people ceaselessly do, consciously, unconsciously or subconsciously in relating to their environment. The mind is essential to be considered in understanding the nature of the universe because everything entailed the cognizance of the mind. Thus, the universe is the point of intersection of the mind. (Bourgeois, 2003, 162-163)Berkeley will not deny that the table being observed is in spades real but it needs to be subjected to ones consciousness before we know it is real. Moreover, the real essence of the table or that which makes a table what it is resides in the idea of the table which is in the mind of God. It does not rest on the physical table which we get the pictured because our experiences of the table vary. opus we see the table is brown, square(a) and smooth, our experience of the brownness, solidness or insipidness of the table differs. There is a disparity between what at we perceive and what is real.Russell agrees with Berkeleys idea that the act of perception is dependent on the mind but the mind is only the mental functioning of the mentality hence, the perceptions therefore do not actually exist in the mind. We only get to have a mental idea of what a table is through our perception of the physical table. Perception is the prime source of noesis (Engel, S., 2001, p 250-260).Knowledge is mainly based on the acquisition, interpretation, selection and organization of schooling what we perceive. In Bertrand Russells own words, our ideas are derived from two sources, sensation, and perception of the work of our own mind, which may be called internal sense. (Russ ell, 2004, p556) Hence, we form our idea of table from the perception.This approximation of what reality through our senses, despite differences in the forcefulness of what brownness, solidness and smoothness of the table is real experience we can constitute by observation and generalization. Incidentally, this is the underlying philosophy of science. In the end, we gain our knowledge about the table not from an innate idea of a table but through an observation of the table.We know that a table is brown, solid and smooth, irregardless of the intensity of these descriptions from different people. Perception is the first step and gunpoint towards knowledge and the inlet of all the materials in it. (Russel, 2004, p556) And that is what is real regardless of the ideal table that we can conceive.ReferencesAugustine and Outler, A. (2002). The Confessions of St. Augustine. Translated by Albert Cook Outler. Courier Dover PublicationsBourgeois, W. (2003). Persons What Philosophers verif y about You. 2nd edition. Wilfrid Laurier Univ. Press.Engel, S. (2001). The Study of Philosophy. Rowman & Littlefield,Russell, B. (2004). History of Western Philosophy. 2nd edition. RoutledgeVon Martels, Z. R. W. M. and Schmidt, VM. ancientness Renewed Late Classical and Early Modern Themes. PREDESTINATION AND THE injury OF DRAMA FROM AUGUSTINE TO CALVIN by MB Pranger. Peeters Publishers