Contemporary Wisdom

A Philosophical Analysis of the Fastness and Slowness of Time

Document Type : Biannual Journal

Author

Mahdi Assadi

Assistant Professor of Islamic Philosophy and Contemporary Wisdom, Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies, Tehran, Iran

https://doi.org/10.30465/cw.2024.49080.2058
Abstract
Abstract
Introduction
Although the time dilation is one of the important problems of physics and its philosophy in the contemporary world, throughout history too some philosophers have – though negatively and in a critical manner – discussed about it: they have usually proposed the plurality of and the slowness/fastness of time as a probable view and then have criticized it by several proofs. On the contrary, especially some Neo–Ṣadrīan philosophers have explicitly asserted that there are as many times as motions. These times can even be – in a way different from the relativity physics – slow or fast: if a motion is fast, then its time too is fast; and if it is slow, its time too is slow. I have gathered, in this paper, the philosophical reasons of the two opposite views and have rationally analyzed and criticized them. I have showed that the various reasons of the notable opponents of the plurality of and the dilation of time – including Aristotle, Plotinus, Ibn Sīnā, Abū al–Barakāt al–Baghdādī and Fakhr al–Dīn al–Rāzī – are not very strong. But the claim of the proponents can philosophically be strengthened and reconstructed.
Method
I collect and review various perspectives using the historical method, then analyze and assess them using the philosophical method and through logical tools.
Discussion
While Plato’s Timaeus suggests that not just one time but various times can exist, it does not address the relativity of time and the slowness and fastness of these times. Aristotle denied the plurality of time and also claimed that time cannot be described as fast or slow; Otherwise, this would create a vicious circle: a fast time would be one that occurs in a short time. In critique of Aristotle's argument, we can show that:
(1) By distinguishing between the time per se and the relational time, no circularity arises. For instance, in a one–hour contest, since the rabbit's motion is faster than the turtle's, the rabbit motion’s time per se – subordinate to the fastness of its motion – must be more than the turtle motion’s time per se. This distinction is not, of course, incompatible with the fact that the relational time of both of them to be the current one–hour compared with, and related to, the current time of todays.
(2) This argument would work only if there were no other way to understand a fast time, but there is. Because, one of the descriptive definitions (Rasm) of "fast" is for something to reach and exceed something else. By such a definition, we see that the rabbit reaches and exceeds the moving turtle. To grasp, here, the meaning of reaching and exceeding, we do not need to understand the time. Thus, at least in this example, understanding fastness does not require an understanding of time.
(3) If the fast time involves circularity, then the fast motion, just in the same way, would also involve circularity, as a fast motion is defined as a motion occurring in a short measure of motion (= in a short time).
Likewise, other claims of Aristotle about the unity of time and its lacking fastness and slowness can be challenged. For instance, in the case of time, he conflates the typical and numerical unity.
After Plotinus, Ibn Sīnā, Abū al–Barakāt al–Baghdādī, and Fakhr al-Dīn al–Rāzī, who presented objectionable views on the problem at hand, Muḥammad Ḥusayn Ṭabāṭabāyī argued that there are as many times as there are motions, and Jawādī Āmulī explicitly discussed the fastness and slowness of time. My own view too is that since time is the measure of motion, it is inevitable to accept the multiplicity of time and even its subordinate fastness and slowness: since motion is numerous, measure of motion (time) is also numerous. And since motions are fast or slow, their measures, namely times, too are fast or slow subordinate to themselves. Nevertheless, the neo–Ṣadrīan philosophers have connected other views to this theory, which I believe are unnecessary and even mistaken, such as the general substantial motion and the uniform general time. The general substantial motion cannot be established through the general and common time.
Firstly, since time is the measure of motion, so assuming the existence of time already presupposes the existence of motion. And from an epistemic point of view too, we, as Aristotle notes, can experience no time if we are aware of no motion. Hence, it is question–begging to establish motion through time. Similarly, assuming the existence of general and common time presupposes the existence of general motion, making it question–begging to prove general motion (whether substantial or non–substantial) through general time.
Secondly, I believe that if time is considered as the measure of motion, then to prove the uniform general and common time, we must establish the existence of a permanent or long–lasting motion uniform without acceleration. However, since such a uniform motion has not been proven in the exact sense of the term, the uniform general and common time, whether substantial time or accidental one, cannot be proven in the exact sense of the term either.
Conclusion
Throughout history, some have argued that there is only one time, presenting its fastness or slowness as a hypothetical possibility that they subsequently reject. Aristotle denied the plurality of time and dismissed, due to the problem of circularity, its fastness or slowness as well. After critically addressing the circularity objection, I also challenge his other claims about the unity of time and its lack of fastness or slowness. The main point of Plotinus's objections concerning the relationship between the time and the measure of motion, if it is correct, is the fact that it would only challenge the specifically Aristotelian version; Otherwise, there is no issue with having multiple motions and multiple times as well, where each time is subordinate to its own specific motion.
Due to the regress argument against the existence of time, Ibn Sīnā rejects the existence of the plurality of times. However, I have showed that no regress would occur if the essential time and per se one be distinct from the accidental and relational time. I even, in defense of the plurality of time, present several other objections to Ibn Sīnā's position.
After reviewing and criticizing the arguments by Abū al–Barakāt al–Baghdādī and Fakhr al–Rāzī regarding the rejection of time as the measure of motion and the denial of the multiplicity of time, I show that Muḥammad Ḥusayn Ṭabāṭabāyī was the first Muslim thinker to explicitly support the idea that there are as many times as motions. Similarly, Jawādī Āmulī explicitly advocates for the fastness and slowness of time. My own view too is to show that since time is the measure of motion, it is inevitable to accept the plurality of time and even its subordinate fastness and slowness, although this differs from the treatment of time in the relativity physics.

Keywords

Plurality of Time
Slowness
Fastness
Peripatetic Philosophy
Ṣadrīan Philosophy

Subjects

Abidi Shāhrūdi, Ali. 2009. “Synthetical Motion of Substance and a Critique of Einstein’s Theory of Relativity”. Naqd Va Nazar. Vol. 14. Issue 54. No. 54. pp. 128-133. [In Persian]
ʻAlawī ʻĀmilī, Aḥmad ibn Zain al-ʻAbidīn. Undated. Miftāḥ al-Shifā wa al-ʻUrwat al-Wuthqá. Manuscript Copy. Tehran: Library of the Islamic Consultative Assembly. Number: 1787. [In Arabic]
Āmīdī, Saif al-Dīn. Undated. al-Maʼākhidh ʻalá al-Maṭālib al-ʻĀlīyah. Manuscript Copy. Feyzullah Efendi. Number: 1101. [In Arabic]
Aquinas, St. Thomas .1963. Commentary on Aristotle's Physics. Translated by Blackwell, Spath and Thirlkel. Yale University Press
Aristotle .1983. Aristotle Physics: Books III and IV. Translated with Introduction and Notes by Edward Hussey. Oxford: Clarendon Press
Aristotle .1991. Complete Works. The Revised Oxford Translation. Edited By Jonathan Barnes. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Aristotle. 1999. Physics (Samāʿ Ṭabīʿī). Translated to Persian by Muḥammad Ḥasan Luṭfī. Tehran: Ṭarḥ Nu. [In Persian]
Augustinus. 2002. Confessions. Translated to Persian by Sāyih‌ Miythamī. Tehran: Daftar Pazhuhish wa Nashr Suhrawardī. [In Persian]
Baghdādī, Abū al–Barakāt. 1994. Al–Muʿtabar fī al–Ḥikmah. Vol. 2 & 3. Isfahan: University of Isfahan. [In Arabic]
Bukhārī, Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad ibn Mubārakshāh. 1974. Ḥikmat al-‘Ain wa Sharḥuh. Edited by Jaʻfar Zāhidī. Mashhad: University of Firdawsī. [In Arabic]
Dihbāshī, Mahdī. 2007. Pazhūhishī Taṭbīqī dar Hastī‌ Shināsī Wa Shinākht Shināsī Mullā Ṣadrā wa Whitehead (A Comparative Study of Ontology and Epistemology of Mulla Sadra and Whitehead). Tehran: ʻIlm. [In Persian]
Einstein, Albert and Leopold Infeld. 1982. The Evolution of Physics: The Growth of Ideas from Early Concepts to Relativity and Quanta. Translated to Persian by Aḥmad Ārām. Tehran: Khārazmī. [In Persian]
Ḥaydarī, Kamāl .2016. Sharḥ Nihāyat al–Ḥikmah. Vol. 5 & 9. Bayrūt: Muʼassasat al-Hudá. [In Arabic]
Ḥillī, Ḥasan ibn Yūsuf .1998. Nihāyat al-Marām fī ‘Ilm al-Kalām. Vol. 1 & 3. Edited by: Fāḍil ʻIrfān. Qum: Muʼassasat al-Imām al-Ṣādiq. [In Arabic]  
Ḥillī, Ḥasan ibn Yūsuf .2000. al-Asrār al-Khafīyyah fī al-ʻUlūm al-ʻAqlīyyah. Qum: Markaz al-Abḥāth wa al-Dirāsāt al-Islāmīyyah Qism Iḥyāʼ al-Turāth al-Islāmī. [In Arabic]  
Ḥusaynī Ṭahrānī, Muḥammad Ḥusayn. 2004. Maʻād Shināsī. Vol. 8. Mashhad: Intishārāt ʻAllāmah Ṭabāṭabāʼī
Ibn Rushd .1993. Tahāfut al-Tahāfut. Edited by Muḥammad al-ʻArībī. Bayrūt: Dār al-Fikr. [In Arabic]
Ibn Sīnā .2004. al-Ishārāt wa al-Tanbīhāt maʻa Sharḥ al-Ṭūsī. Vol. 3. Qum: Nashr al-Balāghah. [In Arabic]
Ibn Sīnā .2006. al–Shifāʼ: al–Ilāhīyyāt. Edited by Ḥasan Ḥasan–Zādih Āmulī. Qum: Būstān Kitāb Qum. [In Arabic]
Ibn Sīnā. 1984. al-Shifāʼ, al-Ṭabīʻīyyāt, 1 – al-Samāʻ ‏al-Ṭabīʻī. Edited by Saʻīd Zāyid. Qum: Manshūrāt Maktabat Āyat Allāh al-ʻUẓmá Marʻashī Najafī. [In Arabic]
Ibn Sīnā. 1992. Al-Mubāḥathāt. Edited by Muḥsin Bīdārfar. Qum: Bīdārfar. [In Arabic]
Ibn Sīnā. 1996. Al–Nafs min Kitāb al–Shifāʾ. Edited by Ḥasan Ḥasan–Zādih Āmulī. Qum: Markaz al-Nashr al-Tābiʻ Maktab al-Iʻlām al-Islāmī. [In Arabic]
Jawādī Āmulī, ‘Abd Allāh. 2014. Raḥīq Makhtūm: Sharḥ Ḥikmat Mutaʻālīyyah. Vol. 12, 13 & 14. Edited by Ḥamīd Pārsānīyā. Qum: Isrāʾ. [In Persian]
Jawādī Āmulī, ‘Abd Allāh. 2016. Raḥīq Makhtūm: Sharḥ Ḥikmat Mutaʻālīyyah. Vol. 15 & 16. Edited by Ḥamīd Pārsānīyā. Qum: Isrāʾ. [In Persian]
Kamali, Mohammad Mahdi. 2021. “A New Approach in Solving the Problem of "Relationship between fixed beings and moving beings"”. Existence and Knowledge. Vol. 8. Issue 1. No. 15. pp. 7-28. [In Persian]
Karīmī, Bīzhan. 1999. “The Substantial Motion and Time”.  Kheradname-ye Sadra. No. 17. pp. 70-82. [In Persian]
Kātibī ‌Qazwīnī, Najm al-Dīn .2018.  al-Mufaṣṣal fī Sharḥ al-Muḥaṣṣal. Edited by ʻAbd al-Jabbār Abū Sunaynah. ʻAmmān – Dubay: al-Aṣlayn lil-Dirāsāt wa al-Nashr – Kalām lil-Buḥūth wa al-Iʻlām. [In Arabic]
Khūnajī, Afḍal al-Dīn. Undated. Talkhīṣ al-Maṭālib al-ʻĀlīyyah fī ʿIlm al-Kalām. Manuscript Copy. Berlin State Library. Landberg 8. [In Arabic]
Lettinck, Paul .1994. Aristotle's Physics and Its Reception in the Arabic World. E. J. Brill
Miṣbāh Yazdī, Muḥammad Taqī. 2012. Sharḥ Ilāhīyyāt Shifāʼ. Vol. 2. Edited by ʻAbd al-Jawād Ibrāhīmīfar. Qum: Muʼassasah–ʼi Āmūzishī wa Pazhūhishī–ʼi Imām Khumaynī. [In Persian]
Miṣbāḥ Yazdī, Muḥammad Taqī. 2014. Taʻlīqah ʻalá Nihāyat al-Ḥikmah. Qum: Muʼassasah–ʼi Āmūzishī wa Pazhūhishī–ʼi Imām Khumaynī. [In Arabic]
Mostafavi, Nafise. 2017. “Study of Space and Time in the Purgatory by Relativistic physics principles”. Shinakht. Vol. 10. Issue 1. No. 76. pp. 189-205. [In Persian]
Mousavi, Hadi. 2015. “A Solution for the Old Problem of Explaining the Horizontal Gradation”. Naqd Va Nazar. Vol. 20. No. 79. pp. 109-133. [In Persian]
Muṭahharī, Murtaḍā .2006. The Collected Works. Vol. 11. Tehran: Ṣadrā. [In Persian]
Muṭahharī, Murtaḍā .2010. The Collected Works. Vol. 12. Tehran: Ṣadrā. [In Persian]
Philoponus, John .2011. On Aristotle Physics 4.10–14. Translated by Sarah Broadie. Bloomsbury Academic
Plato. 2001. The Complete Works (Dawrih Kāmil Athār Aflāṭūn). Vol. 3. Translated to Persian by Muḥammad Ḥasan Luṭfī and Riḍā Kāwīyānī. Tehran: Khārazmī. [In Persian]
Plotinus. 1987. The Complete Works of Plotinus. Vol. 1. Translated to Persian by Muḥammad Ḥasan Luṭfī. Tehran: Khārazmī. [In Persian]
Rāzī, Fakhr al-Dīn Muhammad Ibn ʻUmar .1986. al-Maṭālib al-ʿĀlīyyah fī ʿIlm al-Kalām. Vol. 4, 5 & 7. Bayrūt: Dār al-Kitāb al-Arabī. [In Arabic]
Rāzī, Fakhr al-Dīn Muhammad Ibn ʻUmar. 1990. al-Mabāḥith al-Mashriqīyyah fī ʻIlm al-Ilāhīyyāt wa al-Ṭabīʻīyyāt‏. Vol. 1. Qum: Intishārāt Bīdār. [In Arabic]
Rāzī, Fakhr al-Dīn Muhammad Ibn ʻUmar. 1994. Sharḥ ʻUyūn al-Ḥikmah. Vol. 2. Tehran: Muʼassasat al-Ṣādiq. [In Arabic]
Shīrāzī (Mullā Ṣadrā), Ṣadr al–Dīn Muḥammad ibn Ibrāhīm. 1981. al–Ḥikmah al–Mutaʻālīyyah fī al–Asfār al–Arbaʻah al–ʻAqlīyyah [The Transcendent Philosophy of the Four Journeys of the Intellect]. Vol., 3, 4, 7 & 9. Bayrūt: Dār Iḥyā al–Turāth al–ʻArabī. [In Arabic]
Shīrāzī (Mullā Ṣadrā), Ṣadr al–Dīn Muḥammad ibn Ibrāhīm. 1987. Tafsīr al-Qurʼān al-Karīm. Vol. 5. Edited by Muḥammad Khājawī. Qum: Intishārāt Bīdār. [In Arabic]
Shīrāzī (Mullā Ṣadrā), Ṣadr al–Dīn Muḥammad ibn Ibrāhīm. 2001. Sharḥ al-Hidāyah al-Athīrīyyah. Edited by Muḥammad Muṣṭafá Fūlādkār. Bayrūt: Muʼassasat al-Tārīkh al-ʻArabī. [In Arabic]
Shīrāzī (Mullā Ṣadrā), Ṣadr al–Dīn Muḥammad ibn Ibrāhīm. 2003. Sharḥ al–Ilāhīyyāt Al–Shifāʼ [Commentary on Avicenna's Metaphysics of the Cure]. Edited by Najafqulī Ḥabībī. Tehran: SIPRIN. [In Arabic]
Simplicius .1992. On Aristotle’s Physics 4.1–5, 10–14. Translated by J. O. Urmson. Bloomsbury Academic
Suhrawardī, Shihāb al–Dīn. 1993. Majmūʻah Muṣannafāt (The Collected Works). Vol. 1. Ed. and Intro. by: H. Corbin. Tehran: Muʼassasah–i Muṭālaʻāt wa Taḥqīqāt–i Farhangī (Institute of Cultural Studies and Researches). [In Arabic]
Ṭabāṭabāyī, Muḥammad Ḥusayn. 1993. Uṣūl Falsafah wa Rawish Realism (with Muṭahharī’s Commentaries). Vol. 4. Tehran: Ṣadrā. [In Persian]
Ṭabāṭabāyī, Muḥammad Ḥusayn. 1999. Bidāyat al–Ḥikmah. Edited with a Commentary by: ʻAbbās ʻAlī Zāri‘ī Sabzawārī. Qum: Muʼassasat al–Nashr al–Islāmī. [In Arabic]
Ṭabāṭabāyī, Muḥammad Ḥusayn. 2007. Majmūʻah Rasāʼil al-ʻAllāmah al-Ṭabāṭabāʼī. Qum: Bāqiyāt. [In Arabic]
Ṭabāṭabāyī, Muḥammad Ḥusayn. 2007. Nihāyat al–Ḥikmah. Edited with a Commentary by: Ghulām Riḍā Fayyāḍī. Qum: Muʼassasah–ʼi Āmūzishī wa Pazhūhishī–ʼi Imām Khumaynī. [In Arabic]
Ṭabāṭabāyī, Muḥammad Ḥusayn. 2009. Nihāyat al–Ḥikmah. Vol. 1 & 2. Edited with a Commentary by: ʻAbbās ʻAlī Zāri‘ī Sabzawārī. Qum: Muʼassasat al–Nashr al–Islāmī. [In Arabic]
 
 
 
Contemporary Wisdom
Volume 15, Issue 1
September 2024
Pages 1-36

Home

Guide for Authors

Submit Manuscript

Reviewers

Contact Us