Go home!



NOTE: This is a fan page.
Dr. Leithart does not have a Facebook account.

RECENT ENTRIES
-Moving Day
-Senecan Pepys
-Gentlemanly Ethics
-Crossed out
-Seneca in English
-Sermon notes
-Pop Culture
-Unchained Bible
-Res Publica
-Spiritual commerce
-Draw near to hear
-Musical evangelism
-Voice of the Martyrs
-Trinity Institute: Norman Shepherd Says
-Trinity Institute: A Student Perspective
-For My Name’s Sake
-Iron sinews
-Sermon notes
-Seeking worshipers
-Responsive craft
CATEGORY ARCHIVES
  • LINKS
    - Biblical Horizons
    - Covenant Worldview Institute
    - Theologia
    FEED

    CONTACT

    Comments:
    leithart@leithart.com

    Problems:
    webmaster@leithart.com





    |
    |

    Philosophy: Mead again

    [Print] | [PDF] | [Email]

    Mead says clock time and calendar time is time only “in a manner of speaking.”  He also argues that clock and calendar time is not “absolute” but relative to one’s frame of reference.  True that, as my kids say: “Monday” spells gloom within the framework of a certain organization of the working week, and more specifically within the framework of a certain job.

    But why should “relative” time be time only “in a manner of speaking”?  Must something be “absolute” to be fully real?  Mead lusts for an absolute time like Newton’s even though a lot of his project is anti-Newtonian.  He relocates absolute time, but like Newton he reduces everything outside his absolute time to “relative” and “not-quite-time” time.

    posted by Peter J. Leithart on Thursday, June 19, 2008 at 12:35 pm