amorphous_constellation
Well-Known Member
So in america, we seem to count the primary blocks of time in centuries; in 100 year spans. Other places may do things different. But what influences us to do this? Is there an efficiency, or expediency in doing this? Does it also 'slow things down' in a sense, or break things apart into bite-size chunks? Is it a merely a product of language/math, since the number '100' looks aesthetically like a symbol of completion? If we did not count time in 100 year spans, then things would seem to happen in a 'quicker' way, as maybe too many things would blend together, right? Books are usually written in chapters, and paragraphs allow pages to be easier to read
So now, there are two context in which history can be counted: the religious, and the political / secular. Both of these rough camps disagree, I feel, on perhaps three things , in relation to this topic. These are what progress means, what the future means, and what the past means. But I think that 'what the future means' is the primary question that both of these camps deal with.
The present, the past, and progress are all viewed via either a political or religious lens, and then through the lens of future goals, which is where these two camps can vastly differ. Or it seems so. Every century, every second, is either a point toward either some goal involving secular efficiency, or theological fulfillment. Great importance, or conversely, great inefficiency, can be attributed to past events by these two camps.
The 'century' is important, because both camps coincidentally use it, but might actually have radically different views on the concept. A hardcore secular science follower, or believer in political progress, might see the general duration as being insignificant, in the face of all of scientific history or political history, and he might see the human activity in any given century as a waste of time, if humans were not making much 'progress' in that particular century, in those contexts. A religious follower might conversely see much 'progress' has having happened in that same century - toward theological goals, which are seen to help in the fulfillment of future goals, in their view
So, a 'slow' century to one of the camps might be a 'fast' one to the other, with variation
I find that most people do not talk about the future, but talk mostly about the present, however. This is sort of a distraction in a sense, in that all views actually seek to shape the future. Or do they
For the idea of the future, and the supposed goals in it, that are now unfulfilled, but are to be fulfilled, actually represents a supposed concept that every human view has in common. Or has most in common. And yet, an actual map of the future is one of the most amorphous, nebulous things in a sense, as I feel that no group really presents a concrete map of how things should be, or even could be. Perhaps this is why 'the present' is talked about the most, although that might actually be wasting time, in a sense
And to add a final question, were humans counting time in a religious sense first, before they did so in a scientific or humanistic sense?
So now, there are two context in which history can be counted: the religious, and the political / secular. Both of these rough camps disagree, I feel, on perhaps three things , in relation to this topic. These are what progress means, what the future means, and what the past means. But I think that 'what the future means' is the primary question that both of these camps deal with.
The present, the past, and progress are all viewed via either a political or religious lens, and then through the lens of future goals, which is where these two camps can vastly differ. Or it seems so. Every century, every second, is either a point toward either some goal involving secular efficiency, or theological fulfillment. Great importance, or conversely, great inefficiency, can be attributed to past events by these two camps.
The 'century' is important, because both camps coincidentally use it, but might actually have radically different views on the concept. A hardcore secular science follower, or believer in political progress, might see the general duration as being insignificant, in the face of all of scientific history or political history, and he might see the human activity in any given century as a waste of time, if humans were not making much 'progress' in that particular century, in those contexts. A religious follower might conversely see much 'progress' has having happened in that same century - toward theological goals, which are seen to help in the fulfillment of future goals, in their view
So, a 'slow' century to one of the camps might be a 'fast' one to the other, with variation
I find that most people do not talk about the future, but talk mostly about the present, however. This is sort of a distraction in a sense, in that all views actually seek to shape the future. Or do they
For the idea of the future, and the supposed goals in it, that are now unfulfilled, but are to be fulfilled, actually represents a supposed concept that every human view has in common. Or has most in common. And yet, an actual map of the future is one of the most amorphous, nebulous things in a sense, as I feel that no group really presents a concrete map of how things should be, or even could be. Perhaps this is why 'the present' is talked about the most, although that might actually be wasting time, in a sense
And to add a final question, were humans counting time in a religious sense first, before they did so in a scientific or humanistic sense?
Last edited: