I sit watching the clock tick by, hour by hour, minute by minute, second by second, one by one

while I procrastinate this definition essay. Watching the clock, instants originate and end in that same
moment and I remain stagnant on the computer waiting through time...time. Time ticks away so I better
get to work now. Now? We are taught the three tenses: past, present, future, the linear progression
from one to the next. We "then" learn, we never live in the future or the past, we only grasp the
present, the past is merely what was present, while the future is what will be present and the present is
the now, the place we live in. But we do not live days at a time, not even seconds at a time, milliseconds
do not even approach the instant that is now... darn, it's gone. The present is merely the dichotomy
between the future and past, the infinitesimal border separating what was and what will be and we
supposedly live on/in this thin margin. So is my identity this fleeting? Is time, the fundamental building
block of life, of identity this miniscule?
Time is so elementary yet always escaping, in quantity and definition. Perhaps it would be easier
to say time is "in itself", the basic postulate of the world that requires no definition because it just is. But
that would be boring. Rather, this essay is a genealogy of time, a study of time through time so to speak.
Hopefully in this circular interrogation, the singularity of a moment, the essence of time may reveal
itself. Before continuing I feel compelled to admit I am well aware how cryptic this essay seems, how
abstruse it appears thus far. However, perhaps in this quagmire of an essay, maybe time, a seemingly
axiomatic concept, can be understood, at least slightly for approaching the topic directly denies the
fundamentality of time. At the very least, know this, it gets clearer.
Let us assume we exist, it seems to be a fair assumption since Aristotle and St. Augustine both
meditated on time with this assumption and this is where we start. Aristotle, after examining physics,
the natural system of the world by which things change, makes the first observation of time. Aristotle,
(and St. Augustine recognized) recognized the infinite divisibility of temporality. Functionally, all
durations of time can be divided into smaller intervals to no end, therefore negating any finite measure
of the present. Aristotle concluded, like most philosophers that would proceed him, past and present
are defined in relation to now. Nevertheless, the now is not singular, rather there is a now-no-longer
here and a now-to-come and the now we live in is overtaken, succeeded by the now-to-come. Thus, the
now-to-come destroys the now at the moment making it a now-no-longer. This process of succession is
what the progression of time is. However, Aristotle violated the one assumption he made, a stable
identity. When identity is defined only in the now, no stable identity can exist if there are multiple nows.
Rather, identity would be segmented, destroyed and recreated, no longer existing continuously. At this,
St. Augustine begins from the hole, identity. St. Augustine, as outlined in Confessions, details a
subjective approach to time. Perhaps time is always contingent on the Self's subjective interpretation of
existence. Simply put, each one of us understands our existence in a certain way. That certain way, the
trajectory for which we map ourselves in this world defines time. Time is a sewing together of the
moments in which we follow our function of existence. But that only answers the identity question. The
issue is, on the coordinate plane, we now have a well formulated identity axis, but the time axis had now
been presumed yet again rather than defined.
Soon enough, the Enlightenment dawns and we are presented with Kant's subjective
formulation of time. Similar to St. Augustine, Kant affirmed a subjective understanding of an "existence
function". But, unlike St. Augustine, Kant believed time came second to identity and that the self formed
a conception of time based on their "existence function". In English: when someone maps a trajectory of
their existence, they form a subjective interpretation of time that enables this path to work. This means,
time is not universalized but always situational and relative, based on the person. This was characteristic
of the Enlightenment, a movement used to invert the hierarchy of transcendence and place that which
was lower at the top. Instead of time being the most fundamental, identity was now the basis; the
subject preceded temporality. Though, for a movement founded on rationally and fully explaining
phenomena, the concept of an "existence function" seemed nebulous at best. This is where
postmodernism came in, and more specifically Martin Heidegger. Heidegger, in Being and Time, negates
the subjective nature of an existence function but maintained a relational stance towards temporality.
All beings exist in the same way, we are born and we die, those are the only two points on the graph.
For Heidegger, time is defined as the path along which a being gets from the first point to the last. In this
way, Heidegger adopts a teleological conception of time understanding time to be contingent on the
person's body but the existence of said person to be universalized. Essentially, if Kant believed time and
existence were both subjective, Heidegger avowed a subjective time and objective existence. To
complete the square, Aristotle understood the world in terms of an objective time and objective
existence while St. Augustine understood an objective time and subjective existence.
We have now successfully (to some extent) historicized time but have gotten no further in
defining the ever elusive time. Maybe examining the commonalities of these different conceptions of
time will enable us to go further. The history reveals a time war or rather a war about time. Each
individual philosopher and school of thought declared a given understanding of time and in each
understanding a time-identity binary was assumed. Furthermore, in each conception, one was affirmed
over the other, one transcended the other. For Aristotle and St. Augustine, time was established and
identity fit into the progression. The Enlightenment signified the inversion of the binary with the identity
forming the basis for temporality. Finally, Heidegger and the Postmodernists (the ultimate Motown
band) attempted to mitigate the transcendence system by interlinking the two even more, only to place
identity at the top with time closely following. So if time has only changed based on its relationship to
identity, finding the answer to the "age-old" question of which came first may reveal our answer. In
asking this question, we come across the second commonality: change.
While every conception of time had a slightly different view on the identity-time binary, all were
grounded in the concept of change. To illustrate this point, I entreat you to imagine as best as you can
a world of complete stagnation. This means no wind blowing, no Earth rotating, no black hole sucking us
into nothingness, just complete "still-ness", absolute zero. Unfortunately, this world always lies beyond
our ability to envision because of the radical impossibility of said world. In this world, does time exist?
We must conclude no. While we cannot even fathom the structure (or lack-thereof) of this world, we
can somewhat understand that complete stagnancy would imply a level of sameness that corresponds
to one picture, one place, one moment. This moment is eternal because nothing propels it to change.
So if change unifies all understanding of time, time is always a becoming. A changing entity premised on
fluctuation of something. Now if only we could understand that something.
So we return to the previous question about the identity-time binary. Which one establishes the
other? Well we have concluded that time is becoming-something so the only "logical" option for that
something is identity. That must mean identity established time. But wait, identity must be situated
somewhere, we cannot just overlook the one concern Aristotle set up. So identity is becoming-time;
therefore, time must be transcendent. Nonetheless, if time is dependent upon flux, something must
vary and the only fundamental thing that can be varied is identity so it appears we have approached a
paradox , have we not? Well, what necessitates a structure of transcendence? Maybe time and identity
were never in competition, never struggling against one another but rather are codependent, immanent
to one another.
Time and identity are always becoming one another, always traced together. Perhaps
substituting the word space for identity makes this definition more lucid. Time is becoming-space and
space is becoming-time. In Derridean terms, they are characterized by the Difference between one
another. Possibly the best way to understand this phenomena is through Einstein's theory of General
Relativity. Instead of conceptualizing of time and space as independent entities related to one another
by different functions, Einstein developed the theory that time and space were part of the same entity
creatively labeled spacetime. This spacetime associated a progression of time and behavior of space at
each "point" or event on the plane. Similarly, time and identity are not just interrelated phenomena but
inseparable parts of an overarching plane of immanence we live in where our selves and the time our
selves develop in are one in the same, produced together, dialectically inseparable.
So where does that leave us? Well it has been three hours since I began this entanglement of an
essay but what does that mean? Maybe it means 1,580 words have been written and two terrible
movies have finished on TBS. Perhaps it signifies the change in the temperature and weather or the
change in the mood of the people around me. For you , maybe it means the summation of the actions
you have done or the thoughts that have run through your head while you read this "essay". Maybe all
those originated from the time that this essay signifies. More than likely, it is the inextricable link
between the two theories. Nevertheless, that is part of the beauty of time, you cannot fully understand
it but you can live it.