catapult magazine

For the Christian doctrine of the Incarnation is not simply a theophany—a revelation of God to Man; it is a new creation—the introduction of a new spiritual principle which gradually leavens and transforms human nature into something new. The history of the human race hinges on this unique divine event which gives spiritual unity to the whole historic process. First there is the history of the Old Dispensation which is the story of the providential preparation of mankind for the Incarnation when “the fulness of time,” to use St. Paul’s expression, had come. Secondly there is the New Dispensation which is the working out of the Incarnation in the life of the Christian Church. And finally there is the realization of the divine purpose in the future: in the final establishment of the Kingdom of God when the harvest of this world is reaped. Thus the Christian conception of history is essentially unitary. It has a beginning, a center, and an end. This beginning, this center, and this end transcend history; they are not historical events in the ordinary sense of the word, but acts of divine creation to which the whole process of history is subordinate. For the Christian view of history is a vision of history sub specie aeternitatis, an interpretation of time in terms of eternity and of human events in the light of divine revelation.

This is taken from Christopher Dawson’s Dynamics of World History. I posted this as an introduction to myself, as I just recently became aware of catapultmagazine.com. What I have quoted is one of the many inspiring passages in Dawson’s book. He is a personal favourite of mine.

Hi rgrydus! A lot of issues in there. I recommend Augustine’s Confessions, Book 11, in which he takes a different approach. He ‘proves’ that the past doesn’t exist because it isn’t here anymore. The future doesn’t exist because it hasn’t happened yet. And the present doesn’t exist because you can always break it into infinitely smaller and smaller pieces until it basically disappears. He also admits that he can’t explain what time is. It’s a good read. I’m simplfying, but he concludes that the past, present, and future exist because of language. Basically, I talk therefore I am (not quite, but you get my drift).

You might be interested in the discussion about history that was going on in ‘literature’ under a the heading “War and Peace” I think.

I just reread my response and the original quote, and I’m not sure how appropriate my response was—or if we’re even talking about the same things. Chalk it up to being in the dark depths of historiography studies… I see Augustine and Aristotle in everything right now.

Dan, I am familiar with Augustine’s approach from the Confessions. I find it to be one of the more aimless sections of that book.
Augustine may logically destroy any notion of time, yet I find that essentially useless. A rationale that destroys that which I cannot exist apart from ie. time, seems to me to be a useless tool. It only serves to illustrate man’s inability to grasp in its entirety God’s creation.
I would prefer to presuppose that I am a finite and temporal creature. Nothing I can do about it. Nor should I find this condition distressing, as it is as God intended.
Augustine’s discussion is heavily influenced by a Neo-platonic conception of time, I think.

I am interested about what Aristotle had to say about time as I am unfamiliar with his thinking on this subject.

I wouldn’t say that Augustine destroys the notion of time. While he admits that he can’t explain what it is, he very clear in saying that when he speaks about the past or the future he knows what that means. Although he can logically deconstruct past, present, and future, he can’t stop people from talking as if these things exist. They do exist. And as you say, time is essential to being human. Augustine would agree with that. I’m not very well-versed in Plato, but going on what I know, I don’t think Plato would condone how Augustine shows the limits of logical inquiry.

I don’t have time right now to talk about Aristotle. I’ll come back to that later.

I believe Plato would have a fit.