timelets | (no subject)

The past and the present do not denote two successive moments, but two elements which coexist: One is the present, which does not cease to pass, and the other is the past, which does not cease to be but through which all presents pass. It is in this sense that there is a pure past, a kind of "past in general": The past does not follow the present, but on the contrary, is presupposed by it as the pure condition without which it would not pass. In other words, each present goes back to itself as past.

G. Deleuze. Bergsonism. 1988.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

How do they know all this? Funny how people with probably not much knowledge of physics tend to teach others how things work. Funny. It's almost religion.

Philosophers construct self-consistent concepts about the world. It's up to us whether to consider/learn them or not. In this particular case, Bergson tries to figure out how to identify true vs false problems, which is quite interesting in itself, etc. Besides, physics doesn't teach you much about human experience.