Not from time to existence, but from existence to time.

In thinking about the theory of time

I think that the theory of time is one of the questions that occupies a major place in Western philosophy. The concept of time, which we deal with on a daily basis in our lives, is often treated as a theme in the history of thought since ancient times, as seen in the works of Aristotle and Augustine, in the sense that the reality of time is not well understood when trying to explain it theoretically.

Looking back briefly at the concept of time, it is composed of three concepts. These are, of course, the past, the present, and the future.

The past does not exist, the present exists, and the future does not exist yet.

This seemingly common sense definition of each point in time is the starting point for a discussion on the time.

The Concept of Time and the Present

A more fundamental point in time is the present. This is because only the present exists, and it is at the present point that we can know the phenomena that are directly given to the mind, and furthermore, the present point (although it should not be called a point exactly) is in a continuous state of change, and consciousness exists in contact with its non-identical identity.

This group of problems, such as consciousness, mind, and existence, is in contact with the present.

However, in the theory of time, this present is conceptual in a bad way, and there is nothing more to say about it.

On the other hand, I think that time and existence, and more broadly, many of the problems of philosophy, are contained in this time (the present).

With this in mind, I think that the present is the most important theme in temporal theory, and that it is a theme that needs to be (or can be) grounded in ontological and epistemological perspectives beyond the framework of temporal theory.

Mind, Consciousness, and Perception The Starting Point of Inquiry

I think it was Berkley who said that to be perceived is to be existent. He was a philosopher who represented the philosophical position of idealism, and his position, which he formulated in criticism of Locke's empiricism, is paradoxical yet persuasive.

I would like to begin my inquiry into the concept of "present-existence" on the basis of what is certain, as Descartes once showed in his Introduction to Method.

This certainty would be the phenomenon directly given to my mind, and also this consciousness, this perception.

If this is the case, then the concept of the present or existence should be thought of in such a way that its nature can be revealed by analyzing these mind, consciousness, and perception.

On the other hand, such an idea contains a single premise, which has become a structure in itself. In this sense, it may not be "free," but it does not change the fact that of the paths we can choose now, the one with the greatest probability of certainty is the one I mentioned above.

In other words, my position is that it would be appropriate to explore the problem from the side of existence, consciousness, and mind, rather than starting from the concept of time.