Mon 4 Dec 2006
End
Posted by David Banach under David Banach , Philosophy Department Blog , Weekly Word[7] Comments
As the semester draws to a close, it seems appropriate to talk about endings. What is an ending, and what does it imply about that which it brings to a close? The mere passage of time does not imply endings: In a constantly changing flux there would be no endings. It might seem that a repetition of common elements would mark out beginnings and endings, but this does not seem to be true either: In an endless series of abababababab’s, extending indefinitely in either direction, would each ‘b’ be a beginning or an ending?
An ending marks out the existence of an event as having an integrity or wholeness separate from others. It marks out a portion of time as a separate entity. What marks out an event, with a beginning and ending, from the undifferentiated flux of becomings? A happening, or event, is the integrated effect of the agency of some entity. When objects act in a coherent and organized way, they sweep out the coherent and organized swatches of time we call events.
When Aristotle, in the Metaphysics, attempted to answer the most fundamental question “What is being?”, he found the answer to lie in substance, the subject of our propositions, the thing to which we attribute properties, the nature or agency that is the internal principle of change within each being. We know a substance and its nature by what it does, by the endings that it makes. The Greek term for end is telos. Aristotle found being to be inherently teleological or purposive: Things exist to create ends, and they are known by the ends that they make.
When we, as substances, aiming at ends, impose our power or agency on the flow of things, the events we create are our actions. In doing so we bring new endings into being. Our lives are full of the endings that result from other natures: the setting of suns, the passing of seasons, the ending of administrative units of academic institutions. The meaning of these depends on how we integrate them into our own attempts to carve up time, our own actions and endings. As we live we attempt to carve out the passage of moments into intelligible units that express the natures we find within ourselves in the course of acting. To live is to create endings. How we live depends on how we integrate the endings that we create with those we encounter from other natures. The semester, like all things, draws to a close. Will we make an end of it, or will it be an ending imposed upon us?
Aristotle was a substance metaphysician, one who held that the being of things, their substance, is what determines their actions, their telos, their endings. A process metaphysician takes events as more fundamental than substance. They would think that the endings define the substance, rather than the substance defining the end, or telos. Does the man make the ending, or does how we end things determine who we are?
Tags: Aristotle, end, life, time
If time is a separate entity, existing outside of humanity’s scope of the universe, an infinite series of un-ending events that expand in endless proportions; isn’t it wrong to even ask the question does time have a beginning or an end? As humans are we trying to question something that doesn’t even exist within our intelligible processes?
For example, time itself is not even a real or measurable event or object.Is it simply a human quality to try to label and quantify such a thing? Humans often refer to time as a type of item or object with substance when in reality it possesses no such qualities. Therefore, does the inquiry into whether time has a begininning or end even hold valid premises? Or more plainly is it even correct to ask such questions? If time is infite and it is not a quantifiable thing (for lack of better words), then it may need no answer. But i do not believe that would be in any way a comforting conclusion to a society that demands scientific proof and most of all, answers.
“Does the man make the ending, or does how we end things determine who we are?”
Man can most certainly shape the course of an ending. Just as a single pebble thrown into a pond creates a series of ripples, so to man leaves his mark on the world. A bad example, but at least one example, is Hitler. His actions consequently shaped a portion of human history. We still feel the effects of the Holocaust today. The dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima was the result of a man-made choice. People in that region still have risk issues with radio-activity and the generations being born in that area were deformed and mutilated. In this sense, man makes the ending.
Of course these effects are limited to the realm of human history and interpretation. It is also crucial to note that in terms of on-going time, these events did not make an ending. Humanity still continues and makes advancements. Man could come to a much different ending.
Conversely, a man can lead a virtuous life, even be mostly perfect at this goal for his entire life. For the these purposes let’s assume he was perfect at achieving a moral life up until his death. yet upon his death he is faced with a certain choice. he makes a mistake that is contradictory to his virtuous lifestyle and dies. Is that end shape who he was. he had acquired a fully virtuous life and was perfect at it his entire life except for that last decision. Does the end make the man? I would argue no, simply because of the entirety of his virtuous life and how long he was virtuous outweighs his one mistake. So in this case the end does not make the man. Yet in some instances people could argue that that last decsion was the true test of character and the end determined the man. But is man not allowed at least one mistake, even if it was the last?
Obviously there are many factors that contribute to this debate that would clarify both positions. If the man’s intention was good, but made a mistake, then i would say the end does not determine who the man was. yet if he completely rejected his supposed ideals then yes, the end determined who he was. Intent and action play a significant role in this istance. Does man’s shaping of an end or an end’s shaping of a man reduce to morality or is there something deeper or more plain and emirical?
i should have proof read these.
Matt Gendron said “If time is a separate entity, existing outside of humanity’s scope of the universe, an infinite series of un-ending events that expand in endless proportions; isn’t it wrong to even ask the question does time have a beginning or an end?”
I think I agree with you here. There might be entities whose beginnings and endings are beyond our ability to comprehend. What seems to us to be an unending series might be something whose limits are defined by some principle of which we cannot even conceive.
My point here, though, was that things don’t have beginnings and ending merely in virtue of existing in time, through some inherent demarcations within the structure of time itself. Beginnings and endings come from agency of some substance. (Or substances are the result of acts of beginning and ending, if you prefer process terminology)
Matt Gendron said
“Does the end make the man? I would argue no, simply because of the entirety of his virtuous life and how long he was virtuous outweighs his one mistake. So in this case the end does not make the man.”
This is a good example to discuss. The whole issue lies in determining what event is ended by this one mistake. My whole point is that endings imply unity or wholeness in a duration of time that can only be achieved by some agency. If I say the words “Merry Christmas” I have organized a moment of time around the saying of this word with a beginning and an ending. When I get to the end of “Christmas,” I have not only made an ending of that word, but also of the entire phrase. My agency in this case unifies the entire duration. If I flubbed the ending it would have ruined the entire phrase. When a person makes a mistake at the end of my life the question is what exactly is ending: Is it simply the bad action they have just completed, or have they made a mistake that affects the act whereby their entire life exists as a wholeness or unity. Are they writing the end of merely that day, or of their entire life? If I flub “Merry Christmas,” I have not ruined my whole day, since there is no single act of agency which ties together the meaningful events of the day with that enunciation. My main point was that to end a duration requires an agency that extends over that duration. To the extent that our agency operates in a coherent way to unify the moments of our lives into a meaningful whole, to precisely that extent, we persist in time. Most of us tie our lives together into a whole only fitfully and incompletely, and only those happenings that we can so integrate into our story have meaning for us, only they define us. Most of us won’t write the ends of our stories. They will be imposed upon us by outside forces in a way we cannot fully choose or make meaningful to ourselves. Only the endings we make fully for ourselves define us. If we fail to fully make an end of each of the episodes of our life, to integrate those endings into our story, then they will fail to define us.
In regards to the first comment, on time, I was not really responding to the article. I was simply reflecting upon humanity’s constant obsession with why or how time began and whether it was even right to ask such a question. Your point makes sense though. My comment was just a random thought
David banach said, “My whole point is that endings imply unity or wholeness in a duration of time that can only be achieved by some agency.”
I am not familiar with what you mean by agency, can you be alittle more specific for my behalf?