At the heart of Kümmel’s considerations is the temporal management of change and transformation, which must be carried out in the present, because, according to Kümmel, whatever wants to be done can only be done “now”.

Kümmel distinguishes between experiencing time and imagining time. In the imagination, the continuity of the unity of time is analyzed by means of categorical distinctions in discontinuous aspects. The question of the unity of such mutually exclusive distinctions cannot in principle be answered without contradiction in the imagination. Any attempt at a unified conception of time must remain external and inevitably leads to paradoxes.

This is why change cannot be reconciled with the idea of a present moment (presence). By referring to (past) causes and (future) effects, its continuity is analyzed in discontinuities. Although duration and the passing of the moment formally refer to their reciprocal connection, they nevertheless fall apart in the static idea of a dormant period of time or a restlessly advancing present point. Paradoxically, both refer to rest and movement at the same time.

In our cultural tradition, the paradox is resolved by assigning rest to duration/eternity and movement/contingency to flow. In the sense of a primacy of (supratemporally conceived) being, a persistent substance is then ascribed to things and their changeful emergence and decay is restricted to accidental determinations. In a next step, permanence is reserved for eternity and, with regard to time, only transience is emphasized.

According to Kümmel, such a conception of time, composed of completely heterogeneous elements, becomes a pitfall if the person living in time has to orient himself towards one or the other determination and, with regard to his own existence, makes becoming or passing away or causing or suffering the exclusively experienced existential experience. This establishes a reciprocal existential relationship between the experience of existence and the experience of time, which no longer has anything to do with the objective determination of time. Although duration and flow formally denote one and the same thing, the lived meaning is reversed from one to the other. The existential experience of the Difference of action and suffering is linked to the subjective experience of time as progressing into the future or flowing into the past, as reversible or irreversible, etc.

The self-evidence of having time as an expression of unlimited possibilities and the irrefutable lack of time as an expression of transience and missed opportunities lead to a paradox based in the matter. Wedged between past and future, the present becomes a “nothing” of time. At the same time, however, only the present guarantees “being”, because in contrast to the no-longer-being of the past and the not-yet-being of the future, the “now” is the only time that really “is” and ultimately has to bear everything in terms of time possibilities.

Kümmel speaks of the twofold challenge to actively shape time on the one hand and to open up to its hidden nature and keep pace with it on the other. For him, duration and flow as well as coming into being and passing away are two sides of the same coin. Taking both together can only mean gaining presence and combining one’s own intention with a lively sense of what needs to be done here and now.

Kümmel: “Identity quasi liquefies in the ability to be able to be present. If the present always has to be created anew, an identity tied to the images of the past is lost from the outset and the self-concept projected into the future remains an empty promise. Gaining self-identity requires detaching oneself from past identities and also distancing oneself from one’s own desired image in order to be open to ever new presents.”

For Kümmel, detaching oneself from one’s origins does not mean a loss of history, but rather, conversely, the condition of becoming historical of the time and its present. Furthermore, he emphasizes that all presence is presence in a world, before and with other people. “My time” is always also “our time”, and one’s own concern also affects the general state of the world, whether one wants to or not.

Literature:

Friedrich Kümmel, Zum Verhältnis von „Zeit“ und „Gegenwart“ in: Der blaue Reiter. Journal für Philosophie Nr. 5, 1/1997, S. 51-55

Friedrich Kümmel (*1933-2021):

Philosopher and educator, most recently at the Ludwigsburg University of Education

Keywords:

Time Paradoxes, Theorie of Time

Kommentare