Book 10 — ON CHAPTER I.

There are not wanting those who have believed that time is a thing very easily explained. Such is the opinion of Buffier in his celebrated Traité des premières verités.[98] After explaining in his own way in what duration and time consist, he adds:

"J'admire donc que tant de philosophes aient parlé du temps et de la durée comme de choses inexplicables ou incompréhensibles: si non rogas, intelligo, leur fait-on dire, et selon la paraphrase de Locke, plus je m'applique à découvrir la nature du temps, moins je la conçois. Le temps qui découvre toutes les choses ne saurait être compris lui-même. Cependant, à quoi se réduisent tous ces mystères? A deux mots que nous venons d'exposer."

It is strange that so distinguished a writer should not have known, or should not have remembered, that the difficulty of explaining time was acknowledged not only by the philosophers of whom he speaks, but even by so eminent a man as St. Augustine. The words to which he alludes are from St. Augustine, and are found in the fourteenth chapter of the second book of his confessions:

"Quid enim est tempus, quis hoc facile, breviterque explicaverit? Quis hoc ad verbum de illo proferendum vel cognatione comprehenderit ... quid ergo est tempus? Si nemo ex me quærat scio, si quærenti explicare velim nescio."

"What is time? If no one ask me, I know, but if I wish to explain it, I know it not."

The great doctor discovered here a profound question, and like all great geniuses when they find themselves in sight of a deep abyss, he felt a strong desire to know what was hidden in its bottom. Full of a holy enthusiasm, he turns to God, and begs him to explain this mystery:

"Exarsit animus meus nosse istud implicatissimum enigma. Noli claudere, Domine Deus, bone pater; per Christum obsecro, noli claudere desiderio meo ista et usitata, et abdita, quominus in ea penetret, et dilucescant allucente misericordia tua, Domine! Quem percunctabor de his? et cui fructuosius confitebor imperitiam meam nisi tibi, cui non sunt molesta studia mea flammantia vehementer in scripturas tuas? Da quod amo; amo enim, et hoc tu dedisti. Da, pater, qui vere nosti data bona dare filiis tuis. Da, quoniam suscepi cognoscere te; et labor est ante me donec aperias.

"Per Christum obsecro, in nomine ejus sancti sanctorum nemo mihi obstrepat. Et ego credidi propter quod et loquor. Hæc est spes mea, ad hanc vivo, ut contempler delectationes Domini. Ecce veteres posuisti dies meos, et transeunt; et quomodo, nescio. Et dicimus, Tempus et tempus, tempora et tempora. Quamdiu dixit hoc ille; quamdiu fecit hoc ille; et quam longo tempore illud non vidi; et duplum temporis habet hæc syllaba; ad illam simplam brevem. Dicimus hæc, et audimus hæc: et intelligimur, et intelligimus. Manifestissima et usitatissima sunt, et eadem rursus nimis latent, et nova est inventio eorum. (Lib. XI., cap. xxii.)

"Video igitur tempus quamdam esse distensionem, sed video an videre mihi videor? Tu demonstrabis lux, veritas. (Cap. xxiii.)

"Et confiteor tibi (Domine) ignorare me adhuc quid sit tempus; et rursus confiteor tibi (Domine) scire me in tempore ista dicere, et diu me jam loqui de tempore, atque idipsum diu, non esse nisi moram temporis. Quomodo igitur hoc sciam, quando quid sit tempus nescio? an forte nescio quemadmodum dicam quod scio? Hei mihi qui nescio saltem quid nesciam! Ecce Deus meus coram te, quia non mentior; sicut loquor ita est cor meum. Tu illuminabis lucernam meam, Domine Deus meus; illuminabis tenebras meas." (Cap. xxv.)

To present as easy things which seemed difficult to the greatest men, is, to say the least of it, rather bold. The author flatters himself, in such instances that he has settled the question when he has not penetrated beyond its surface. It often happens that objects seem very clear at first, and we only discover the difficulty which they present, when we examine them more closely. Ask a man unskilled in questions of philosophy, what extension is, or space, or time, and he will wonder that you find any difficulty in things so clear. And why? Because his first reflex act does not go beyond the ordinary idea of these objects, or rather, the use of this idea. Father Buffier says, in the chapter from which we quoted before:

"Dans toutes ces recherches de métaphysique, si embarassées en apparence, il ne faut, comme je l'ai dit d'abord, que distinguer les idées les plus simples que nous avons dans l'esprit d'avec les noms qui y sont attachés par l'usage, pour y découvrir ce qui nous doit tenir lieu de première vérité à leur sujet."

I do not deny that this observation presents a useful criterion; but I cannot see in it so simple a means of solving the most difficult questions of philosophy. For the difficulty is in distinguishing with exactness these simple ideas, which, because they constitute the foundation of our knowledge, are, for this very reason, generally placed at a greater depth, and covered over with a thousand different objects, which hinder us from perceiving them clearly and distinctly, Father Buffier was led astray by the very clearness of his explanation of time, and believed he saw the bottom of the abyss, when he only saw the reflection on its surface:

"Qu'est-ce que durer? C'est exister sans être détruit: voilà l'explication la plus nette qu'on puisse donner de la durée; mais le simple mot de durée fait comprendre la chose aussi clairement que cette explication.

"Outre l'idée de la durée, nous avons l'idée de la mesure de la durée, qui n'est pas la durée elle-même, bien que nous confondions souvent l'une avec l'autre; comme il arrive d'ordinaire de confondre nos sentiments ou avec leurs effets, ou avec leurs causes, ou avec leurs autres circonstances.

"Or, cette mesure de la durée n'est autre chose que ce que nous appelons le temps; et le temps n'est que la révolution régulière de quelque chose de sensible, comme du cours annuel du soleil, ou du cours mensuel de la lune, ou diurnal d'une aiguille sur le cadran d'une horloge.

"L'attention que nous avons à cette révolution régulière fait précisément en nous l'idée du temps. L'intervalle de cette révolution se divisant en de moindres intervalles forme l'idée des parties du temps, auxquelles nous donnons aussi le nom de temps plus long ou plus court, selon les divers intervalles de la révolution.

"Quand nous avons une fois acquis cette idée du temps, nous l'appliquons à toute la durée que nous concevons ou que nous supposons répondre à tel intervalle de la révolution régulière, et par là nous donnons à la durée même le nom de temps, appliquant le nom de de la mesure à la chose mesurée; mais sans que la durée qu'on mesure soit au fond le temps auquel on la mesure, et qui est une révolution. Ainsi, Dieu a duré avant le temps, c'est-à-dire a été sans cesser d'être avant la création du monde, et avant la révolution régulière d'aucun corps."

Here follows the passage already quoted, where the author shows his surprise that the explanation of time has been found so difficult. After giving his rule that the simplest ideas must be separated from the terms which custom has joined to them, he concludes with these words:

"Par ces deux moyens nous trouvons tout d'un coup l'idée ou la notion de durée et de temps: j'ai l'idée d'un être en tant qu'il ne cesse pas d'être, c'est ce qui s'appelle durée; j'ai l'idée de cette durée en tant qu'elle est mesurée par la révolution régulière d'un corps ou par les intervalles de cette révolution, c'est ce que j'appelle temps. Il me semble que ces notions sont aussi claires qu'elles peuvent l'être, et celui qui cherche à les éclaircir davantage est à peu près aussi peu sensé que celui qui voudrait éclaircir comment deux fois deux font quatre et ne font pas cinq."

What explanation is contained in these passages? I can see none. Duration, says Buffier, is uninterrupted succession, and time is the measure of this duration. But he ought to have reflected that only what has quantity can be measured; and consequently duration cannot he measured, unless he supposes a length before the measure. This is precisely what the difficulty consists in. It is well known that time is measured by reference to the revolution of some quantity. But what he ought to have explained was, the nature of that which is measured, of this quantity, or length, independently of the measure. Measure requires a greater and a less, and this greater and less exists independently of all measure. What, then, is the nature of this quantity, of this greater and less?

Father Buffier observes, that although there were no succession of thought in us, and we should have only one thought, we should still have the idea of duration as much as ever. This is true, if we make the idea of duration the same as the idea of uninterrupted existence. But on this hypothesis we could not measure this duration, and consequently could not have the idea of time.

"In God," says Buffier, "there is no succession, for, does not his being endure always?" No doubt of it; but this argument instead of confirming his doctrine, only shows its weakness. The duration of God cannot be measured unless we suppose a greater and less in the duration of necessary and infinite being. Therefore, the idea of duration, or uninterrupted existence, does not give us the idea of time, or of a duration that can be measured.