It is futile to attempt to control the past, for we cannot; in this sense, the past does not matter. The future, of course, does seem to matter: however, it does not matter today, for it cannot be directly controlled. The only thing that we really can control is today (ex. day n), and therefore today is the only time that matters; hence, the most important day of our lives. Likewise tomorrow (i.e. day n+1) will be the most important day of our lives...tomorrow (day n+1). So the future is important- or, I should say, will be important- but only as a function of the current day-at-a-time.
Furthermore, today is not merely a connector between yesterday and tomorrow- though we'd think so by the amount of time our thoughts spend in these two extremities. What if we simply extinguished the word of the three (yesterday, today, tomorrow) from our vocabulary where our thoughts dwell the least? How empty would we feel if we eliminated the crucial word (i.e. today) that fills the space in between yesterday and tomorrow? We'd probably be gasping for the word 'today' as we would for air if suffocating. It is only through this that we realize today is the most important time.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
An issue I have with your argument is the assumption that the present is separable from the past. While, no doubt, there exists a time that a person may call the present, this is a function of the past (and so too the future is a function of the past). Inasmuch as the past limits what one can do in the present (a high-schooler cannot graduate from college before he goes to college), the past defines how the present can matter. You can restrict your definition of today to that which is not directly influenced from the past, but the influence that today will have is as the past for tomorrow. Otherwise, if each day is independent from the rest, no day is any more or less important. Once you acknowledge that the temporal linkage between days gives time some of its meaning, the above points to the postulate that today is as important as it can be in influencing tomorrow but that is no different from yesterday influencing today. As to the difference that you can change today but not yesterday, although strictly true (one can change his/her perceptions though of that), that does not detract from the analogy past:present::present:future.
Que piensas?
I think you should have included at least one smiley face in that response.
Ok, now for my real rebuttal. I do believe I acknowledged a temporal linkage between the days, but I gave 'today' the central role on that one, not the past. It seems that you're placing the past at the center of comparison (when you say that both today and the future are a function of the past), but I don't think this is valid :) (see, smiley faces lighten the mood :)). For then today is no different from the future (i.e. tomorrow) except that they differ slightly in distance from the past. If you do lump these two together- both a function of the past- then your clever analogy at the end (which I DO like btw) is not of use. Also, I never said that today influences tomorrow. So I was indeed treating today in isolation...but I do accept your point about limiting the definition of today to be that which is not directly influenced by the past. Furthermore, if each day is independent from the rest, then every day is independently important: but each of these independent days is a "today" at some point, and it is only when each day is synonymous with "today" that they can be controlled. Thus, today is the most important day, as long as you define important as the extent to which you have control over it. I do not think that past or potential/future events don't have significant meaning, but they are of lesser concern than today, because you can only take immediate action on whatever you are concerned about...today.
Post a Comment