Question

1,500 years ago the Roman senator & philosopher Boethius wrote of two types of 'the now':

"Nunc fluens facit tempus, nunc stans facit aeternitatum.

The now that passes produces time, the now that remains produces eternity.

Can these two types of now be put into a more edifying modern context? For example, the now that passes: this is 'now' in the context of temporality. A future event becomes now, then passes into the past.

The now that remains, this is the now that is always the present. Carried along with existence (generally living existence). Almost atemporal, except most things in this now are moving. Is this now an observer's perspective?

Answer 1

Boethius' concepts of 'nunc fluens' and 'nunc stans' can be related to modern interpretations of time, where the flowing now represents the temporal present, and the standing now aligns with the persistent present that is atemporal yet contains movement.

Step-by-step explanation:

1,500 years ago, Roman senator and philosopher Boethius differentiated between two types of 'the now': nunc fluens and nunc stans. Nunc fluens, or the flowing now, corresponds to the temporal present, constantly in motion as future events become 'now' then slip into the past. Nunc stans, or the standing now, represents a notion of an ever-present now, an eternal moment that, while encompassing movement, remains an abiding presence in existence, somewhat atemporal.

This conceptual distinction resonates with modern interpretations of time. The theory of temporality suggests that our experience of time is always in transition, moving from potential future moments to actual present moments, then to remembered past moments. This theory is akin to Heraclitus’ view that everything is in flux. Meanwhile, the idea of a perpetual present connects with Parmenides' assertion of unity and unchanging reality. It could also be linked to presentist approach, where past philosophical discussions are assessed in the context of their relevance to modern concerns, as well as the notion of potentiality and actuality, as discussed by Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas.