Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities Research Fundamentals
82
9
https://eipublication.com/index.php/jsshrf
TYPE
Original Research
PAGE NO.
82-84
DOI
OPEN ACCESS
SUBMITED
14 March 2025
ACCEPTED
10 April 2025
PUBLISHED
12 May 2025
VOLUME
Vol.05 Issue05 2025
COPYRIGHT
© 2025 Original content from this work may be used under the terms
of the creative commons attributes 4.0 License.
How The Reflection On
Space And Time Gave Rise
Not Only To Physics But
Also To Psychology
Mirkamilova Marguba Sunnatillayevna
Candidate of Technical Sciences, Associate Professor at Tashkent State
Technical University, Uzbekistan
Abstract:
This article explores how reflection on space
and time gave rise not only to physics but also to
psychology. As early as antiquity, philosophers grappled
with the concept of space as infinite and infinitely
divisible, and with time as inherently connected to
space.
Keywords:
Philosophy, reflection, psychology, reaction,
space, time.
Introduction:
In his famous paradoxes, Zeno divided the
space between Achilles and the tortoise infinitely,
presenting space as a kind of pudding that could be
endlessly divided and stretched. Aristotle resolved this
problem by arguing that space is whole and unified
—
it
can only be divided mentally, not in reality. Thus, we
merely draw imaginary marks on continuous space
—
point A, point B, and so on. By solving this conceptual
issue, Aristotle laid the foundation for modern physics,
and his treatment of space and time enabled further
reflection not only in physics, but also in psychology.
At first glance, it may seem that psychologists have little
scientific interest in physics
—
why should they care?
However, our perception of time and space has
profoundly shaped worldviews, and with them,
conceptions of the human being. Each historical epoch
developed its own anthropology based on its
understanding of the world.
For example, Newtonian physics offers a view of the
universe from the perspective of God: the observer
stands motionless at the center while all other points
move either toward or away from them. This worldview
is echoed in psychoanalytic therapy, where the therapist
remains a stationary observer, analyzing but not actively
Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities Research Fundamentals
83
https://eipublication.com/index.php/jsshrf
Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities Research Fundamentals
participating in the experience.
In contrast, Einstein’s physics aligns more closely with
humanistic paradigms in psychotherapy. Its core idea
is that the observer (therapist) moves together with
the observed (client). Their frames of reference may or
may not align, but it is impossible to conceptualize
their personal “spaces” without motion—
these spaces
merge within the shared therapeutic environment.
Let us trace the evolution of the concepts of space and
time, from an objective framework toward one rooted
in subjective experience.
Even Aristotle associated time with the motion of the
sun and moon, i.e., the movement of the cosmos. For
him, the boundary of time is the moment of “now.”
This singular boundary gives time its infinity
—
stretching into both the past and the future. For Plato,
time was a sequence of moments, yet still a movement
from the past toward the future through the present
[2].
From the very beginning of philosophical inquiry into
time and space, thinkers have gradually come to
understand them as inseparable and absolute
conditions of our experience. As Immanuel Kant
stated: “We cannot contemplate time outside
ourselves, just as we cannot contemplate space within
ourselves.” To clarify: by "contemplate" he meant to
become aware of.
There is also a reverse side to the time-space dyad
—
one cannot exist without the other. Moreover, each
category generates the other, whether we are aware
of it or not. Thus, there is no time without space, and
no space without time. A second important conclusion
follows: every space has its own time, and every time
has its own space.
Let us move from the Middle Ages to the modern era.
According to René Descartes, time does not exist in
reality, but only in the mind of the subject. Baruch
Spinoza described time as a subjective means of
measuring objective duration. The English philosopher
John Locke defined time as a sequence of ideas within
the soul
—
in other words, we seem to generate time
through ideas that fill our inner time-space.
In contrast, Immanuel Kant argued that we do not
generate time through ideas, but rather discover time
and space through our internal mental content. He
likened this process to entering a dark room, the
boundaries of which are unknown and potentially
dangerous to explore. In this metaphor, our ideas are
like furniture that we place into the room, gradually
allowing us to navigate and structure our inner space.
Kant emphasized that we cannot comprehend
ourselves or our experiences outside the categories of
space and time. These categories are embedded into
our cognitive apparatus prior to any empirical
experience. That is, space and time are a priori forms of
intuition, without which no experience is possible. After
all, any experience we have must answer two
fundamental questions:
Where? (space) and When? (time). Isaac Newton, in
turn, differentiated between relative and absolute time
and space. He proposed a mathematical model that
assumes the existence of absolute time and space as
reference points for our relative measurements.
According to this model, in order for us to perceive or
experience time and space, there must be external
movement; without it, we would be unable to segment
or measure them meaningfully [6].
However, even these so-called absolute intervals of
time and space are inconsistent in the real world. Even
solar days are not truly equal, which is why specialists at
Greenwich Observatory are constantly adjusting clocks
to account for the accumulated surplus or deficit of
minutes and seconds that result from astronomical and
geographical irregularities.
Gradually, the conclusion emerged that time is
movement
—
but movement of what, and relative to
what? The answer was ultimately given in psychological
terms: the movement necessary for the perception of
time and space is that of our inner psychological
experience. It is through this internal motion that we
perceive and structure our sense of time and space.
We may compare this subjective time with external time
(as measured by clocks) and our inner space with
external space (such as the cosmos), but these
comparisons only matter if something is happening
within us. Without internal motion, without any
psychological engagement, there is no meaningful sense
of time or space for the individual.
It is also worth mentioning a philosopher who ultimately
united the measurement of time and space with
personal, subjective experience
—
a representative of
the “philosophy of life”, Henri Bergson. He did not view
time merely as an instrument of cognition, but as the
very essence of life
—
that is, time is life. Bergson
distinguished between relative time (as measured by
clocks) and real time, which he defined as the duration
of psychic processes. According to him, time is
immediately given to us only through experience, as a
phenomenon of human consciousness. In this
framework, memory, which binds the past and present
together, is a psychological reality that is inconceivable
outside of consciousness.
V.A. Petrovsky identified three fundamental spaces of
personal existence:
Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities Research Fundamentals
84
https://eipublication.com/index.php/jsshrf
Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities Research Fundamentals
“Within me”
“Outside me”
“Between us”
All experiences of a human being, he argues, unfold
within these three existential domains. These spaces
constantly interact and overlap, and the personality
exists within them, constructing meaning and
structuri
ng the events of one’s life [1].
Based on this model, Petrovsky defines seven core
personal spaces (or spheres):
“Within me —
with me” –
the sphere of extrasensory,
potential experience
“Within me —
by me” –
the sphere of pre-reflective
sensibility
“Within
me
—
in me” –
the sphere of self-knowledge
“By me and for me” –
the sphere of action
“Outside me —
at me” –
the event sphere
“Outside me —
from me” –
the sphere of introjects
“Outside me —
because of me” –
the personosphere
According to Petrovsky, these seven personality spaces
form the mega-space of personality
—
a comprehensive
psychological framework through which the individual
experiences, reflects upon, and engages with the
world.
REFERENCES
Петровский В.А. Семь пространств существования
личности:
формальные модели состоятельности //
Мир психологии. 2009. №1.
С. 25–
42.
Николюк Е.А. Категории пространства
-
времени в
изучении психологических феноменов // Вестник
КРАУНЦ Серия «Гуманитарные науки» № 1 (15) 2010
Гайденко П.П. Время, длительность, вечность:
проблема времени в европейской философии и
науке. М.: Прогресс
-
Традиция, 2006.
Кант И. Критика чистого разума / пер. с нем.
Н.Лосского; ред. Ц.Г.
Арзакнян, М.И. Иткин; примеч. Ц.Г. Арзаканян. М.:
Эксмо, 2007.
Татаркевич Владислав Історія філософії: Т. 3:
Філософія XIX століття і новітня. Свічадо 1999 р. 568
ст., обкладинка: т, ISBN: 966
-561-141-0
