If you even got past the title, which was an actual question posed in one of my philosophy classes - congratulations, I salute you. 

Now, for a while I kind of just wrote it off as some goatee-sporting egotistical jerk trying to sound smart because there are few things he enjoys more than the sound of his own voice.  But now I think I can finally offer, or at least propose some kind of response as to why man cannot in fact move faster than time, namely because its impossible, and the question itself doesn’t make sense if you start defining and explaining time itself.

Also, I would like to offer an apology to the fellow who asked this question, and apologize for ripping him to shreds, and calling him a pretentious jerk on numerous occasions, because I use way too many big words in the following post to not be considered a douchebag myself.

But hold up.  Did I just imply that I am going to define time? Excuse me while I laugh forever.

Okay, let me try to string together some poorly constructed sentences to explain my muddled thoughts on the question at hand.  Man cannot “move faster than time”, or whatever, because man constructed time - man is time.  Time, at least in the most commonsense definition of the term, is basically this… thing… that we kind of imposed on the world as a way break down our lives/days into manageable chunks. 

I remember the moment this question was posed, the professor gave him a rather quizzical look, and then tried to essentially graph ‘Man vs. Time’ (which is actually the title of Christopher Nolan’s sequel to Inception), with time being on the y-axis.  Now, clearly this graph makes no sense on any level at all, but I’m gonna stick with the following one: Man cannot be ‘versus’ time because time is contained within man.  Time is subjective, and I’m sticking with it.  It’s the ticking of your own clock that defines your actions and your plans and your experiences - past, present and future.

Anyway, I don’t know where I’m going with this, and I’m pretty sure this is only the beginning of my constant obsessing over the nature of this question, so uh, tune in next week where I say some more things about stuff.