I read that philosopher Derrida distinguished between two ways of thinking about the future: the future and l’avenir (French for future).
The future indicates a conceivable point in time in the future; for example a point that we have scheduled for a particular date. On the other hand, l’avenir refers to the continuous movement of events unfolding into the present without any ability to foresee their arrival (in fact, events would rather be coming into the present, as avenir contains the idea of venir, which is to come – it is what is to come).
Some may call these distinctions over-intellectualised nitpicking. Perhaps this is true, but that’s one of philosophy’s purpose: as long as it represents an honest intellectual effort, then it is fair game. After all, it doesn’t hurt anyone to stop taking for granted the word future in order to carefully dissect it.
I think that in the realm of immediate “real world utility” for a reader detached from the finer details of these debates, this distinction is simply an excuse to make us to pick out and explore another way of thinking about what “future” means. In what amounts to a dialectical device, the distinction enriches our perception of both ideas; the concept of avenir becomes part of the notion of future, and the notion of future becomes part of the concept of avenir.
In every day application, there is no schism between a concept of avenir and that of future. Few people really care. These words go back to being no more than synonyms of each other. In every day language avenir simply remains the French word for future, no more and no less.
After the distinction has been made between what is unfolding -or coming- and what is in some fixed point in the future, both pieces are absorbed back into the single concept of future.
That is the great utility of such nitpicking. Those who understood the explanation have now integrated into their concept of future a new mental model on top of the previous one. And better still, by sticking with such an intellectual exercise, they will have developed a clearer awareness of how hazy their previously intuitive and utilitarian understanding of the term was, and how in its newfound complexity it harbours new possibilities to think about such a permanent thing in our existence as the passing of time.
So go ahead, there’s no need to feel pressured to learn all the concepts born from these sharp dissections of phenomena. You can just as well enjoy the ride, forget the concepts’ names, and see how your ability to think about it, and the world in general, expands in enriching ways.