• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

My Philosophy

direlect

Scholar
D
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
81
Some like to take the argument that a Man Cannot Walk the Same River Twice and claim that nothing is ever the same as time flows. I myself writing this is a different person to one writing this. I want to say that I think all the arguments for this are FALLACIES. The confusion comes form the absence of an accurate definition of the word 'river' or 'person' or anything else. Does one define a river as a completely stationary body of water molecules, or as a dynamic body of molecules, which is contained by riverbanks and the riverbed? I am sure that everyone would agree on a river being a dynamic system, as well as any other object. So, the arguments are false and groundless.
 
"Why are you telling me?" I like it!
That's a good philosophy: "Why are you telling me?"
Why are you telling me?"

"Why are you telling me?"
My new philosophy
The teacher gave a "D" on last week's homework
She said, "Miss Sally Brown,
Your grades are going down."
I could have told her
 
Piscivore said:
That's a pretty specific philosophy you have there.
Click to expand...
The fact of the matter is, all philosophical conundrums and problems are products of inaccurate definitions. Thus, one's personal philosophy, it must be very particular; must not go beyond the information which one has availabe to oneself.

kmortis said:
"Why are you telling me?" I like it!
That's a good philosophy: "Why are you telling me?"
Why are you telling me?"
Click to expand...
This argument would seem to say that the thing you liked in first time is non-existent when you like 'it' the second time it is not, so you are correct, it is a bit analogous to my own persoanl philosophy.
 
direlect said:
The fact of the matter is, all philosophical conundrums and problems are products of inaccurate definitions. Thus, one's personal philosophy, it must be very particular; must not go beyond the information which one has availabe to oneself.


This argument would seem to say that the thing you liked in first time is non-existent when you like 'it' the second time it is not, so you are correct, it is a bit analogous to my own persoanl philosophy.
Click to expand...
Actually, mine's a song
 
I'm obviously not smart enough to follow what's going on here. Anyone care to enlighten me as to what in the hell you're talking about?
 
I am talking about my philosophical belief-system. I have an especially bitter disdain for the other competing philosophies, because they are arguments which necessarily undermine conceptual logic, knowledge, and reason. In effect, if the river is never the same river, and a person is never the same person, and A is never actually A, then things are never functionally what they are, nothing can be known with any certainty, and all knowledge be
 
If it were exactly the same it would be the one event. An event has to be different to be another event otherwise it is not two events but one.
 
direlect said:
I am talking about my philosophical belief-system. I have an especially bitter disdain for the other competing philosophies, because they are arguments which necessarily undermine conceptual logic, knowledge, and reason. In effect, if the river is never the same river, and a person is never the same person, and A is never actually A, then things are never functionally what they are, nothing can be known with any certainty, and all knowledge be
Click to expand...
But A cannot be Not-A, either... if the river is never the same twice, that doesn't mean it never was a river. That much is certain.

You step in the stream
But the water has moved on
Error 404
Click to expand...
Do not fret over the competing philosophies, they don't mean it personally and are only trying to figure things out as best as they can.
 
My philosophy is to have a good time all the time. (obscure Spinal Tap refrence)
 
It seems more like a metaphor than a basis for a life philosophy:
The one thing we can count on staying the same is that all things change.

I could be completely wrong about this but I don't think I am - metaphors are best used in a descriptive sense, rather than prescriptive. We should not walk around trying to make our lives like a metaphor, or even to match a philosophy.

We use metaphors and philosophy as tools to help understand and enrich our lives. They are not a substitute for living.
 
direlect said:
The fact of the matter is, all philosophical conundrums and problems are products of inaccurate definitions.
Click to expand...

I see. While I agree that philosophy, especially what passes for it nowadays, is rife with equivocation, I wasn't aware that Heraclitus was offering a conundrum so much as presenting a metaphor for impermanence, which seems at this point to be empirically supported, if not completely validated. Can you tell me which fallacies occur therein, which definitions inaccurate?

Do you have a philosophic position that is not a repudiation of someone else's?
 
direlect said:
Some like to take the argument that a Man Cannot Walk the Same River Twice and claim that nothing is ever the same as time flows. I myself writing this is a different person to one writing this. I want to say that I think all the arguments for this are FALLACIES. The confusion comes form the absence of an accurate definition of the word 'river' or 'person' or anything else. Does one define a river as a completely stationary body of water molecules, or as a dynamic body of molecules, which is contained by riverbanks and the riverbed? I am sure that everyone would agree on a river being a dynamic system, as well as any other object. So, the arguments are false and groundless.
Click to expand...

Exactly! You get it! 10 points for you!

Yes, you can't cross the same river twice, because what is a river? Is there something concrete that makes a river, or is a river the sum of its parts? If the first, I'd like to know what it is, and if it's the latter, then those parts are impermanent and ever changing, so that the river is not the same from moment to moment.
 
Ryokan said:
Exactly! You get it! 10 points for you!

Yes, you can't cross the same river twice, because what is a river? Is there something concrete that makes a river, or is a river the sum of its parts? If the first, I'd like to know what it is, and if it's the latter, then those parts are impermanent and ever changing, so that the river is not the same from moment to moment.
Click to expand...
Doesn't evaporation work into this somehow?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom