"No man ever steps in the same river twice"

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

"No man ever steps in the same river twice"

Postby Prismatic567 » Sat Dec 23, 2017 6:27 am

    "No man ever steps in the same river twice"
    Heraclitus -535 – c. 475 BC

The purpose of the above quote is to support the point the issue of Philosophical Realism versus Philosophical Anti-Realism is very old within Western Philosophy.

There are various interpretations to the above, however what is relevant to the discussion is this;

Wiki wrote:Plato argues against Heraclitus as follows:[66]

How can that be a real thing which is never in the same state? ... for at the moment that the observer approaches, then they become other ... so that you cannot get any further in knowing their nature or state .... but if that which knows and that which is known exist ever ... then I do not think they can resemble a process or flux ....

In Plato one experienced unit is a state, or object existing, which can be observed. The time parameter is set at "ever"; that is, the state is to be presumed present between observations.

Change is to be deduced by comparing observations and is thus presumed a function that happens to objects already in being, rather than something ontologically essential to them (such that something that does not change cannot exist) as in Heraclitus.

In Plato, no matter how many of those experienced units you are able to tally, you cannot get through the mysterious gap between them to account for the change that must be occurring there.

This limitation is considered a fundamental limitation of reality by Plato and in part underpins his differentiation between imperfect experience from more perfect Forms.

The fact that this is no limitation for Heraclitus motivates Plato's condemnation.


Plato with is "Forms" and condemnation of Heraclitus' change is wrong.

Change is a fact. The only thing that is constant and most 'real' [btw not absolute] is 'change.'

Since things are changing all the time, how can there be an absolute real thing?
Note, are there any real 'stars' in the Universe at all? In real time, the 'stars' [changing] which send their light waves from billion of light years away could be at present be actually non-existence.

The philosophical realists claim there is an absolute real thing that is independent of human conceptions and cognitions. This is a very narrow and immature [habitualized] philosophical views.

OTOH, the philosophical anti-realists [mine re Kantian] being aware of the limited views of the Philosophical Realists did a paradigm shift to view reality by taking into account the element of the self as and part and parcel in co-creating reality.

Agree?
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: "No man ever steps in the same river twice"

Postby phyllo » Sun Dec 24, 2017 5:23 pm

"No man ever steps in the same river twice"
Even animals recognize a river and go there to drink.

Sometimes I think that the entire goal of philosophy is to make simple things difficult and difficult things impossible.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10701
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: "No man ever steps in the same river twice"

Postby James S Saint » Sun Dec 24, 2017 7:22 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:Agree?

No.

Heraclitus was simple minded.

The word "river" refers to a flow of water over a particular region of land. The fact that the water is always changing out has nothing to do with the fact that there is but one river referenced. One can step into the same "flowing of water" at that location many times. Again, this is merely an issue of language. "River" does not refer to specific "water", but rather to "flow" at a given location.

The same is actually true concerning ALL existence. Nothing at all is, from one instant to the next, made of precisely the same substance that it was just prior. But things are not named by their constituency, rather by their form, location, and prior relations. Literally every subatomic particle in the entire universe is no more than a traffic jam of ultra-minuscule EMR noise. As time passes, every bit of the prior EMR leaves every particle as new EMR replaces it. The "traffic-jam" is the particle, not the EMR that makes it up. And the traffic jam persists through time, just as Theseus' ship (just as a traffic jam is the congestion on the highway, not the particular cars involved at any one time).

And THAT is "how there can be an absolute real thing". The "thing" is the form of the substance, not the substance.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: "No man ever steps in the same river twice"

Postby Prismatic567 » Mon Dec 25, 2017 4:45 am

phyllo wrote:
"No man ever steps in the same river twice"
Even animals recognize a river and go there to drink.

Sometimes I think that the entire goal of philosophy is to make simple things difficult and difficult things impossible.
Nah, not 'river' but they recognize the water, which could be in a river, pool, lake or puddle.

One of the purpose of philosophy is
    1. to analyse into the smallest possible details and then
    2. look for pattern to simply the complex.

Both the above tasks must complement each other.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: "No man ever steps in the same river twice"

Postby Prismatic567 » Mon Dec 25, 2017 5:18 am

James S Saint wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:Agree?

No.

Heraclitus was simple minded.

The word "river" refers to a flow of water over a particular region of land. The fact that the water is always changing out has nothing to do with the fact that there is but one river referenced. One can step into the same "flowing of water" at that location many times. Again, this is merely an issue of language. "River" does not refer to specific "water", but rather to "flow" at a given location.

The same is actually true concerning ALL existence. Nothing at all is, from one instant to the next, made of precisely the same substance that it was just prior. But things are not named by their constituency, rather by their form, location, and prior relations. Literally every subatomic particle in the entire universe is no more than a traffic jam of ultra-minuscule EMR noise. As time passes, every bit of the prior EMR leaves every particle as new EMR replaces it. The "traffic-jam" is the particle, not the EMR that makes it up. And the traffic jam persists through time, just as Theseus' ship (just as a traffic jam is the congestion on the highway, not the particular cars involved at any one time).

And THAT is "how there can be an absolute real thing". The "thing" is the form of the substance, not the substance.

In this case, Heraclitus was NOT simple minded, i.e. focused on common sense. Common sense tells us there is a river [as understood, large body of constant flowing water over ground] and that's it. A flow of water for a while in a desert is still recognized as a river. Heraclitus reference to a 'river' is not a simple minded thing.

Greek philosophy was influenced by Hindu and the concept of impermanence- Anicca or Anitya.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impermanence

I referenced Plato's commentary in the OP and this example is Heraclitus bringing in the philosophical issue between Philosophical Realism versus Philosophical Anti-Realism.

The Philosophical Realists believed there is a river-in-itself.
Note Russell's doubts, philosophically 'perhaps there is no river at all.'


And THAT is "how there can be an absolute real thing". The "thing" is the form of the substance, not the substance.
This is a very weak philosophical statement.
What is the most real 'thing' is what is more constant, i.e. substance.
Note the one of the purpose of Science, i.e. the pursuit of more and more refined 'substance' to understand the forms.

For example H20 changes forms under various conditions, ice, steam, vapors, clouds, snow, etc.
What is most real within all the changes is the substance i.e. the H20 molecule.

Taking your point,
    "Literally every subatomic particle in the entire universe is no more than a traffic jam of ultra-minuscule EMR noise. As time passes, every bit of the prior EMR leaves every particle as new EMR replaces it."

In this case, the subatomic particles are the various forms of the EMR -the substance.

But philosophical the EMR themselves must have their own substance.

If there are the substance of EMR, then what is the substance of 'Substance of EMR' and so forth, thus we are faced with infinite regression.

As far as Science is concern, because there is no hard proofs, Science merely assumes there is an ultimate substance to keep it going forward. Science will only conclude based on available and verified evidences.

For theists, the ultimate substance is God, i.e. God created every thing, thus all things are reducible to the ultimate substance, i.e. God.
While Science merely assumes, theists believe with certainty God is real as the ultimate substance or first cause even when they do not have any proofs.

This belief and reification of a God as real as I had argued is actually driven by psychological factors.

Most theists are not too concern with the forms of the self but rather on the substance of the self, i.e. the permanent soul that survives physical death with a promise of eternal life and living in paradise [for some with virgins]. Again this concern is driven by psychological impulses.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: "No man ever steps in the same river twice"

Postby James S Saint » Mon Dec 25, 2017 6:13 am

Prismatic567 wrote:In this case, Heraclitus was NOT simple minded, i.e. focused on common sense. Common sense tells us there is a river [as understood, large body of constant flowing water over ground] and that's it. A flow of water for a while in a desert is still recognized as a river. Heraclitus reference to a 'river' is not a simple minded thing.

Did someone tell you that "Philosophy" stands for "Twisted, confused, and conflated thinking"?

He was simple-minded because he could not see his error, much like yourself. "A little knowledge is dangerous".

Prismatic567 wrote:Greek philosophy was influenced by Hindu and the concept of impermanence- Anicca or Anitya.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impermanence

You seem to be filled with irrelevant references.

Prismatic567 wrote:I referenced Plato's commentary in the OP and this example is Heraclitus bringing in the philosophical issue between Philosophical Realism versus Philosophical Anti-Realism.

The Philosophical Realists believed there is a river-in-itself.
Note Russell's doubts, philosophically 'perhaps there is no river at all.'

And yet another.


Prismatic567 wrote:
And THAT is "how there can be an absolute real thing". The "thing" is the form of the substance, not the substance.
This is a very weak philosophical statement.

Well if the truth is "weak", so be it.

Prismatic567 wrote:What is the most real 'thing' is what is more constant, i.e. substance.

The substance is the thing that is NOT constant. Only the form of the exchanging endures through time. When the exchanging is packed very densely, it forms inertia and "mass" that is called a "particle of matter" (inertia forms a reluctance of movement because the substance is already moving as fast as it can). The particle is merely a location of congestion. The substance is flowing in and out constantly exchanging.

Prismatic567 wrote:Note the one of the purpose of Science, i.e. the pursuit of more and more refined 'substance' to understand the forms.

And then only to discover that it is ALL made of formless energy constantly shifting about (the EMR noise). Only the form remains and endures through time (again, just as the river).

Prismatic567 wrote:For example H20 changes forms under various conditions, ice, steam, vapors, clouds, snow, etc.
What is most real within all the changes is the substance i.e. the H20 molecule.

Those aren't the same molecules from one instant to the next except as their traffic-jam form. The energy that sustains the form of the molecules is constantly exchanging, just as the water in the form called "a river".

Prismatic567 wrote:Taking your point,
    "Literally every subatomic particle in the entire universe is no more than a traffic jam of ultra-minuscule EMR noise. As time passes, every bit of the prior EMR leaves every particle as new EMR replaces it."

In this case, the subatomic particles are the various forms of the EMR -the substance.

They are not "the forms of the substance". They are forms made by the substance that is constantly exchanging. The substance is always exchanging, never the same and has the general form of ultra-minuscule spikes and waves. Only the general form of the congestion remains the same.

Prismatic567 wrote:But philosophical the EMR themselves must have their own substance.

Not actually, The ultra-minuscule EMR noise, Affectance, is made of nothing more than itself, even infinitely small. Affectance is the foundation substance of all existence. The congestion forms it makes, due to its affect upon itself, are the "objects" that you and science detect.

Prismatic567 wrote:If there are the substance of EMR, then what is the substance of 'Substance of EMR' and so forth, thus we are faced with infinite regression.

"Infinite regression" is exactly what we have. Logically, it could be no other way. And a complete lack of alternatives, is a "proof".

Prismatic567 wrote:For theists, the ultimate substance is God, i.e. God created every thing, thus all things are reducible to the ultimate substance, i.e. God.

No. Most theists refer to God as the Cause for the existence of that substance, why it is there at all. The "Creator" is the Cause (aka "Prime Mover") and the substance is the "Created" (mortal existence).

Prismatic567 wrote:While Science merely assumes, theists believe with certainty God is real as the ultimate substance or first cause even when they do not have any proofs.

That is the definition of "God", not an assumption. The theist is merely saying that there is a fundamental cause and they name that cause "God" (check Thomas Aquinas). The atheist claims that there is no cause for existence at all = "superstitious gap in rationality". The atheist can't figure out what the cause for existence is, so he just cheats and claims that there is none (If I don't know about it, it must not exist because I know everything there is no know and those damn theists have to be wrong, come hell or high water).

Prismatic567 wrote:This belief and reification of a God as real as I had argued is actually driven by psychological factors.

You don't know jack about psychology.

God is a logical and rational necessity (there must be a fundamental cause of existence).
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: "No man ever steps in the same river twice"

Postby unknowing » Fri Dec 29, 2017 12:22 am

I agree the river is the never the same.
I agree that change is the true constant.
If you claim to recognize the same river, recognize it all you want until it runs dry or becomes an ocean.

The question then, if change is always changing, where do we get this idea of something, anything, as permanent.
I suggest that we came from a forever feeling "place" before we got here, vaguely remember a trace of it, and will return to it. Otherwise the concept of permanence would not be something we pursue with our minds, but fail to catch, for now.
User avatar
unknowing
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2017 11:48 pm
Location: Far from The Northwestly Winds


Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users