Again, the water doesn't flow through the river. The flowing water is the river. The river flows through the river bed. To paraphrase Korzybski, "Bed is not the river."

By the way Aristotle, in his Metaphysics (1010a), mentions Cratylus who "reproached Heraclitus for saying that you cannot step in the same river twice -- for he himself thought you could not do so even once."

:flowers:

I think that Heraclitus said that we cannot step twice into the same river, not in the same river.
I can step twice in the same river simply by being in the river, and then taking one step, and then, while remaining in the river, taking a second step. The question is whether I can step into the river, go out, and then step into the river again. That would be stepping twice into the same river.
Next, as I already pointed out, once we distinguish between the river, and the water flowing though the river, we can see that although we cannot step twice into the same water (if it is flowing quickly) we can step twice (or many times) into the same river. The river is a geographical entity. The water is not.

Everytime the kid writes, there is lesser and lesser amount of graphite in the pencil and less wooden material if the pencil need shapening.
The pencil becomes a different pencil everytime it is used to write something.

A kindergarten kid can give the same answer as your well-thought 'philosophical' answer.

If I says to a kindergarten kid, that he cannot write with the same 'pencil' twice, he would think i am a stupid fool.
He can of course, proceed to demonstrate that he can write with the same 'pencil', ten and a hundred times by writing once, put down, then write again and again.
He would then proudly announce; see, i can write with the 'same' pencil twice and ten more times.

However from a philosophical and higher truth perspective, did the kindergarten kid wrote from the same pencil, everytime he picked it up and write something.

No, it is not the same pencil.

Here is why;
Let say, the first time he picked up the pencil,
the composition of the pencil is,
P1 - X amount of graphite + other pencil material,

the moment he wrote on a piece of paper, pencil P1 become P2
P2 - (X-Y) amount of graphite + other pencile material

Everytime the kid writes, there is lesser and lesser amount of graphite in the pencil and less wooden material if the pencil need shapening.
The pencil becomes a different pencil everytime it is used to write something.

Truth is conformance with reality.
In reality, pencil P1 become pencile P2 when it is used to write something.
Therefore it is true, we do not write with the same pencil twice.

What remains constant is only the concept 'pencil' but not the real pencil.
Therefore one cannot write with the 'same' pencil twice.

It is the same with the river.
The water and the riverbed and the riverbank change every nano-second.
Different water molecules flow through specific part of the river, in addition, rocks, sand and silt are added and taken away every nano-second from the riverbed and river banks.
Thus every nano-second, and in reality and truth there is a new river which is physically different from the previous.



Why Kennethamy and the kindergarten kid think it is the same, is because they are hypnotized by concepts, universals, abstraction and simplicity.
Concepts are more 'seductive', easier to handle, practical and useful.
The truth and reality are more complex mentally and are more suited to higher philosophical thinking.

The Nile river is a geographical entity. I can step into the Nile river at Cairo to the south, and Alexandria to the north. And, I can do that as many times as I please. But if there is a strong current in the river, then I cannot (unless I am very quick) step into the same river water twice. Heraclitus is confusing the same river (which you can step into twice or more) with the water in the river (which you cannot step into more than once unless there is no current, or the current is very turgid).

That was his point.

But something can both change, and still be the same. Things may change in some ways, but still be the same in other ways. You are the same person you were when you were an infant, although you have changed a lot since you were an infant. The kindergartner happens to be right. He too believes that things can change, but still be the same in certain essential respects. In fact, Aristotle was not a kindergartener, but that is exactly what Aristotle held. Things had essential qualities, and things had accidental qualities, and as long as things retained their essential qualities, it did not matter if their accidental qualities changed. As long as their essential qualities remained the same, the would be the same thing.

This is the exact same distinction kenneth made when he talked about the river as in the water, and the river as in the geographical entity.

It would be very obvious to anybody and Heraclitus that something can both change and still be the same. That is the common sense perspective.

But Heraclitus was hinting at higher and refined truths in philosophy.
What you failed to do is to make any attempt to understand the higher philosophy that Heraclitus was trying to convey.
Note we are in a philosophy forum, not a kindergarten class or a fish-market.

From what i had explained, do you agree that Heraclitus had a valid point when he stated that one cannot step into the the river twice?

Heraclitus main point was to demonstrate that all things are in flux or in process and as someone pointed out is similar to the Buddhist concept of annica or Impermanence.
Jeeprs highlighted that Greek philosophy was influenced by Buddhism and so it was possible Heraclitus was echoing this concept.

Don't cry for me Argentina :detective:
I would not be the same when i am old and do not exist when i am dead.

Btw, "I" am not the same person as i were, when i was an infant.
That would require a separate OP.

---------- Post added 03-16-2010 at 12:49 AM ----------

It is different, Kennethamy assumed the riverbed and riverbank do not change but only the water.
The geographical entity is not reality but exists only as a concept.
Philosophically we should be more interested in the real than in the concept or abstract.

Yes, both Aristotle and I are not interested in the higher philosophy. Well, that's how it goes. Some of us have lower tastes than others. A depressing fact of life. You might, someday, want to read the ancient Greek play, The Clouds, by Aristophanes. The play is all about the higher and more refined philosophers. It is a comedy.

The geographical entity is not reality but exists only as a concept.
Philosophically we should be more interested in the real than in the concept or abstract.

I have not read much of Aristotle, but from what i gathered of him, i am sure he would have agreed with changes in some other ways.
Heraclitus concept of flux had critical implication for humanity, psychology and various aspects of human life.

The concept of permanence mislead one to think of a permanent soul that continue after death.
This is the source of theism, supernatural, satanism, dieties and miseries.

Understanding impermance enable one to be aligned with reality which is always in flux, i.e. the only constant is change.

The concept of the river is real. The river is imaginary.

:flowers:

Sorry, I have no idea what your point is. Try saying it in English, next time, rather than in philosophese.

The fact remains that Aristotle presents one way of reconciling change with permanence, or "persistence through change". And there are other ways too. Therefore, something changing, and still being the same, is possible, and obviously true, too. It is the philosopher's job to explain how it is true.

Sorry, I have no idea what your point is. Try saying it in English, next time, rather than in philosophese.

The fact remains that Aristotle presents one way of reconciling change with permanence, or "persistence through change". And there are other ways too. Therefore, something changing, and still being the same, is possible, and obviously true, too. It is the philosopher's job to explain how it is true.

This all seems pretty simple to me, but then I am simple minded.
I don"t think he meant to speak some profound truth, merely an obseration provoking deeper thought. Of course we can parse his words but doesn't that kinda destroy the beauty of his observation?

In my opinion the real meaning of "You cant step in the same river twice", can be expressed as "life is made up of countless moments each flowing into the next and never to be repeated exactly"

In my opinion the real meaning of "You cant step in the same river twice", can be expressed as "life is made up of countless moments each flowing into the next and never to be repeated again exactly"

One cannot step twice in the same river." - Heraclitus (ca. 540 - ca. 480 BCE)

Was he wrong can we step twice into the same river, as a former drug addict I think I stepped into the same river many times before I learned my lesson and avoided that particular river like the plague it really was?.

Heraclitus definitely isn't alone here. His message was that reality is constantly changing it's an ongoing process rather than a fixed and stable product. Buddhism shares a similar metaphysical view with the idea of annica, the claim that all reality is fleeting and impermanent.

In modern times Henri Bergson (1859 - 1941) described time as a process that is experienced. An hour waiting in line is different from an hour at play. Today contemporary physics lends credence to process philosophy with the realization that even apparently stable objects, like marble statues, are actually buzzing bunches of electrons and other subatomic particles deep down.

You got the interpretation all wrong. It's not that you cannot step in the same river twice, because as long as it is River X, it is the same river. It is that the exact make up of the river is always changing and never the same, because the contents of the river are always rearranging.

Without saying I know excatly what it is, I doubt it's how Theaetetus interpetes it. As I understand it, it's we should learn from history, we know the river is there, then it would be stupid to do it again.

Just look at the repeated stock market crashes, repeated stupidity. For some reason economics turn the blind eye to warnings about overheated economy.

On a more human levl I'm more divided, if we didn't have the stupidity of man, we wouldn't get nowhere, if we didn't have people who defyed teachings and sought new ways to overcome a great "unsolable problem" we wouldn't have iron birds/horse, advanced medicine/surgery, no physic ..no nothing!

There is a sort of karma that operated in this mortal world. If you don't learn a lesson you will repeat it over and over again with each test slightly different from the former, until you have learned your lesson