Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Alan McDougall
 
Reply Tue 16 Mar, 2010 05:38 am
@HexHammer,
HexHammer;140196 wrote:
Hmm, interesting. You interpet it as a Sissefos thing?


Explain please, what is a Sissefos thing?
 
HexHammer
 
Reply Tue 16 Mar, 2010 05:49 am
@Alan McDougall,
Alan McDougall;140226 wrote:
Explain please, what is a Sissefos thing?
Don't have the exat definition, but it's Sissefos who pushes up the huge boulder on the mountain, but as he reaches the top, it rolls down again, so he must repeat his effort in an endless cycle.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Tue 16 Mar, 2010 06:18 am
@Humanity,
Humanity;140181 wrote:
OK, if you shift it in another perspective, as i had agreed in another OP, truth is a white lie.

---------- Post added 03-16-2010 at 01:27 AM ----------

I agree it is possible for something to change and yet being the same, but that is half-cooked and not realistic.


Hmmm. Rare roast beef is very realistic. Ummm.

Then, if you change from being a child to being an adult, you are not realistic, but only half-cooked? Well, could be.
 
Humanity
 
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2010 10:15 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;140233 wrote:
Hmmm. Rare roast beef is very realistic. Ummm.
Then, if you change from being a child to being an adult, you are not realistic, but only half-cooked? Well, could be.
I meant your idea is half-cooked.
You seem to be capable of producing half-cooked ideas.
 
trismegisto
 
Reply Fri 16 Apr, 2010 01:35 am
@Humanity,
There sure is a lot of speculation about what a river is for a statement negating free-will.

By the way, the guy's name was Sisyphus.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Fri 16 Apr, 2010 01:47 am
@trismegisto,
trismegisto;152673 wrote:
There sure is a lot of speculation about what a river is for a statement negating free-will.

By the way, the guy's name was Sisyphus.


And he was just doing it for the exercise. Sissyfos was his brother who helped him. It was a heavy boulder. Too large for one man to push up a steep hill like Mt. Olympus.
 
longknowledge
 
Reply Fri 16 Apr, 2010 10:43 am
@kennethamy,
You can't push the same boulder up Mt. Olympus once!

:flowers:
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Fri 16 Apr, 2010 10:48 am
@longknowledge,
longknowledge;152821 wrote:
You can't push the same boulder up Mt. Olympus once!

:flowers:


Well, Sissyfos, Sisyphus' twin brother, was very strong. Together they might have done it. Despite their names, neither of them were sissies.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Wed 26 May, 2010 09:00 pm
@longknowledge,
longknowledge;152821 wrote:
You can't push the same boulder up Mt. Olympus once!

:flowers:


Nice!

I think that Heraclitus is both right or wrong, depending on how one reads him. Is the river the form of the water in flux, or the water? I think we generally mean the form. And maybe Heraclitus was actually just pointing at that form in flux/strife.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Thu 27 May, 2010 12:24 am
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;169386 wrote:
Nice!

I think that Heraclitus is both right or wrong, depending on how one reads him. Is the river the form of the water in flux, or the water? I think we generally mean the form. And maybe Heraclitus was actually just pointing at that form in flux/strife.


What he said was false. What he meant only he knew.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Thu 27 May, 2010 12:30 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;169433 wrote:
What he said was false. What he meant only he knew.


Hmm. I don't think it's that easy. And he may have said it only to bring something to our attention. The problem of abstractions.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Thu 27 May, 2010 12:39 am
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;169436 wrote:
Hmm. I don't think it's that easy. And he may have said it only to bring something to our attention. The problem of abstractions.


Yes, as I said, his motives were his own. What he said was false.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Thu 27 May, 2010 12:42 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;169440 wrote:
Yes, as I said, his motives were his own. What he said was false.


That all depends on how one interprets him, of course. Surely he knew the usual sense of a phrase like that was false. He was making a point. Smile
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Thu 27 May, 2010 12:55 am
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;169443 wrote:
That all depends on how one interprets him, of course. Surely he knew the usual sense of a phrase like that was false. He was making a point. Smile


Metaphysicians are notorious for asserting sincerely what they believe to be false. E.g. "time is unreal", "we never see objects but only our own sensations", "no one every acts of his own free will", etc., etc.. So, that's not much of an argument.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Thu 27 May, 2010 12:59 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;169446 wrote:
Metaphysicians are notorious for asserting sincerely what they believe to be false. E.g. "time is unreal", "we never see objects but only our own sensations", "no one every acts of his own free will", etc., etc.. So, that's not much of an argument.


It's a matter of interpretation. It's similar to the notion that our body replaces its material every so often, but we are still ourselves. One can't talk to the same Heraclitus twice.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Thu 27 May, 2010 01:15 am
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;169448 wrote:
It's a matter of interpretation. It's similar to the notion that our body replaces its material every so often, but we are still ourselves. One can't talk to the same Heraclitus twice.


But that is clearly false. One can talk to Heraclitus twice. I am sure that when he was alive, many people talked to Heraclitus a number of times. Why would the fact that H.'s body changes matter. We all know that it is one and the same (identical) Heraclitus even there are bodily changes. The job of the philosopher is to show why this is true. As Wittgenstein writes, we should not confuse "same" with "identical".

But this is just another example of the peculiar phenomenon remarked on by G.E. Moore that philosophers go about sincerely asserting what they know to be false. Nothing new.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Thu 27 May, 2010 01:22 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;169456 wrote:
But that is clearly false. One can talk to Heraclitus twice. I am sure that when he was alive, many people talked to Heraclitus a number of times. Why would the fact that H.'s body changes matter. We all know that it is one and the same (identical) Heraclitus even there are bodily changes. The job of the philosopher is to show why this is true. As Wittgenstein writes, we should not confuse "same" with "identical".

But this is just another example of the peculiar phenomenon remarked on by G.E. Moore that philosophers go about sincerely asserting what they know to be false. Nothing new.



Right, and it's not new because it's an interesting technique. Say something counter-intuitional and this forces the offended hearer to manifest his reasons. Surely, H knew that in a normal sense we can step in the same river twice. But did they, the less abstract, stop to consider that this river was always different water? The river is the form, and not the water. The river is a concept used to interpret sensation. The nonphilosophical mind doesn't pay attention to this.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Thu 27 May, 2010 01:35 am
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;169458 wrote:
Right, and it's not new because it's an interesting technique. Say something counter-intuitional and this forces the offended hearer to manifest his reasons. Surely, H knew that in a normal sense we can step in the same river twice. But did they stop to consider that this river was always different water? The river is the form, and not the water. The river is a concept used to interpret sensation. The nonphilosophical mind doesn't pay attention to this.


Well, maybe that is true. That metaphysicians like Heraclitus know that what they are saying is false, but they say it anyway to shake us up, so that by understanding why what they said is false, we'll achieve a clearer understanding of what is true. It is a little like shock therapy. Maybe. But I consider that a very benign, and very charitable interpretation of metaphysics. I think that metaphysicians really do believe the clearly false things (or worse, nonsensical things) they say. Although, at the same time, they know what they say is false (or even, nonsensical). I, myself, think that metaphysicians suffer from a good deal of cognitive dissonance, They believe contradictory things. It is, I think, a hall mark of traditional metaphysics.
 
Owen phil
 
Reply Thu 27 May, 2010 06:13 am
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;169458 wrote:
Right, and it's not new because it's an interesting technique. Say something counter-intuitional and this forces the offended hearer to manifest his reasons. Surely, H knew that in a normal sense we can step in the same river twice. But did they, the less abstract, stop to consider that this river was always different water? The river is the form, and not the water. The river is a concept used to interpret sensation. The nonphilosophical mind doesn't pay attention to this.


imo,
Just as we can identify a predicate with the totality (set) of individuals which satisfies it, we can identify a thing, eg. a river, as the totality (set) of predicates in which it occurs, throughout the duration in which it exists.

The river is not identical to the same river at different times.
The flow of water is different at differing times.
We cannot step into the identical flow of water at different times.

The same river is that river which has the same location, same banks, etc..

The river at T1 is identical to the river at T1.
But, the river at timeT1 is never identical to the river at time T2, even though it is the same river.

Things are all that they have been up to the time considered.
Obviously this set differs at different times.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Thu 27 May, 2010 06:34 am
@Owen phil,
Owen;169504 wrote:
imo,
Just as we can identify a predicate with the totality (set) of individuals which satisfies it, we can identify a thing, eg. a river, as the totality (set) of predicates in which it occurs, throughout the duration in which it exists.

The river is not identical to the same river at different times.
The flow of water is different at differing times.
We cannot step into the identical flow of water at different times.

The same river is that river which has the same location, same banks, etc..

The river at T1 is identical to the river at T1.
But, the river at timeT1 is never identical to the river at time T2, even though it is the same river.

Things are all that they have been up to the time considered.
Obviously this set differs at different times.


I don't know what your point is. (Maybe you should try writing in English sometimes. Formalization is useful when it clarifies. Not when it obscures). Could it be that "river" is ambiguous as between the water contained in the river and the place where the water flows (the river bed) so that whether Heraclitus is right depends on which meaning of river is in question? Well, that is a possibility, I suppose. Only I don't think it is true, since that is not how the term "river" is used. When, for example, I say that the river that was crossed by Moses and the Israelites is the same river Cleopatra sailed down to meet Marc Anthony, I am not saying that the waters were the same. They were not the same. So, if what I am saying is true (which it is) then it must be that I am talking about the river bed. Have you any clear example of same river in which "river" means the waters? If I say, "the river is very cold this morning" what I am talking about it not the river itself, but the water that flows that flows through the river. "The river" in that sentence is simply short for "the river water".
 
 

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 09/23/2021 at 09:06:40