You can swim in the same river twice - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

For the discussion of Philosophy. Discuss thought from Socrates to the Enlightenment and beyond!

Moderator: PoFo Agora Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. Religious topics may be debated in this forum, but those of religious belief who specifically wish to avoid threads being derailed by atheist arguments might prefer to use the Spirituality forum.
User avatar
By Vladimir
#799819
Aren't you some kind of marxist/leninist?

Yes, why do you ask?
By Mysterious
#799842
Isn't it an arguement of quantitifying time in respect to change? Everything in the world changes to some minute degree continually. So change is a factor of time based on some quantity....in a second the river has changed but not as much as in an hour.
By Aeschylus
#800234
Yes, why do you ask?
Well, its just that Marxism and any form of Realism are going to be pretty difficult to reconcile.

Isn't it an arguement of quantitifying time in respect to change?
No, it isn't. The problem is that change occurs at all. How much is not at issue. ANY change will generate our present problem with the notion of identity. While it is true that a river will change more in an hour than in a second, either change will affect the present difficulty equally.
User avatar
By Vladimir
#800878
Well, its just that Marxism and any form of Realism are going to be pretty difficult to reconcile.

:lol: Very funny. You are wrong. Marxism preaches realism.
User avatar
By Le Rouge
#800885
Very funny. You are wrong. Marxism preaches realism.

Marxism is a materialist doctirine. Realism suggest that immaterial universals exists. Realist dualism and Marxian materialism are in conflict. Marxism and realism cannot be reconciled without out one losing something that defines it.
By Aeschylus
#800887
Marxism preaches realism.
Ho! Damn, you're right.

I mean... Marx himself was a realist, at least. That I did not know. It is strange that modern marxists are so often adamantly nominalist. Wierd.
By Liberal Scum
#801673
Which position, holds, exactly?

That when you swim in the river the second time it will undoubtedly be different to the first.
By Aeschylus
#802405
That when you swim in the river the second time it will undoubtedly be different to the first.
Different surely, but that's not the question... does the river, become a different river, or is it the same river changed in various ways?

Do you become a different person every millisecond? After all, the molecules that make you up are constantly moving and coming and going. If you hold the position that you seem to, you deny the notion of identity.
User avatar
By The Antiist
#832162
I think the whole argument is retarded. The mississippi wouldn't be named something else if someone would jump in it, now would it? Yeah, the river changes when you jump in it, but your body changes too when you jump in it plus jumping in it the second time has another effect too, so it's completely irrelevant whether the river itself changes or not, because it are too completely different issues.
User avatar
By Eddier1
#832294
Marxism preaches realism.
Ho! Damn, you're right.

I mean... Marx himself was a realist, at least. That I did not know. It is strange that modern marxists are so often adamantly nominalist. Wierd.


You're both wrong; he was not a realist. He was a materialist. Social realists are not realists which hold that knowledge is of essences that are metaphysical and not in any way, shape, nor form of the external world.

Marx was an historical materialist, and his philosophy is materialism, and not realism. Nominalism holds that essences or universals are not metaphysical entities but instead are part and parcel of the material world; in short, are found in the social concrete conditions of the external world. So that nominalism is the farthest thing from a "twilight zone" since it is
based in the material world and not in the abstractions of metaphysics.
User avatar
By Apollos
#832305
If you most resurrect a dead thread, why a dumb one :*(
User avatar
By Eddier1
#832724
Heraclitus will never die. He was the first philosopher to see the world, and everything in it in terms of PROCESS. He was the first to have a point of view that is valid with respect to organic actual entities, nor as metaphysical abstractions, but as actuality played out in nature. In this he was ages ahead of static thinkers of his time, since he was forshadowing the discovery of evolution wherein nature is ever changing, an organic process.

Only deadheads want to put him on the shelf of the history of philosophy; and bring on the religionist scholastics with their stultifying metaphysical and mystical nonsense. :roll:
#15121085
Here is MacIntyre's answer in regards to the process view of the self yet retaining continuity. You are in a sense not the same person but you have always been you.
https://ecommons.udayton.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1064&context=rel_fac_pub
This has important consequences for the problem of Aristotle's "metaphysical biology." Imagine we had the opportunity to ask Aristotle, "How can I know that I am the same person as the me of ten years ago?" He would likely reply, "Though your body changes through growth and decay, your form, or essence, is immutable." But this answer is not likely to fly very far for a modern audience. In contrast, Macintyre suggests that narrative provides a better explanation for the unity of a human life. The self has continuity because it has played the single and central character in a particular story-the narrative of a person's life. Macintyre puts it this way: the unity of the self "resides in the unity of a narrative which links birth to life to death as a narrative beginning to middle to end" (205).

Language tends to tear things away from their process and reify them.
The Rio Grande is still the Rio Grande even when the river changed so significantly that it caused a land dispute on the border of the U.S. and Mexico.
You are still you even though you'll presumably die an old person where once you were one. But there is some connection or continuity through all these changes.

Castro came from money and then married into elit[…]

https://media.thedonald.win/post/r4tc[…]

When has paying hush money been illegal? In[…]

Social Darwinism and modern ''Racism'' (more prop[…]