Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...
Moderator: PoFo Agora Mods
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.
Well, its just that Marxism and any form of Realism are going to be pretty difficult to reconcile.
Very funny. You are wrong. Marxism preaches realism.
Which position, holds, exactly?
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?
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.
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).