Sirius Glass
Subscriber
Doesn't the water make a river a river?
A river has water in it as long as it is not a dried up river or an arroyo. Water does not need to be in a river.
Doesn't the water make a river a river?
A river has water in it as long as it is not a dried up river or an arroyo. Water does not need to be in a river.
From Oxford dictionary:
River: a natural flow of water that continues in a long line across land to the sea.
River bed: the area of ground over which a river usually flows.
And just for kicks: it's interesting that an arroyo in English (a narrow channel with steep sides cut by a river in a desert region) is different from an arroyo in Spanish (Río pequeño de escaso caudal y profundidad, que puede secarse.)...
Doesn't the water make a river a river?
A river has water in it as long as it is not a dried up river or an arroyo. Water does not need to be in a river.
A river is by necessity a flow of water (see your definition) - i.e., the water at any particular location is always changing. That the water changes doesn't make it a different river - it just makes it a river. You can step in it over and over again.
A river is by necessity a flow of water (see your definition) - i.e., the water at any particular location is always changing. That the water changes doesn't make it a different river - it just makes it a river. You can step in it over and over again.
But the water is not the same. - some old Greek guy
For me, a river is not something static, the new water flows and its passage continuously affects the surroundings.
Notice that you said "a river" (an identified thing) is not static. That's also what I said. Heraclitus is the guy who claims a "river" is a static thing by claiming you can't step in the same one twice. If a river is a dynamic identity (which is it), you can step in it many times.
And Heraclitus handily ignored that what applies to the river also applies to whoever steps in it.
There's more poetry in realizing that something persists through whatever changes it than thinking it disappears with every moment.
Heraclitus stated that the river is dynamic and always changing. Hence one can step in the river twice but the water is different
Notice that you said "a river" (an identified thing) is not static. That's also what I said. Heraclitus is the guy who claims a "river" is a static thing by claiming you can't step in the same one twice. If a river is a dynamic identity (which is it), you can step in it many times.
And Heraclitus handily ignored that what applies to the river also applies to whoever steps in it.
There's more poetry in realizing that something persists through whatever changes it than thinking it disappears with every moment.
dang....I'm gonna have to let this one sink in...Everything is always becoming that which it is not.
Hmmm...can't quite see what you're saying...I understand it as Sirius
What I said was that Heraclitus' profound statement contains a fallacy of equivocation: he is, at the same time, saying a river is something and cannot possibly be anything. If you cannot step into "the same river" twice, then the river is never the "same" river - which is identical to saying there is no river. And the great part of all this is that is what Heraclitus was actually claiming (he firmly believed in equivocation). His principle notion was that everything is constantly in flux, the primary element of the world is fire (i.e., destructive force) - another way to state it is that nature is inherently contradictory.
This is all fun stuff 100% based on multiple confused and ambiguous sources, none of which had access to anything the guy wrote. I'm sure he would have found that satisfactory.
Anyway, back to regularly scheduled programming.
I’d say that he made parables and metaphors equivalent to zen koans.
The statement is you cannot step into the same river twice. What it essentially does - what everything Heraclitus "said" (because that's actually spurious, since there are no copies of the single book he is said to have written) does - is make to deny persistence of identity through change. Everything is always becoming that which it is not. .... Why am I responding to you?
To me, the human experience of stepping into, or even sitting quietly beside a river is the more interesting consideration. The experience and therefore the river is ever changing on anytime scale one chooses to examine.
Over the span of a human lifetime, the course of the river itself changes. It boundaries move. It develops loops and oxbows.
Over the span of a year...in the spring, the river is a dangerous torrent, raging, fast, deep and wide. Step into the river in spring, and it will likely take your life. By mid summer, the river has calmed. Its waters are cool and not too deep for a careful strong hiker to wade across. By autumn, the river, nearly dry, is reduced to a trickle in some spots and small pools in others.
Where do the fish go in winter?
If you do not believe me, take the time to look to up instead of using something that you misremembered.
"Heraclitus, I believe, says that all things pass and nothing stays, and comparing existing things to the flow of a river, he says you could not step twice into the same river." (Plato Cratylus 402a = A6)
"It is not possible to step twice into the same river according to Heraclitus" (Plutarch)
That, along with the fact that I don't actually care, should be enough about Heraclitus.
Proper translation:"Heraclitus, I believe, says that all things pass and nothing stays, and comparing existing things to the flow of a river, he says you could not step twice into the sameriverwater." (Plato Cratylus 402a = A6)
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY: ![]() |