/lit/ - Literature

>>5275694
You're dead fish of a mom didn't move an inch when I banged her last night.

>>5275694

Jesus man, you just going to take that? I'm calling it:

Tyranosaurus REKT


And on the Heraclitus thing, the action of the individual may disrupt his supposed natural flow. People do not change with the world, they change the world.

>>5275756
>the action of the individual may disrupt his supposed natural flow
Hmm why?

>People do not change with the world, they change the world
Why not both?

>>5275756
>action disrupts movement

try to think next time

>>5275794

I don't see the problem with the statement.

>>5275790

Conscious action is instantaneous. A person's cognitive noise is influenced by the surrounding but not necessarily determined by it. Heraclitus seems to wax deterministic. I don't know, maybe that's my take on it.

Not both because the individual is self created, self formed. A man may choose to completely ignore the world changing around him, ignore Heraclitus's flow and be unchanged for it, removing himself from the equation. It might not be healthy, but he certainly has the option. See Bartleby the Scrivener for a taste.

If everything is always changing, then the fact that everything is always changing must also change (from true to false), so the thesis refutes itself.

>>5275843

The initial implication is of movement and flow, not change. The flow of the initial premise is more akin to its own discussion.

Dude, you straw manned.

Also can someone post a quick synopsis/summary of this Heraclitus thing? I'm woefully uneducated on the subject but very passionate for the discussion.

>>5275849

>Dude, you straw manned.

then so did Plato i guess

>>5275856
First difficulty is that Heraclitus didn't define this "movement"

>>5275861

Well then Heraclitus is a tremendous fag. Ipso Facto, Ex Officio, pick your shit. The theory, as it is unwritten, unexplained, unargued is nothing more than the whispers of a dead man.

You have an opportunity here to clarify Heraclitus and write up your own review of his principles in the matter but until you do discussion of the idea is groundless. Literally.

>>5275819
>I don't see the problem with the statement.

action is movement. movement doesn't disrupt movement, it is simply more movement.

>>5275861

The second difficulty is that he regularly contradicted himself, on this point and others:

>We both step and do not step in the same rivers. We are and are not.

>>5275888
Movement here being the outward flow, the individual's independent action can be crosscurrent or even countercurrent to the existing flow, resisting the movement. Even if this "Action" is as simple as "I'm not leaving the burning building. Fuck you." The flow is resisted by the individual.

>>5275889

see>>5275882

>>5275694
Parmenides?

refuting that would be refuting time. nothing stops.

>implying anyone here including me is prepared to discuss philosophical ideas of this profundity

>>5275914

You seem to be implying that our perception of the world and the actual world are the same thing.


>>5275923

Who else fag? Anyone who is prepared for it has more valable things to be doing with their time.

>>5275694
>you cannot know nuffin

>>5275904
And what did Parmenides said?

>>5275903
But Action =/= Movement. Even if you sit on a chair and wait three hours, the world would still move and so will you, right? Why reducing movement to the action of using your leg?

>>5275914
THIS.
No point in refuting trite shit.

A poem about love:

Her
A clit
Us

>>5275914
>>5276082
But Aristotle did it.

>>5275745
Yeah my mom's a fish but Jewel's mother is a horse. Did you know that, huh? Darrel? Did you know that Jewel's mother's a horse?

>>5275694
Damn that nigga must have used some dank ass conditioner cuz his beard is shiny as fuck.

10/10 would nuzzle

>>5275756
What a load of bullshit. If this is the best refutation to Heraclitus, then I assume he's right.

>>5276093
>Unmoved Mover
>1789

>>5276090
HA

A sophist, nominalist, atheist, materialist monist, nihilist, panmobilist professor was teaching a class on Heraclitus, known weeper.

"Before the class begins, you must momentarily accept that a new class is beginning every moment, and that once the class is over you will never be able to recall the same class (or infinite number of classes made up of an infinitude of moments, as it were) again."

At this moment a brave Platonic, Aristotelian, Thomist who full understood that the problem of universals was the central problem of all metaphysics and philosophy and who knew that all modern philosophy was the misguided following of Ockham's nominalism, stood up and said:

"Everything flows, panta rhei; is that right, professor?"

The amorphous professor smirked quite formlessly and ambiguously replied, "Yes, it's been approximately 2500 years since Heraclitus established the doctrine that everything flows."

"Wrong. If everything flows, as you say, then the statement "everything flows" also flows, making it as permanent or established as the proverbial river that was no doubt was made up of babby Heraclitus' tears, probably because he knew that he would never be a true philosopher."

The professor was visibly shaken, and dropped his copy of "Wild Ones ft. Sia" by Flo Rida . He stormed out of the room crying those nominalist tears. The same tears that are not the same tears when they leave the eye as when they hit the floor. There is no doubt that at this point our professor, Jacques Derrida, had contemplated the Forms instead of peddling ancient sophisms among a degenerate Academia. He wished so much that he had a self to kill, but he himself had argued that the self is nothing but a transitory event in the great flow of things!

The students applauded and all read the Republic and accepted that everything derives its existence from one universal Form, Αγαθών. The Apology was read several times, and Socrates himself showed up and acted as midwife for all the noble truths that the students' souls were pregnant with.

Nothing became of the professor because according to his own logic he ceases to be by the end of this post.

Χαλάζι Πλάτωνα.

>>5276351
But when Heraclitus formulated the "panta rhei", didn't he meant to talk about the the visible world ("horaton") and not "ideas"?

>>5276351

That was beautiful

>>5276461
B-Bump for a response

>>5275849
>implying the og assertion isn't straw

>>5276461

Yes, obviously. Heraclitus didn't believe in a world aside from this one. He would sometimes stress that our senses could lie but that's just scientific fact now.

>>5276461
I agree that the physical world is always in flux, but I think Heraclitus extended this even to ideas, i.e. he was a "phenomenalist", ideas are just "perceptions" that flow in and out of existence like the motions of matter.

>>5276351
Hey anon, high five.

>>5275694

Why does it need to be refuted? No reason has been presented to believe it. It's a mere assertion.
Positions themselves can only be refuted if they are self-contradictory. Only arguments FOR theories are generally refuted, and none has been given.