NationStates Jolt Archive

The seven-year-olds sit cross-legged on the carpet scratching their chins philosophically.

These bright, young pupils have been asked to consider "whether it is possible to step in the same river twice?".

[...] Then, in a flash of inspiration, one of the boys who has been waggling his hand impatiently, now ventures hesitantly: "If you step in the river on Saturday and then you went to step in the river on the next day - where you stepped on Saturday would be gone because the river keeps on moving."

[...] Posing philosophical questions like these encourages the children to think in a different way to the one they are used to, he argues.

"In philosophy instead of working out how to do a sum, we think about what maths actually is.

"As Einstein says, once a mind has been stretched over a new idea - it cannot be stretched back.

"It's opening up channels in the brain - teaching them to think for themselves by giving them the tools to do that.

Head teacher Kathy Palmer says: "It also teaches them that confusion can be a good thing - that it's OK to make a mistake.

"What we try to do is to give them a tool-kit so they know what to do when that happens."

A recent study suggested that children's IQs are boosted by learning philosophy at an early age.

Behaviour also tends to improve when children get a chance to gain some emotional intelligence through philosophy.


(Article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/6264378.stm))

For a long while I've thought that would be a brilliant idea... and now they're actually doing it. This should be spread around and encouraged.

(Article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/6264378.stm))

For a long while I've thought that would be a brilliant idea... and now they're actually doing it. This should be spread around and encouraged.

It's always good to see children asking questions, this is a great idea.

I think it's another idiotic attempt by parents to structure their kid's lives so they never spend any time actually being children.

I think it's another idiotic attempt by parents to structure their kid's lives so they never spend any time actually being children.

Hahaha, ahhh... Don't you mean another attempt to ignore them? But anyways, how would this structure their lives? Wouldn't it cause them to ask more questions, be lessed structured and less like the masses?

Hahaha, ahhh... Don't you mean another attempt to ignore them? But anyways, how would this structure their lives? Wouldn't it cause them to ask more questions, be lessed structured and less like the masses?

No, they'd still be sending their children off to perform some activity in which they are forced to do things.

Christ, why can't kids just mess around? That's what they used to do, and stuff turned out fine.

(Article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/6264378.stm))

For a long while I've thought that would be a brilliant idea... and now they're actually doing it. This should be spread around and encouraged.

Well, John Dewey http://dewey.pragmatism.org/ came up with that idea about 100 years or so ago. Hippocrates, http://www.nndb.com/people/680/000087419/ came up with that idea a few thousand years ago.

It is a great teaching method as it teaches conceptualization rather than rote memory.

I think it's another idiotic attempt by parents to structure their kid's lives so they never spend any time actually being children.

Being child. People tend to equate this with play. Play, to put in a certain light, is doing pointless things for no reason other than you enjoy it.

Philosophy is thinking about pointless things for no reason other than you enjoy it.

I fail to see why teaching philosophy is a bad thing for children.

I think it's another idiotic attempt by parents to structure their kid's lives so they never spend any time actually being children.

Did your childhood not involve learning things?

Did your childhood not involve learning things?

It did, but it seems sort of excessive to make seven year olds think about philosophy. It practically sounds like the perfect recipe to get an emo kid.

Christ, why can't kids just mess around?

How does the one prevent the other?

Well, John Dewey http://dewey.pragmatism.org/ came up with that idea about 100 years or so ago. Hippocrates, http://www.nndb.com/people/680/000087419/ came up with that idea a few thousand years ago.

...and Plato got there before Hippocrates. Well, for certain elements of society, anyhow.

It did, but it seems sort of excessive to make seven year olds think about philosophy. It practically sounds like the perfect recipe to get an emo kid.

What is the real difference between a kid asking 'why is the sky blue', and a kid asking 'why is the sky'?

Besides that, emo was last month's punchbag. Today we hate the new wave of british shoegaze.


EDIT: oh yeah, and a cookie for the first kid to point out that you can't step in the same river once.

Besides that, emo was last month's punchbag. Today we hate the new wave of british shoegaze.

...Shoegaze?

Read that article a few days ago and had same thoughts :)

Learning how to think, evaluate, take into account different view-points, question... these skills, and how they can be used to take in knowledge in a worthwhile way, invalueable.

...Shoegaze?

Emo. *nod*

Example: My Bloody Valentine.

Disagree, kids shouldn't be left pondering upon the condition of humanity.

Kids should be free from those kind of hassles, especially the kind that questions your own existence.

There has to be a better way to stimulate emotional intelligence in children.

Emo. *nod*

Example: My Bloody Valentine.

Wait...Shoegaze is emo?

Oh...Shoegaze...gazing at your shoes, looking down, I get it now.

Hey if that's true I'm a Shoegazer... screw you guys... Just kidding I love you guys... hug time?

Absolutely not.

Wait...Shoegaze is emo?

Oh...Shoegaze...gazing at your shoes, looking down, I get it now.

Hey if that's true I'm a Shoegazer... screw you guys... Just kidding I love you guys... hug time?

Disagree, kids shouldn't be left pondering upon the condition of humanity.

Kids should be free from those kind of hassles, especially the kind that questions your own existence.

There has to be a better way to stimulate emotional intelligence in children.
I don't think it necessarily involves things like that, and definitly doesn't have to. Simply thinking abstractly about certain things, such as the river question in the article, and seeing different ways to answer a question.

I think it's another idiotic attempt by parents to structure their kid's lives so they never spend any time actually being children.

Whenever I hear / read this, I have to ask - what do you think "being children" is? My own childhood can be summed up as unquenchable curiosity - the world was a magical place with no end of new things to discover, learn about, experiment with and finally, joyfully, understand.

I wish adulthood were the same instead of wasting so much life redoing things i did a million times before just to pay the bills :(

EDIT: oh yeah, and a cookie for the first kid to point out that you can't step in the same river once.

Same river meaning that you've been in it before, and if you've just stepped in it once you've just stepped in a river, not the same river?

I want to step into this river

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shag_River

(Article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/6264378.stm))

For a long while I've thought that would be a brilliant idea... and now they're actually doing it. This should be spread around and encouraged.

fucking brilliant. about time, too. it might be a great way to expand children's horizons, open their minds and even help the chavs-of-tomorrow learn a little respect and humility toward their fellow man.

make it a core subject!!

Whenever I hear / read this, I have to ask - what do you think "being children" is? My own childhood can be summed up as unquenchable curiosity - the world was a magical place with no end of new things to discover, learn about, experiment with and finally, joyfully, understand.


Exactly. I feel sorry for any child who grows up without that sense of curiosity and wonder.

Exactly. I feel sorry for any child who grows up without that sense of curiosity and wonder.

I feel sorry for any child who's forced to grow up having their sense of curiosity and wonder enslaved to ideas brought up by dead guys.

I think it's another idiotic attempt by parents to structure their kid's lives so they never spend any time actually being children.If they're gonna be in school anyway, I don't see how this give sthem less time "to be kids". Nevermind philosophy is lot more fun for kids (and grownups) than some subjects you're forced to do in school.
It's the ultimate "why?"-game.

I feel sorry for any child who's forced to grow up having their sense of curiosity and wonder enslaved to ideas brought up by dead guys.Is that an argument for or against teaching kids philosophy? I mean, most subjects in school are "ideas brought up by dead guys". But in as much as philosophy was thought up by dead guys, it also endeavers to set one free of current preconceptions.
Questioning everything is very much at the heart of philosophy.

Same river meaning that you've been in it before, and if you've just stepped in it once you've just stepped in a river, not the same river?

As you step in the river, the waters are already flowing - thus it is not the same river, even once. All things are flux. Cratylus, a follower of Heraclitus, pointed this out about the river, when Heraclitus had failed to follow his own thought experiment through to its own logical conclusion.

I feel sorry for any child who's forced to grow up having their sense of curiosity and wonder enslaved to ideas brought up by dead guys.

Meh. The dead guys are oft times more interesting than the living, no?

Is that an argument for or against teaching kids philosophy? I mean, most subjects in school are "ideas brought up by dead guys". But in as much as philosophy was thought up by dead guys, it also endeavers to set one free of current preconceptions.
in philosophy you have the chance to put your own view across, make up your own mind and argue your case. can't say that for maths or the sciences (until you get way, way past primary school :P) whereby one mostly learns parrot-fashion. eugh.

i feel sorry for any kid who grows up closed-minded and with a narrow world view. and, sadly, there are plenty of them about

I feel sorry for any child who's forced to grow up having their sense of curiosity and wonder enslaved to ideas brought up by dead guys.

did you ever play pacman? A child's curiosity is like that - it's not enslaved by ideas, it eats them up and never gets full :)

I feel sorry for any child who's forced to grow up having their sense of curiosity and wonder enslaved to ideas brought up by dead guys.
That's not all philosophy is. I mean, you end up questioning and reinterpreting the ideas of dead guys fairly often, not being enslaved to them... and by contemplating the same questions, you can arrive at different answers, but by knowing about earlier ideas, you can see if your ideas have been thought of before or see if your ideas have been questioned and examine the lines they were questioned along... basically, you can learn to think crirically and examine your ideas as well as the ideas of others.

I think that teaching philosophy to children is a brilliant idea.

As you step in the river, the waters are already flowing - thus it is not the same river, even once. All things are flux. Cratylus, a follower of Heraclitus, pointed this out about the river, when Heraclitus had failed to follow his own thought experiment through to its own logical conclusion.

Ah ok. I went down the being picky about the words route...

I feel sorry for any child who's forced to grow up having their sense of curiosity and wonder enslaved to ideas brought up by dead guys.

You haven't actually read the article, have you? Not even glanced through it?

EDIT: oh yeah, and a cookie for the first kid to point out that you can't step in the same river once.That's sounds more like grammar than philosophy... the first half of the sentence suggests repetition, whereas your last word outrightly denies any repetition.

Anyway, I would say it is possible to step in the same river twice. All depends on how you define 'river'.

It's like that Jason and the Argonauts myth. Which is Jason's boat - the one he is standing on, or the one built out his discarded timbers? A river isn't define by what is in it, but rather by the river basin it flows through.

To say the river is not the same river is like claiming you are not yourself by virtue of the fact that none of the original cells in your body remain.

I'd like to ask what they have cut to make room for this because to be honest kids don't get enough time as it is especially when it involves sitting down turning by the second into the angry pieces of fat you see filling offices

I would also have too see how this works out considering you could just talk out your arse and get an A+ (oh wait that is philosophy:p) and that philosophy being taught as a program is way to easy to manipulate minds especially when its focused instead of just talking about whatever a child thinks about

To say the river is not the same river is like claiming you are not yourself by virtue of the fact that none of the original cells in your body remain.
I would say that I'm not myself more because each new day brings new experiences and new perspectives. Every day I look at things in a slightly different manner, so the me of today is not the same as the me of yesterday and the me of tomorrow will be different from every previous version of me.

Because I constantly grow and change, I am never the same person. Just like the river, which is constantly in motion, constantly changing. You can choose to define me by the vessel of my body (which also changes, albeit at a slower rate) just as much as you can choose to define the river by the path it crosses rather than the water that is in the river... that doesn't mean that myself or the river are ever the same moment to moment.

edit: I also just thought about how the course of a river changes bit by bit... I mean, look at the grand canyon.

To say the river is not the same river is like claiming you are not yourself by virtue of the fact that none of the original cells in your body remain.

Yes, you are correct, but...

...you're missing the point: at any instant the cells of your body are undergoing change. You don't have to look at it from a lifelong perspective. The body moment to moment is not identical to itself.

It doesn't matter if the thing being discussed is like a river where the flow is clearly apparent, or like the human body where the flux is less obvious, or like a Roman road, where the change may not even be noticeable over a generation.

What Heraclitus and Cratylus were doing was pointing out that all things were in a constant state of change, and so defining them as static entities was a mistaken exercise - instead it is much more productive to look at them as processes.

By your definition you are an A+ philosopher.


You win the thread.

I would also have too see how this works out considering you could just talk out your arse and get an A+ (oh wait that is philosophy:p)...

By your definition you are an A+ philosopher.

A river isn't define by what is in it, but rather by the river basin it flows through.

If the Nile waters were replaced throughout with magma, would it still be the Nile?*

Are you not entering into a circular definition here - defining a river by a river basin? Aside from that, sure, we all know that the river basin itself is not a static entity (otherwise there would be no river basin), and so you're just shifting the question of what constitutes the same river from one of the nature of the water in the river and the way that it changes to the earth or rock over which it flows and the way that those change.


* or, for that matter, with a cold airflow instead.

It would still be a river in Egypt if that's what you're asking.

A man from Arizona once went to Mississippi, and on returning to Arizona a friend asked him if he had seen the Mississippi river.
The mans response was:
"Well, I tried, but there was a bunch of water in the way."
This being a rather clever refrence to the fact that %90 of what we call 'rivers' in Arizona are, in fact, river beds, having not had water in them for the last thirty years or so except after a hard rain.

A river is whatever you call a river. People in Arizona call long sandy bits of depressed terrain rivers. People in most other places call muddy bits of depressed terrain covered in flowing water rivers.
'River' is an arbitrary term. Therefore the correct answer is that a river is a river.
As to stepping in the same river twice, why not? The water isnt the river. It is an essential component to MOST peoples definition of a river, but I myself have stepped in the Palo Verde river several times. The same spot, in fact.

EDIT:
On another note, say the word 'river' to yourself a few times.
Wierd, eh?

If the Nile waters were replaced throughout with magma, would it still be the Nile?*

Are you not entering into a circular definition here - defining a river by a river basin? Aside from that, sure, we all know that the river basin itself is not a static entity (otherwise there would be no river basin), and so you're just shifting the question of what constitutes the same river from one of the nature of the water in the river and the way that it changes to the earth or rock over which it flows and the way that those change.


* or, for that matter, with a cold airflow instead.
He's also ignoring the fact that a river's basin is constantly changing as well... the flow of the water is constantly eroding the water's path and changign its shape, rate of flow et c. It might not be a fast change, but it's still constantly changing.

The one time I can bring up an ox-bow lake in conversation and the interesting part of the discussion has already happened. For fuck's sake.

He's also ignoring the fact that a river's basin is constantly changing as well... the flow of the water is constantly eroding the water's path and changign its shape, rate of flow et c. It might not be a fast change, but it's still constantly changing.

Yup, which is why I wrote...

and so you're just shifting the question of what constitutes the same river from one of the nature of the water in the river and the way that it changes to the earth or rock over which it flows and the way that those change.

Emphasis added.

The water isnt the river. It is an essential component to MOST peoples definition of a river, but I myself have stepped in the Palo Verde river several times. The same spot, in fact.

Are you claiming that that bit of 'sandy terrain' was identical each time you stepped in it?

Yup, which is why I wrote...
Oh yeah. I'm clearly awesome at this reading thing, aren't I?

As you step in the river, the waters are already flowing - thus it is not the same river, even once. All things are flux. Cratylus, a follower of Heraclitus, pointed this out about the river, when Heraclitus had failed to follow his own thought experiment through to its own logical conclusion.

Actually, considering what a river is, you can step in the same river as often as you want. The river may have changed between two different points in time, but that doesn't make it any less 'the same river'...

Are you claiming that that bit of 'sandy terrain' was identical each time you stepped in it?

Not exactly identical, but I was stepping on the same point, no dramatic shift occured in the terrain, and while the Earth had no doubt rotated a few hundred miles by the time I got back, it was still the same spot.

Not exactly identical, but I was stepping on the same point, no dramatic shift occured in the terrain, and while the Earth had no doubt rotated a few hundred miles by the time I got back, it was still the same spot.

Not exactly identical = same?

Not exactly identical, but I was stepping on the same point, no dramatic shift occured in the terrain, and while the Earth had no doubt rotated a few hundred miles by the time I got back, it was still the same spot.

Thus when you say the 'same spot' you mean 'different spot'.

Not exactly identical = same?
I'm talking about an area, not some sand particles.

Thus when you say the 'same spot' you mean 'different spot'.

No, I mean the same spot. As I said, a river isnt the water, a river is a space.

No, I mean the same spot. As I said, a river isnt the water, a river is a space.

a large natural stream of water (larger than a creek); "the river was navigable for 50 miles"

wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12845548&postcount=44

I'm talking about an area, not some sand particles.

Relative to what fixed point do you define this area?

a large natural stream of water (larger than a creek); "the river was navigable for 50 miles"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Exactly. Nowhere does it say that a river consists of a certain list of water drops, the term 'stream' indicates that a river is a non-static entity. (which in turn implies stepping twice in a river is possible).

Typically the river banks.

What makes those river banks rather than just slopes?

An area relative to what?

Typically the river banks.

What makes those river banks rather than just slopes?

The river between them.

Typically the river banks.

The river banks are in a state of constant flux too.

Not exactly identical, but I was stepping on the same point, no dramatic shift occured in the terrain, and while the Earth had no doubt rotated a few hundred miles by the time I got back, it was still the same spot.
And of course, the wind didn't erode anything at all, did it?

The river banks are in a state of constant flux too.

And of course, the wind didn't erode anything at all, did it?

There was no wind, and as far as I could see, the river bank was exactly the same as the last time I passed by it.
This is irrelevant, however, to the arguement.
I'm saying that the river IS the space between the banks. Even if you change the dimensions, its still the same river. Fill it with water, lava, acid, or chimp feces, its still a river.
When it ceases to be a river is another arguement entirly.

There was no wind, and as far as I could see, the river bank was exactly the same as the last time I passed by it.
This is irrelevant, however, to the arguement.
I'm saying that the river IS the space between the banks. Even if you change the dimensions, its still the same river. Fill it with water, lava, acid, or chimp feces, its still a river.
When it ceases to be a river is another arguement entirly.

It is the flowing liquid that makes it a river not the container holding it

There was no wind, and as far as I could see, the river bank was exactly the same as the last time I passed by it.
Your footprints didn't displace any sand? Some animals didn't build nests/burrows/whatever nearby, disturbing the area?

largely the same != exactly the same

It is the flowing liquid that makes it a river not the container holding it
Not according to the state of Arizona or several maps of the US, which list a number of rivers in Arizona that contain no water.
In any case, this still doesnt adress the point, that being that a river is an area in space, a container, if you like, not the water (or liquid of your choice) IN the river.

Your footprints didn't displace any sand? Some animals didn't build nests/burrows/whatever nearby, disturbing the area?

largely the same != exactly the same

I never said it was exactly the same, I noted that no significant changes had been made.
And no, no animals build anything nearby. It was 110 degrees outside and the non-drowned animals dont build their homes in washes.

In any case, this still doesnt adress the point, that being that a river is an area in space, a container, if you like, not the water (or liquid of your choice) IN the river.


The water is what makes it a river is what makes the container a river bed with river banks

The water is what makes it a river is what makes the container a river bed with river banks

But its not the river.

I never said it was exactly the same, I noted that no significant changes had been made.
And no, no animals build anything nearby. It was 110 degrees outside and the non-drowned animals dont build their homes in washes.
Singificant change isn't what matters here.

The statement "you can't step in the same river twice" implies that you can't step in an identical river twice. Now, however you define river, something will have changed between your visits.

The water is what makes it a river is what makes the container a river bed with river banks

The people of Arizona and anywhere else where there are dry rivers disagree.

The people of Arizona and anywhere else where there are dry rivers disagree.

And those dry rivers are defined by the water that once flowed through them

But theres no water in them anymore. Theyre still called rivers. Therefore its possible to have a river without water.

By virtue of a false name

Singificant change isn't what matters here.

The statement "you can't step in the same river twice" implies that you can't step in an identical river twice. Now, however you define river, something will have changed between your visits.
It doesnt say anything about an 'identical' river in the statement. It just says 'river', assuming that 'identical' is in there somewhere is silly.
Looking at the statement literally, its saying that you cant pass through the same space, in this case an area relative to the two shores of the river, twice. Which is silly as well.

And those dry rivers are defined by the water that once flowed through them

But theres no water in them anymore. Theyre still called rivers. Therefore its possible to have a river without water.

It doesnt say anything about an 'identical' river in the statement. It just says 'river', assuming that 'identical' is in there somewhere is silly.
No, it says "the same river" sameness implies a lack of differences...

Looking at the statement literally, its saying that you cant pass through the same space, in this case an area relative to the two shores of the river, twice. Which is silly as well.
The point is that everything is in a constant state of change. Even the air above the river (or riverbed) is constantly changing.

It doesnt say anything about an 'identical' river in the statement. It just says 'river', assuming that 'identical' is in there somewhere is silly.


These bright, young pupils have been asked to consider "whether it is possible to step in the same river twice?".

Emphasis helpfully added for the hard of reading.

Heraclitus, I believe, says that all things go and nothing stays, and comparing existents to the flow of a river, he says you could not step twice into the same river.

Emphasis helpfully added for the hard of reading.

Emphasis helpfully added for the hard of reading.



Emphasis helpfully added for the hard of reading.

Somebody woke up on the wrong side of the forum. I'll wait until you've had your nap.

No, it says "the same river" sameness implies a lack of differences...


Quote:
Looking at the statement literally, its saying that you cant pass through the same space, in this case an area relative to the two shores of the river, twice. Which is silly as well.

The point is that everything is in a constant state of change. Even the air above the river (or riverbed) is constantly changing.

That depends on how you define 'same', from my view, 'same' means that the river is still, for instance, the Rio Grande. From the perspective of 'the river has not changed at all' then no, you cant step in the same river twice. But from my point of view, a river is a river, and it'll be the same river until somebody fills it in.

I caught the tail end of a cool show just today with the Blue Men teaching kids philosophy through demonstration of discovery, with accompanying narrative.

As you step in the river, the waters are already flowing - thus it is not the same river, even once. All things are flux. Cratylus, a follower of Heraclitus, pointed this out about the river, when Heraclitus had failed to follow his own thought experiment through to its own logical conclusion.

The question is not about the sameness of the river, but the sameness of stepping. The kid who answered got that.

The question is not about the sameness of the river, but the sameness of stepping. The kid who answered got that.

A number of kids answered.

I think it's brilliant. Children are faced too often with monolithic knowledge beyond their skills to critique properly, as though there is a right answer to every question. Presenting them with dilemmas that have no "right answer" gives them a chance to think for the fun of it, whether or not it increases their "intelligence." That can only be a good thing.

Dilemmas and paradoxes have an element of pure fun to them which few adults are lucky enough to still appreciate.

*...*
That depends on how you define 'same', from my view, 'same' means that the river is still, for instance, the Rio Grande. From the perspective of 'the river has not changed at all' then no, you cant step in the same river twice. But from my point of view, a river is a river, and it'll be the same river until somebody fills it in.

Quite right. Even if a drought or a new dam deprived the 'river' of all its water, there would still in a sense be a river there, because it is where the water will flow when there is water again.

I'm sure someone will disagree. It does sound a bit mad, a river with no water.

It is a great teaching method as it teaches conceptualization rather than rote memory.
As long as they don't forget to teach some things by rote. Like timestables. They stopped doing the whole rote-learning thang in NZ schools several years ago as it was considered a 'bad thing'. As a result, when those kids got to College where I was trying to teach them maths, they had no idea about multiplication and would rely on their calculators for everything.
It was a huge pain in the butt.

It did, but it seems sort of excessive to make seven year olds think about philosophy. It practically sounds like the perfect recipe to get an emo kid.

Think emo kids are really all that philosophical?

That depends on how you define 'same', from my view, 'same' means that the river is still, for instance, the Rio Grande. From the perspective of 'the river has not changed at all' then no, you cant step in the same river twice. But from my point of view, a river is a river, and it'll be the same river until somebody fills it in.

I agree. The water is a property of the river, but the river, in its landmark-ish sense, is still the same river.
If you replace all the furniture in your house, it's still the same house.

Think emo kids are really all that philosophical?
No, they're usually not. They're too busy being depressed to contemplate anything outside their own particular sadness, which is hardly philosophy at all.

It is funny that there's this equation of: intellectual = emo = bad though

I'm sure someone will disagree. It does sound a bit mad, a river with no water.

Nah mate. Makes total sense. Look at the dead river in Maine. Some of the best rafting on the east coast.

On the other hand, it spends a lot of time as bone dry river bed.

Teh river is not teh water.

it seems sort of excessive to make seven year olds think about philosophy.

so was there ever an argument put forth to defend this position?

Philosophy, bah! Kids should be doing something more constructive, like factory work or coal mining! That's what they used to do, and stuff turned out fine!

:p

Philosophy, bah! Kids should be doing something more constructive, like factory work or coal mining! That's what they used to do, and stuff turned out fine!

:p

imagine how much more efficient our factories could be if they were built using the newest tiny components and wasting vastly less space by not having to have room for full-sized people to get around in them. bring back the dark satanic mills, i say!

Nah mate. Makes total sense. Look at the dead river in Maine. Some of the best rafting on the east coast.

On the other hand, it spends a lot of time as bone dry river bed.

Teh river is not teh water.
Isn't it? When the 'river' is dry, it's just a river bed.

Isn't it? When the 'river' is dry, it's just a river bed.

hmm, this brings up an interesting point in itself. is this a river?
http://barsoom.msss.com/http/ps/channels/nirgal.gif

Water would have to had been there at one point.

hmm, this brings up an interesting point in itself. is this a river?
http://barsoom.msss.com/http/ps/channels/nirgal.gif

Possibly the remaining signs of one. Are the fossils of dinosaurs actually dinosaurs?

imagine how much more efficient our factories could be if they were built using the newest tiny components and wasting vastly less space by not having to have room for full-sized people to get around in them. bring back the dark satanic mills, i say!

That's why I've always been in favor of utilizing Hobbit slave labor. But nooo, damn hippie elves are always like, "that shit's eeeeevil!"

Think emo kids are really all that philosophical?
Err not usually, no.

Some are, others are just pretentious and all about THE PAIN OF SOCIETY!

But then there are wankers and alright people in every group, to be fair.
Philosophy, bah! Kids should be doing something more constructive, like factory work or coal mining! That's what they used to do, and stuff turned out fine!

:p
*nods*

The Empahr wasn't built off the back of philosophy, absolutely not. It was built off the scabby, malnutritioned backs of orphans in the mills.

Good times, good times.

Five pages about what constitutes a river. Jesus fucking Christ.

Five pages about what constitutes a river. Jesus fucking Christ.
*nods*

This is why making ANYONE learn philosophy is Bad And Wrong. If you need to actually be pushed into thinking about the world, then it's a bit of a wasted effort, and to be fair, a river is a river. If it's dried up, it's just the banks. This is all.

*nods*

This is why making ANYONE learn philosophy is Bad And Wrong. If you need to actually be pushed into thinking about the world, then it's a bit of a wasted effort, and to be fair, a river is a river. If it's dried up, it's just the banks. This is all.

But argueing about pointless things is one of humanities finest traditions! Not to mention NSG's.
I can point you to any number of threads where people scream at each other endlessly about whether or not theres a God.

But argueing about pointless things is one of humanities finest traditions! Not to mention NSG's.
I agree, but I think that having people argue with each other at school for the sake of it is perhaps not the best idea.
I can point you to any number of threads where people scream at each other endlessly about whether or not theres a God.
*nods*

And all of them piss me off endlessly.

There are lots of words for rivers with no water in them: Wadi, arroyo etc... Also, a riverbed would seem to be a better description of what is there than a river.

*nods*

This is why making ANYONE learn philosophy is Bad And Wrong. If you need to actually be pushed into thinking about the world, then it's a bit of a wasted effort, and to be fair, a river is a river. If it's dried up, it's just the banks. This is all.

They're not asking these questions just for the sake of it, they're asking them to try and show children that the way they see the world isn't necessarily the only valid view. These days, this can only be a good thing.

I agree, but I think that having people argue with each other at school for the sake of it is perhaps not the best idea.

even though understanding arguments and having solid critical thinking skills to pick out good ones from bad ones and to develop, analyze, and express your own are pretty clearly very important things?

Yep, that they are...

Perhaps the kids are getting taught how to think? So? Its not like brainwashing doesn't happen already...

And if kids were being taught the mode of thinking required in each subject:
Critical thinking - Literature
Categorising / Logic - Science
Problem Solving - Mathematics
Just to name a few (they may overlap), would vastly improve performance in those areas...

I think it's another idiotic attempt by parents to structure their kid's lives so they never spend any time actually being children.

Enriching and stimulating a child's mind is to deny them a childhood experience?

Five pages about what constitutes a river. Jesus fucking Christ.

As any first term philosophy student 'knows' a river is something that participates in the Platonic form of 'river'.

After the first term the answers get more interesting...

hmm, this brings up an interesting point in itself. is this a river?
http://barsoom.msss.com/http/ps/channels/nirgal.gif

No. That is an anotated photograph.

No. That is an anotated photograph.

well played, you win this round.

well played, you win this round.

http://www.foucault.info/documents/img/notapipe/Magritte-pipe.jpg

http://www.foucault.info/documents/img/notapipe/Magritte-pipe.jpg

But it only isn't if you understand French. That denies the universality of the concept, so reducing the apparent paradox to a set of meaningless symbols underneath a representation of smokers artifact.

But it only isn't if you understand French. That denies the universality of the concept, so reducing the apparent paradox to a set of meaningless symbols underneath a representation of smokers artifact.

Bingo. You said the key word.

They're not asking these questions just for the sake of it, they're asking them to try and show children that the way they see the world isn't necessarily the only valid view. These days, this can only be a good thing.

Thank you for actually getting what this is about.

I think it's another idiotic attempt by parents to structure their kid's lives so they never spend any time actually being children.Being children meaning to do pointless things?

They're not asking these questions just for the sake of it, they're asking them to try and show children that the way they see the world isn't necessarily the only valid view. These days, this can only be a good thing.

*gives gold star for post*

http://img216.imageshack.us/img216/5641/istockphoto1803807goldsth3.jpg

Sorry about my immensely late reply.... but deal with it.

I would say that I'm not myself more because each new day brings new experiences and new perspectives. Every day I look at things in a slightly different manner, so the me of today is not the same as the me of yesterday and the me of tomorrow will be different from every previous version of me.

Because I constantly grow and change, I am never the same person. Just like the river, which is constantly in motion, constantly changing. You can choose to define me by the vessel of my body (which also changes, albeit at a slower rate) just as much as you can choose to define the river by the path it crosses rather than the water that is in the river... that doesn't mean that myself or the river are ever the same moment to moment.

edit: I also just thought about how the course of a river changes bit by bit... I mean, look at the grand canyon.If the Nile waters were replaced throughout with magma, would it still be the Nile?*

Are you not entering into a circular definition here - defining a river by a river basin? Aside from that, sure, we all know that the river basin itself is not a static entity (otherwise there would be no river basin), and so you're just shifting the question of what constitutes the same river from one of the nature of the water in the river and the way that it changes to the earth or rock over which it flows and the way that those change.


* or, for that matter, with a cold airflow instead.

I would point to the Nile as a counter exampe. The Nile has existed for over 5,000 years, and yet it is still called the Nile (I might be taking liberties here as it's name has probably changed due to linguistic reasons).

So it is still the same river that the Pharoah of Egypt masturbated into.

I mena if you want to take your argument to extremes I could point out that if I could get an object that would be indentical in composition from one moment to the next and that I could make sure it occupied the exact same space as well then it would still be different from one moment to the next. Why? Because it no longer occupied the same moment in time. To cease to be different is to cease to move through time.

My question would be why do you call the Nile the Nile from smallest fraction of time to the next, since it is very obviously not the same river by your logic. It would be like me claiming that I am you.

Any thing may change from one moment to the next. It may be made up of different constituent parts or ir may have just moved through space and time, but will still give that thing the same label.

So though the river may change physically, it is still the same river. The word river is the noun given to the temporal vessel through which water flows. The river may change path, it may create ox bow lakes, it will eventually be composed of an entirely different set of water molecules and impurities, but it is still the same river.

Sorry, I'm not expressing myself very coherrently.

Yes, you are correct, but...

...you're missing the point: at any instant the cells of your body are undergoing change. You don't have to look at it from a lifelong perspective. The body moment to moment is not identical to itself.

It doesn't matter if the thing being discussed is like a river where the flow is clearly apparent, or like the human body where the flux is less obvious, or like a Roman road, where the change may not even be noticeable over a generation.

What Heraclitus and Cratylus were doing was pointing out that all things were in a constant state of change, and so defining them as static entities was a mistaken exercise - instead it is much more productive to look at them as processes.Oh... having read this a second time, I think this is what I mean, but put more eloquently.

But then I suppose I could claim that you put into my argument that I was claiming that the river was the same static river. All I said was that it is the same river, but not describing what I meant by 'same'.

Ahah! If I got back to my original post you find me talking about the boat of Jason and the Argonauts. I stated that though the boat materially changed it could be considered the same boat. Though I screwed up what I was trying to say with the next sentence.

*...*

Sorry, I'm not expressing myself very coherrently.

*...*

Nah, it would impress the heck out of a seven-year-old.

Think of the parents everybody! It's just not fair to come home from a hard days work, have to wash the kids clothes and make them dinner all while debating Platonic forms with a seven year old.

Times tables, perhaps. But this just isn't fair!

If you defined river specifically, there would be no debate...

If
- A river is natural waterway that transits water through a landscape;
- This means that a river can flow upwards...

- So you add, that it must have the property of flowing from higher to lower elevations...

- So by this definition, a riverbed is not a river...
- though under other defintions, a riverbed might be a river

Don't forget that is still an 'if'. What a river is depends on the definition... (isn't that what a definition is? =) )

If you defined river specifically, there would be no debate...

If
- A river is natural waterway that transits water through a landscape;
- This means that a river can flow upwards...

- So you add, that it must have the property of flowing from higher to lower elevations...


Ah, yes, but sometimes rivers do flow up elevations...take a weir for example.

Nah, it would impress the heck out of a seven-year-old.

Think of the parents everybody! It's just not fair to come home from a hard days work, have to wash the kids clothes and make them dinner all while debating Platonic forms with a seven year old.

Times tables, perhaps. But this just isn't fair!
Ouch, that's harsh. You're on my hit list now. :p;)

Yes, so you call it a Weir.

And you say that:
If ( A river cannot flow uphill by definition )
- A weir cannot be a river
Else
- A weir is a river, but special ones that flow backwards are called weirs

As a consequence, you just defined weir as a river that flows uphill...

But whatever the case, the definitions dictate what is called a river and what is not...

If you defined river specifically, there would be no debate...

If
- A river is natural waterway that transits water through a landscape;
- This means that a river can flow upwards...

- So you add, that it must have the property of flowing from higher to lower elevations...

- So by this definition, a riverbed is not a river...
- though under other defintions, a riverbed might be a river

Don't forget that is still an 'if'. What a river is depends on the definition... (isn't that what a definition is? =) )

A creek, by your definition, would also be a river. And what about a tidal estuary? Perhaps you should add "fresh water" to the definition.

I avoid that problem by not trying to define what a river is objectively. If someone once though it was a river and so named it, and the 'river' or the place where it was is known as "suchandsuch river" then it's a river. Even if the locals are exagerating and more objectively it is a brook or creek or rivulet.

It's a sort of commonsense definition. The Suchandsuch River is a river because most people living near it call it a river, it is marked on maps as a river, perhaps it has a town on it also named Suchandsuch River.

Even if there is no water in it. It is not reasonable to call this landmark the Suchandsuch River in the spring when it's a raging torrent, and the Suchandsuch Riverbed in the summer when it's bone dry. It's a geographical feature which will always be found in the same place.

EDIT: Another problem with strict definitions is that they depend on other definitions. For instance I could define "downhill" as "whichever way water on the surface flows" and we could toss out the "must flow downhill" requirement in the definition of 'river.' But we would still have to define "surface" which isn't so simple with water.