Basically, it is saying that something cannot ever be anything that is not what it is, so it has to with change. — elucid

You're funny. Change has to do with becoming. That a circle is a circle, and not a square, is irrelevant. It can become one.

I think maybe you're trolling.

Hold on a minute, now you're being sensible again. How can you just switch it up like that? You're like Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. — S

I don't think you really believe that ethical stances are simply ways that individuals feel about interpersonal behavior. You seem to think that there are correct stances via reason.

You're funny. Change has to do with becoming. That a circle is a circle, and not a square, is irrelevant. It can become one.

I think maybe you're trolling.

You clearly did not understand me if you think I am trolling. If something cannot be anything that is not a circle, it is always something that is circle.

I don't think you really believe that ethical stances are simply ways that individuals feel about interpersonal behavior. You seem to think that there are correct stances via reason. — Terrapin Station

Well, sure, there are stances that I'd call correct, and I arrive at them through reason. But reason isn't the driving force. Moral emotions are the driving force. And obviously I don't mean correct in a useless, imaginary objectivist sense. Maybe you adopt that interpretation in order to say that there's no correct answer, but that seems wrongheaded to me.

S accused you of trolling because you are avoiding the actual points people raise, and you are just repeating the same things

You clearly did not understand me if you think I am trolling. If something cannot be anything that is not a circle, it is always something that is circle. — elucid

Yes, until it becomes a square, like in the animations that you can see with your own eyes.

And you're definitely trolling.

Well, sure, there are stances that I'd call correct, and I arrive at them through reason. But reason isn't the driving force. Moral emotions are the driving force. And obviously I don't mean correct in a useless, imaginary objectivist sense. Maybe you adopt that interpretation in order to say that there's no correct answer, but that seems wrongheaded to me. — S

Can't moral emotions be any stance imaginable?

↪elucid S accused you of trolling because you are avoiding the actual points people raise, and you are just repeating the same things

My point for creating the thread is to help people understand those statements, not prove that change is possible or not possible.

Can't moral emotions be any stance imaginable? — Terrapin Station

Hypothetically. What's your point?

I believe the only valid point here against my argument was that we see change everyday. My point for creating the thread is to help people understand those statements, not prove that change is possible or not possible. — elucid

What about the statement that a circle can't be a square, but it can become one? Do you understand that statement?

Hypothetically. What's your point? — S

If they can be any stance imaginable, how do we get to any being right or wrong via reason?

What about the statement that a circle can't be a square, but it can become one?

Doesn't that mean that a circle can be a square?

Wait you dont think reason plays a part at all? That someone has a moral stance that is contradictory and illogical doesnt matter to you at all, cuz they cant be right or wring about such things? Is that right?

I would like comments on the following statements. It is about change.

Statement 1:

A circle is never the same as anything that is not a circle. Therefore, a circle is something that is never anything that is not a circle.

Statement 2:

Something existent is never the same as something non-existent. Therefore, something existent is something that is never non-existent. — elucid

I'm probably misunderstanding you but both statements appear tautological to me.

Is there a hidden conclusion using the two statements? I can't see it. Kindly clarify it. Thanks.

As to the question "is change possible?" I think the answer is both "yes" and "no" depending on what it is that you're focusing on. For instance, a baby, x, is born, grows up, becomes old and then dies. That's a description of change. However, throughout these events x is always human- x never becomes something else, right?

However, I don't know which philosopher suggested it, we may divide the properties of objects, those by which we discern change, into primary and secondary, the former defining the object/substance and the latter being merely incidental. If we do this then change may come out as illusory - changing dresses doesn't change the person. I think the whole change-no change claims reside at this fundamental level of reality.

Is there a hidden conclusion using the two statements? I can't see it. Kindly clarify it. Thanks.

It's about change in property of things.

If they can be any stance imaginable, how do we get to any being right or wrong via reason? — Terrapin Station

It's impossible to get to any stance being right or wrong without the moral feeling which drives us towards right or wrong, and without the faculty of reason to reach that conclusion. And why would you disagree about right or wrong, correct and incorrect, on subjective and relative terms?

Doesn't that mean that a circle can be a square? — elucid

No. It means that a triangle can be a seagull.

It is ultimately saying that everything remains the same. — elucid

On what basis? How do you know that?

A thing is not what it's not. That's just saying it is what it is which isn't very helpful to someone like me.

Do you mean that becoming isn't possible, the Parmenidian way?

If you have the time can you post your interpretation of it here?

Thanks.

I would like comments on the following statements. It is about change.

Statement 1:

A circle is never the same as anything that is not a circle. Therefore, a circle is something that is never anything that is not a circle.

Statement 2:

Something existent is never the same as something non-existent. Therefore, something existent is something that is never non-existent. — elucid

I'm not great at logic but this reminds me of the old "You never really get there" argument. Imagine you're on a pitchers mound throwing a softball to a little league player. Let's call him Timmy. So you toss the ball and Timmy swings his bat, but first he has to swing his bat half the initial distance, then half of the remainder, then half of what remains after that. This goes on forever infinitely dividing so that the bat never actually reaches the ball.

In reality little Timmy hits the ball, the ball hits your nutsack, and you hit the ground.

When something actually happens to it by an outside force, then a future instance of it stops being unchanging and changes. This argument only holds true in the past, where once something has happened it "happens" forever.

It's impossible to get to any stance being right or wrong without the moral feeling which drives us towards right or wrong — S

You're not equivocating moral right/wrong and right/wrong in the sense or correct/incorrect or accurate/in error here, are you? When I say that this is the sort of stuff that we can't get right or wrong I'm saying that we can't say something accurate or in error about it (insofar as moral stances go, where we're not simply reporting what moral stances people happen to have). I'm not saying that we don't have moral dispositions, that we don't think that various things aren't right or wrong.

Wait you dont think reason plays a part at all? — DingoJones

People will reason from stances that they take to be foundational in a given instance (what people treat that way can change on different occasions).

That someone has a moral stance that is contradictory and illogical doesnt matter to you at all, cuz they cant be right or wring about such things? — DingoJones

They can't be right or wrong, correct, because the foundational stances can't be right or wrong. As an analogy to logic, we can't have sound arguments in ethics (stemming from premises that are ethical stances), because we can't have true premises--and every single ethical argument, no matter the content, is valid because of this, because validity obtains when it's impossible for premises to be true. (At least in traditional logics rather than relevance logics.)

Usually when people have moral views that seem contradictory or illogical relative to whatever they'd consider foundational views, it's a matter of the views not being expressed in a way that's qualified with respect to what their disposition actually is.

People can have contradictory dispositions, but that's not as common.

I get what you're saying here but I think the example is problematic. Circles don't really exist. They are abstract ideas. But if you have a hoop made of leather, you can change it's shape. Now someone, say Heraclitius, might say, it is no longer the same thing. The first thing is gone. Now there is a triangle shaped loop of leather. But most of us would find it useful to think it is the same thing, now in a different shape.

But an abstracted hypothetical circle is only its shape. The line of the circle is not made of anything and has no width. So if you change a hypothetical abstraction into a different one, you have changed its essence. But this doesn't say much about real life.

I think you can make this argument better, and I think the way people are brushing it off is both not charitable and facile. But that said, it does need some work.

But most of us would find it useful to think it is the same thing, now in a different shape. — Coben

Sure. But that's just an example of abstraction.

I sense this is part of something more complicated, you're response. What does the 'just' mean?

"Just" = "only" = "it's not something else than"

In other words, it's not really the same thing. That's only an abstraction. It's a way we think about it, by way of performing an abstraction.

I always gotta triangulate....
would it be fair to say you see the hoop of leather as equivalent to the Heraclitian river?

would it be fair to say you see the hoop of leather as equivalent to the Heraclitian river? — Coben

I see everything as equivalent to the Herclitian river, really. ;-)

Good. I mean, I understand your position.

I see everything as equivalent to the Herclitian river, really. — Terrapin Station

Who is this 'I', then? that that sentence applies to? All 'you' see is what you see now. Someone else would be seeing parts of that set of everything...
or?

Who is this 'I', then? that that sentence applies to? All 'you' see is what you see now. Someone else would be seeing parts of that set of everything...
or? — Coben

Yeah, your self is dynamic, too.

characterized by constant change, activity, or progress.

Or not existent over time. So in each instant there is a fixed self. There is no self that is dynamic.