1. Reality is fundamentally flux, and permanency is constructed
2. Reality fundamentally is, and change is an illusion
Of those two postulates, which one is less offensive to you? That is, which one seems fundamentally more plausible and less counterintuitive? I want to know your intuitions. — Pneumenon
For clarity, please provide your definitions of the key terms here--time, reality, flux, permanence, constructed, change, illusion. Also, why not consider as a third option that the reality of time includes both permanence and change--enduring things and their varying qualities, not to mention the fixed but growing past and the constant but advancing present.1. Reality is fundamentally flux, and permanency is constructed
2. Reality fundamentally is, and change is an illusion — Pneumenon
Take these two:
1. Reality is fundamentally flux, and permanency is constructed
2. Reality fundamentally is, and change is an illusion — Pneumenon
In my stillness, I experience flux, in my variation, I see permanence. Each needs to assume the other as fundament.The same eye sees the hands of the clock move, and the ever-changing self sees always the same present. Don't make me choose. — unenlightened
I don't even know what either of these statements are saying. It seems like they make some substantive claims about reality, but when I try to nail these claims, they just slip out of my hands. — SophistiCat
1 seems like a cop-out, as if refusing to really consider the question. But, perhaps I have it backward: maybe the refusal to consider the question springs from having 2 as an intuition, and not the converse. — Pneumenon
Good question. If everything is flux, you make stuff out of the flux, although the permanence of the stuff you make is never true permanence. But if everything "just is," then any change is only apparent. That choice of words was very deliberate. — Pneumenon
1. Reality is fundamentally flux, and permanency is constructed
2. Reality fundamentally is, and change is an illusion
Of those two postulates, which one is less offensive to you? That is, which one seems fundamentally more plausible and less counterintuitive? I want to know your intuitions.
I find that 2 is easier to believe. 1 seems like a cop-out, as if refusing to really consider the question. But, perhaps I have it backward: maybe the refusal to consider the question springs from having 2 as an intuition, and not the converse. 2 seems more plausible to me because it seems to line up with relativistic physics, and overall woobly-wobbly subjective nature of time that philosophers long before Einstein have suspected for centuries. — Pneumenon
:up:... CHANGE is real, where on the other hand, TIME is the illusion. — 3017amen
Think Democritean / Epicurean atomism.Think Heraclitus and Parmenides. Unless this is a lead up to saying that both are nonsense ... — Pneumenon
:100:In my opinion, it is 2 that’s a cop-out, and 1 lines up better with relativistic physics as I understand it (Carlo Rovelli’s ‘The Order of Time’ outlines this quite well). — Possibility
2 is more of a comfort to believe, particularly considering the relativity of time, and the uncertainty it lends to our notion of reality. In my opinion, it is 2 that’s a cop-out, and 1 lines up better with quantum relativity as I understand it (Carlo Rovelli’s ‘The Order of Time’ outlines this quite well). — Possibility
Same here, but mostly the second half of what you've said. Emphasis on flux is good as a counterbalance to an overemphasis on permanancy, but neither are comprehensible without the other. Which, I guess is boring, but seems all you can really say at this level of generality.Team flux here. Constancy is just ordered flux, the invariant in variation. I'll only add: both are perfectly real, only that the one furnishes the sufficient reason for the other. — StreetlightX
What's called an 'illusion' is still real, as the thing it is, it just can also be understood in a different way by shifting context. — csalisbury
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.