on the nature of change

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

I am presenting this as a base for understanding this post…

K: ow comes the second part of my argument… which you clearly don’t
understand… the point of my story of changing my mind is that I
change to adapt to new conditions on the ground… that is, in essence,
science…changing to adapt to new situations… change is the
fundamental aspect of our world… if you don’t change, you die…
maybe you have heard of dinosaurs? not literal dinosaurs, but
figurative dinosaurs…being unable to change means one cannot
cope with the ever-changing environment… change is not only expected,
but it is required to survive.

M: I understand all of that. See, you’re assuming too much. I understand that change is necessary – but not any kind of change and not always. The solution to the problem of life is a bit more intricate than the simplistic “Change, change, change!” What if at some point in time you happened to arrive at truth, and instead of holding onto it, you decided to substitute it with a complete falsehood? Not a good kind of change, isn’t it? Again, it’s not about changing and not changing. It’s about thinking and not thinking. The outcome of thinking can be that one should change – but not necessarily.

K: this comes from the “real reason for the failure of America”
thread… I wanted some basis for what I am about to write…
I shall specifically write about this post, then write
a general post about change in general…

Magnus Anderson wrote: “What if at some point in time,
you happen upon the truth, and instead of holding onto it,
you decide to substitute it with a complete falsehood”

K: and once again, an abstract, theoretical point… “What if”
what if cow had wings, they could fly… sure, if we are playing the
theoretical/ abstract game…I prefer reality, planet earth…
name me someone who has done exactly what you suggest,
instead of a “what if” game. give me reality…
and that is the problem with Magnus entire thinking,
he plays the “what if” an abstract, theoretical game…
the devil is in the details… give me some concrete details…
not some vague abstract wishful thinking…

that is my specific and now onto the general…

if there is one truth about the universe, it is this,
that there is but one truth and that is change…
everything changes… in the human body, we
replace every single cell in our bodies once every
seven years…that some changes are quick and some slow,
but even with slow, almost imperceptible changes, changes still occur…
the sun, the earth, the Solar System, the galaxy and the universe itself,
all change, at different speeds and with different changes, but still
change is the one constant in the universe…

If I hold truths, that exactly fit who I am and what I am doing at
23, those correct truths are not so correct or right at 43 and
by 63, those truths that were correct and right at 23, are completely
wrong…idea’s, values, beliefs that seem to be perfect and correct at
23, with age become wrong and in some cases, even dangerous…

recall that I changed my political values at the election of Raygun,
in 1981, I was 21… and given a choice, I would do the exact same
thing today… I became an anarchist… and I was one for decades…
but my environment, the life I was engage in, changed
and my values, my beliefs had to change with the changing environment…

beliefs, values, truths that seem right at one age, are no longer
true at a later age… I am no longer an anarchists, although I still
hold onto certain aspects of anarchism, I no longer preach
or support anarchism… but at the time, it was the perfect truth
for where I was in my life… my relationship with the state change,
and I had to adapt my beliefs… more on this in another thread to
be called “Kropotkin and the State”…

but what if I still held onto those “Perfect” beliefs of my twenties,
today? I would be at odds with my life today, I would be at odds
with my family, I would be at odds with my current beliefs…
I would be alienated and disconnected from who I am, from
myself, my family, the state and the society… for anarchism is
no longer who I am or what I value…
I am not who I was and my beliefs and values should reflect that…

but what of change itself? I have written on ILP that change
should not only reflect who we are, but who we want to be…
we should engage in change on purpose… instead of letting
change be random but we should engage in change as
an ideal put into practice… so, I hold that one of the most
important values is peace… so, I should practice what I preach,
and engage in peace… and this I do by denouncing violence…
for I hold that violence never gets the results we want or hope for,
ask Putin about that…violence only begats violence… as peace
will begat peace…and as love begats love…and hope offers us
more hope…you may get the picture…

instead of allowing change to be random and done by chance,
we should actively engage in the change we want…
if we want a peaceful world, we must actively engage in
peace and create, change the world to become peaceful…
values and beliefs are simply choices… let us make the right choices
by accepting values/beliefs that reach higher, like the values of
love, peace, hope, charity, non-violence… we can make the changes
we want by making the choices to which values and beliefs we hold…

change can be and should be a choice… not random or by chance…

Kropotkin

2

You are the one claiming that change is always good. And since the onus of proof is always on the one making the claim, it’s up to you to prove that change is always good and not up to me to disprove it. And to do so, you have to eliminate every other possibility. One such possibility is that there are people who at some point in time arrived at truth only to abandon it in favor of something that is completely false. It’s up to you to prove that such people do not exist, not up to me to prove that they do. You’re currently shifting the burden of proof.

I have to say that I am surprised that you’re not merely uncertain whether such people exist but that you’re actually certain that they don’t.

I can name myself, for example. I did that sort of thing many times in the past. I did it who knows how many times on this forum alone. I once tried to multiply two numbers, and even though I got the correct number the first time, I doubted it and went for another try which resulted in the wrong number.

One thing at a time.

Are you saying that change is not merely good but the only thing that is taking place? That constancy is an illusion? If that’s true, then it follows that dogmatic, stubborn, people do not exist. Yet, in the last thread of yours, you proclaimed that dogmatic thinking is the problem of the present day America. I don’t know what to make of this.

I don’t know about you but my sex/gender is the same as it always was. I know there’s a lot of push in this direction but I prefer to stay male.

So truth changes with age? What’s true at 20 is not true at 40? I am completely new to the idea that truth changes with age. I thought that what’s true today is what used to be true in the past and what will be true in the future.

Your beliefs changed, not truth.

I’m looking forward to your new threads. I am pretty sure there will be plenty of them.

You are using words in a very strange way.

3

Magnus Anderson: What if at some point in time,
you happen upon the truth, and instead of holding onto it,
you decide to substitute it with a complete falsehood?

Peter Kropotkin: and once again, an abstract, theoretical point… “What if”
what if cow had wings, they could fly… sure, if we are playing the
theoretical/ abstract game…I prefer reality, planet earth…

M: You are the one claiming that change is always good. And since the onus of proof is always on the one making the claim, it’s up to you to prove that change is always good and not up to me to disprove it. And to do so, you have to eliminate every other possibility. One such possibility is that there are people who at some point in time arrived at truth only to abandon it in favor of something that is completely false. It’s up to you to prove that such people do not exist, not up to me to prove that they do. You’re currently shifting the burden of proof.

K: Magnus stated that “Kropotkin” said that “Change is always good” and in fact,
I didn’t say that… I said that “change is a necessity of existence” to say that
“Change is good” is a moral statement…I am not making “moral” statements
or “ethical” statements… that everything, everyone changes…is a statement
that has no moral or ethical content…to coin a phrase…

“Existence is change”

there is no moral context in this statement…
just a statement that ‘‘life is change’’ and ‘‘death ends change’’
properly understood, death means the end of existence, and that end
is the fact that change no longer happens, and even that isn’t
technically true…for in death, we decompose, which is just another
change…

K: name me someone who has done exactly what you suggest,
(which is "What if at some point in time, you happen upon the truth,
and instead of holding onto it, you decide to substitute it with a complete
falsehood)

K: the problem with this is the vague, abstract, otherworldly manner
of people reaching the “truth” and "substituting it with complete
falsehood… the very nature of truth is its non-universal, temporary nature…
there is no universal, all encompassing truth that fits everyone everywhere…
the “truth” by its very nature is contingent…
you want me to defend a proposition that is vague and so abstract that
there isn’t a possible defense for it because of its vagueness, because
of its ambiguous nature… it is so hazy as to be a worthless statement…
“happen upon a truth and substitute it with a falsehood”

M: I have to say that I am surprised that you’re not merely uncertain whether such people exist but that you’re actually certain that they don’t.
I can name myself, for example. I did that sort of thing many times in the past. I did it who knows how many times on this forum alone. I once tried to multiply two numbers, and even though I got the correct number the first time, I doubted it and went for another try which resulted in the wrong number.

K: the very statement makes no sense… who would, in their right mind,
would take a “truth” and substitute it with a falsehood? that is my problem…

K: instead of a “what if” game. give me reality…
and that is the problem with Magnus entire thinking,
he plays the “what if” an abstract, theoretical game…
the devil is in the details… give me some concrete details…
not some vague abstract wishful thinking…

M: One thing at a time.

K: you are trying to pretend you didn’t say anything
about the fact that your statements are vague
and abstract/theoretical…I can’t do anything with
such vague and abstract statements like the ones you make…

K: if there is one truth about the universe, it is this,
that there is but one truth and that is change…
everything changes… in the human body, we
replace every single cell in our bodies once every
seven years…that some changes are quick and some slow,
but even with slow, almost imperceptible changes, changes still occur…
the sun, the earth, the Solar System, the galaxy and the universe itself,
all change, at different speeds and with different changes, but still
change is the one constant in the universe…

M: Are you saying that change is not merely good but the only thing that is taking place? That constancy is an illusion? If that’s true, then it follows that dogmatic, stubborn, people do not exist. Yet, in the last thread of yours, you proclaimed that dogmatic thinking is the problem of the present day America. I don’t know what to make of this.
I don’t know about you but my sex/gender is the same as it always was. I know there’s a lot of push in this direction but I prefer to stay male.

K: what else is happening besides change? I am saying that dogmatic,
stubborn people do exists and that is the problem… they are
fixated on ‘‘truths’’ that are contingent and temporary… acting like
you do, that the ‘‘truth’’ is fixed and permanent… it isn’t…
Magnus says ‘‘my gender is the same as it always ever was’’
but the wider ‘‘truth’’ is that gender fluidity is a thing…
you are not everyone and millions of people question and even
change their gender… gender is not fixed… values, beliefs,
ideas are not fixed or set…even within one person or in a set
period of time…

K: If I hold truths, that exactly fit who I am and what I am doing at
23, those correct truths are not so correct or right at 43 and
by 63, those truths that were correct and right at 23, are completely
wrong…idea’s, values, beliefs that seem to be perfect and correct at
23, with age become wrong and in some cases, even dangerous…

M: So truth changes with age? What’s true at 20 is not true at 40? I am completely new to the idea that truth changes with age. I thought that what’s true today is what used to be true in the past and what will be true in the future.

K: and we hit your real problem… that “truth” is relative,
subjective, temporary is the reality of “truth”… “Truth”
does change with age… name me a “truth” that has
remained the same since the time of the Greeks?
or even a “truth” that as remained as the “truth” since
say my birth, in 1959…What I saw as the “TRUTH” in my
twenties changed as I grew older…
recall that I changed my political values at the election of Raygun,
in 1981, I was 21… and given a choice, I would do the exact same
thing today… I became an anarchist… and I was one for decades…
but my environment, the life I was engage in, changed
and my values, my beliefs had to change with the changing environment…

M: Your beliefs changed, not truth.

K: and what is the difference between beliefs and “TRUTHS?”
please give me a “TRUTH”?

K: beliefs, values, truths that seem right at one age, are no longer
true at a later age… I am no longer an anarchists, although I still
hold onto certain aspects of anarchism, I no longer preach
or support anarchism… but at the time, it was the perfect truth
for where I was in my life… my relationship with the state change,
and I had to adapt my beliefs… more on this in another thread to
be called “Kropotkin and the State”…

M: I’m looking forward to your new threads. I am pretty sure there will be plenty of them.

K: but what if I still held onto those “Perfect” beliefs of my twenties,
today? I would be at odds with my life today, I would be at odds
with my family, I would be at odds with my current beliefs…
I would be alienated and disconnected from who I am, from
myself, my family, the state and the society… for anarchism is
no longer who I am or what I value…I am not who I was and my beliefs and
values should reflect that…

M: You are using words in a very strange way.

K: what you believe in today, is different than what you believed in
20 years ago, assuming you are even twenty… and your beliefs today,
will be different in 20 years… and that isn’t a guess…

Kropotkin

4

Perhaps you didn’t say that change is always good but you did say that change is good. From that thread of yours, emphasis is mine.

“If you don’t change, you die” implies that change is good.

But you’re now talking about how everything is changing and nothing is the same, which is a different subject. Moreover, you’re insisting it’s the only thing you’ve been talking about.

I think that most people would understand what I’m saying. If you don’t, I suggest asking for clarification.

The point is that it happens. For whatever reason.

You said that everything is constantly changing. Since my gender is part of everything, it follows that my gender is constantly changing too. Thus, if I happen to be a male at some point in time, I am no longer a male the very next point in time. And since words are defined in such a way that if you’re not a male you’re necessarily a female, it follows that I’m a female the very next moment. And since this happens constantly, it follows that my gender is alternating at the highest possible speed. These are the implications of your claim that everything is change. Either that or you’re not using your words carefully. I’d say the latter is more likely to be the case.

Again, if everything is changing, it follows that every single belief of every single person is changing as well. What this means, in turn, is that there are no beliefs that persist through time, and consequently, no stubborn people.

The mistake that you’re making is that you’re confusing beliefs with truths. Belief is merely what someone holds to be the case with respect to some portion or aspect of the universe. It’s something that may or may not correspond to the addressed portion of reality. Truth, on the other hand, is specifically a belief that corresponds to reality. Truths do not change because they do not have the capacity to change. “2+2=4” is an example of a belief that has always been, and will always be, true for everyone. That the sky is blue, as seen from the Earth, is another. It fits every single person at every single point in time. There are no truths that were true yesterday but false today or that are true for you but false for me. What is true does not change. What can and does change is what people think is true.

Dogmatic people are people whose beliefs do not change in response to new evidence (but perhaps in response to something else and in some cases never.) They are closed-minded people who have little to no interest in cooperating with other people when it comes to discovering what is true. They may also be people with confidence issues who find it difficult to process criticism and anything that deviates from their present beliefs. Whether or not truth is universal has nothing to do with it.

5

I posted this on another forum in response to how mentally ill people are in this world. :wink: