Nauseating Flux: I ris M urdoch on S artre and H eraclitus

I observe I ris M urdoch's distinctive use of the word ‘flux’ in discussion of S artre's N ausea and show that her usage is persuasive and revolutionary, first as S artre exegesis, second as H eraclitus exegesis, and throughout as a contribution to the philosophy of language. M urdoch's usage of ‘flux’ frames a comparison of S artre's R oquentin with other figures who have had similarly flowing experience but without nausea. R oquentin's plight is shown to be ‘a philosopher's plight’ precipitated by a defective theory of descriptive success. I then show how the H eraclitean fragments would support M urdoch's treatment of flux and on close analysis contradict the established view exemplified in the work of W ittgenstein and J onathan B arnes. Flux is not a variety of change, and the river image ‘cannot be analysed into non‐metaphorical components without a loss of substance’.