That seems to be entirely missing the point that it's a metaphor.

It's like taking issue with another of the profound statements: "Your teacher can open the door, but you have to step in."

"Well, no," you point out, "you could be carried in by the teacher. Or maybe you're in a wheelchair and you need to wheel in."

The door, and stepping, in this case, are to be understood metaphorically. So is the river and the rock.

A bloody-minded willingness to argue over meaningless technical minutiae is one of the mighty fences separating engineering from philosophy. It subtly undermines the supposedly profound statements by pointing out that there's still a little bit of bullshit in them, too.

As no engineer ever said, "The house built from enlightenment has insufficient amps coming into the breaker panel."

The philosopher makes a profound statement that less sophisticated thinkers can understand. The engineer just builds a hydraulic cutter that is remarkable in its system to keep the silicon carbide grit slurry from clotting in the supply lines, and asks which river rock you want sliced up.

Intentionally missing the point is a form of trolling. And it's super fun when it's deflating the pomposity out of someone.

Which makes sense, as this is essentially a Rorschach test about prosocial behavior.

Basically the test is immune to this kind of criticism, because it's only interested in your response to it.

And lo and behold if you "troll" it by declaring it all bullshit, you're a type A engineer willing to argue over meaningless things, which certainly isn't very prosocial, whatever value it otherwise brings.

I was nodding along until I realized that you're proposing "a bloody-minded willingness to argue over meaningless technical minutiae" is a good thing.

It isn't good, but it's sometimes fun. That depends entirely on who you're doing it to. If you're not careful, it could end up being just mean.

I don't think it's fair to criticize metaphor as bullshit insofar as the definition of bullshit is something like "saying things without regard for their truth values" (paraphrasing Harry Frankfurt) because metaphor doesn't have the sort of truth requirement you seem to think it does.

So it's all bullshit?

You're right of course but you get what they _mean_ right?

Persistence can be key to accomplishing something significant you don't feel capable of.

Or am I being too charitable?

That specific example seems more like some combination of persistence and power is required: great power suddenly and temporarily expressed could cut through stone while a weak power expressed over a long-enough time frame would have the same effect. On it's face it's only a partially true statement and thus is effectively 'BS' when presented as an aphorism.

As well, it anthropormorphizes the effect of gravity on water as 'persistence.' It might serve as a fine metaphor for human persistence but that's all.

Possibly Controversial:

I think it's key to read it a specific (overly charitable?) light.

You kind of have to take for granted that it's good advice in context. Someone is feeling discouraged and incapable facing come significant task and the best advice is to not be distracted by the feelings of incapability but rather persevere.

If you're reading it as statement on the relationship between power and persistence .. um .. you're missing it's point. Whether you agree or think it isn't well communicated is besides the point a little bit.

I think it would sound more metaphorical if you removed the indefinite articles, instead starting with "The river cuts through rock"

But that doesn't emphasise why. The point is to say "keep on truckin'".

If you have to spend a minute thinking about erosion first then it loses its punch.

> It might serve as a fine metaphor for human persistence but that's all.

That's what it's intended to do. It's not trying to be a statement about Geology.