Reminiscing: I think back to the late 90s, around 98 maybe, when PM was hosted on the servers of a Law School and were constantly breaking down. The Pentium processors had been in use for a short while but I was still using an old 486 hand me down computer that took up to fifteen minutes to down load the only “thread” listed on the PM forum. I can’t remember the name of the thread but I remember a discussion at the time about “the validity of quantum mechanics to philosophy” was particularly robust. Philosophy forums were just getting started and the PM forum was very active during this period. I believe what has triggered my reminiscing is a longing for the times before trolls found the internet; at least they were not mean spirited back then.
Wayne Leggette Sr.
"Project Logic" #1
-
chaz wyman
- Posts: 5304
- Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm
Re: "Project Logic"
How are you not a troll?wleg wrote:Reminiscing: I think back to the late 90s, around 98 maybe, when PM was hosted on the servers of a Law School and were constantly breaking down. The Pentium processors had been in use for a short while but I was still using an old 486 hand me down computer that took up to fifteen minutes to down load the only “thread” listed on the PM forum. I can’t remember the name of the thread but I remember a discussion at the time about “the validity of quantum mechanics to philosophy” was particularly robust. Philosophy forums were just getting started and the PM forum was very active during this period. I believe what has triggered my reminiscing is a longing for the times before trolls found the internet; at least they were not mean spirited back then.
Wayne Leggette Sr.
Re: "How are you not a troll?"
Kelly, would you do me a great big favor by replying to chaz?
Wayne Leggette Sr.
Wayne Leggette Sr.
Re: "Project Logic"
Chaz, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers or otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion. If there is no intent to disrupt normal on-topic discussion, the person posting merely demonstrates his/her limited intellectual capacity to create productive post.
If the thread or topic “Project Logic” was created by Wayne, then, for chaz to ask Wayne, “How are you not a troll?” (on your own thread) merely demonstrates chaz's limited intellectual capacity.
If the thread or topic “Project Logic” was created by Wayne, then, for chaz to ask Wayne, “How are you not a troll?” (on your own thread) merely demonstrates chaz's limited intellectual capacity.
-
chaz wyman
- Posts: 5304
- Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm
Re: "Project Logic"
It's not as limited that I don't know that the pair of you (if you are two people) are a pair of frauds.Kelly wrote:Chaz, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers or otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion. If there is no intent to disrupt normal on-topic discussion, the person posting merely demonstrates his/her limited intellectual capacity to create productive post.
If the thread or topic “Project Logic” was created by Wayne, then, for chaz to ask Wayne, “How are you not a troll?” (on your own thread) merely demonstrates chaz's limited intellectual capacity.
Oh and may I congratulate you for managing to copy and paste a WIki definition. Your computer tutor must be really proud of you.
Re: "Project Logic"
Thanks Kelly, I had no idea how to respond to chaz asking me “how I am not a troll” on my own thread. I owe you one, thanks.
Chaz, your suspicion might demonstrate the mental state of paranoia and we all pray it has not progressed to the delusional disorder of schizophrenia. I am not a psychiatrist but my suggestion is; you should take at least six months off, away from the strenuous environment of posting.
Wayne Leggette Sr.
Chaz, your suspicion might demonstrate the mental state of paranoia and we all pray it has not progressed to the delusional disorder of schizophrenia. I am not a psychiatrist but my suggestion is; you should take at least six months off, away from the strenuous environment of posting.
Wayne Leggette Sr.
Re: "Project Logic"
Kelly,
The Project appears to have gotten distracted and off course at the moment. I wonder if you can get it back on track.
Wayne Leggette Sr.
The Project appears to have gotten distracted and off course at the moment. I wonder if you can get it back on track.
Wayne Leggette Sr.
-
chaz wyman
- Posts: 5304
- Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm
Re: "Project Logic"
Project Logic appears to have been abandoned [edited by iMod]wleg wrote:Kelly,
The Project appears to have gotten distracted and off course at the moment. I wonder if you can get it back on track.
Wayne Leggette Sr.
Re: "Project Logic"
Wayne,
I've been gone since Thanksgiving , just got back.
I think it would be easier to stay on course if the participants and readers of this thread all have the same understanding of what Philosophy is. Obviously, if this thread were a discussion about what an elephant is and no participant has ever seen an elephant or image of an elephant, it would be difficult to keep the discussion about what elephants are on course. Unlike the nature of an elephant that can be recognized by our physical senses no one can see what Philosophy is except by seeing its’ definition. For everyone to have the same understanding of what Philosophy is, everyone must read believe and accept the same definition.
“Philosophy is the love of, or search for knowledge”. This definition has probably been the most accepted during the past centuries. The problem with this definition is that philosophers from the beginning have never understood what knowledge is or the nature of what they have been searching for. Is it any wonder that doing philosophy has created so much confusion and contradiction over the last twenty-five centuries? What doing philosophy needs most to keep it on track is a comprehensive definition that establishes a systematic methodology of doing philosophy.
Kelly
I've been gone since Thanksgiving , just got back.
I think it would be easier to stay on course if the participants and readers of this thread all have the same understanding of what Philosophy is. Obviously, if this thread were a discussion about what an elephant is and no participant has ever seen an elephant or image of an elephant, it would be difficult to keep the discussion about what elephants are on course. Unlike the nature of an elephant that can be recognized by our physical senses no one can see what Philosophy is except by seeing its’ definition. For everyone to have the same understanding of what Philosophy is, everyone must read believe and accept the same definition.
“Philosophy is the love of, or search for knowledge”. This definition has probably been the most accepted during the past centuries. The problem with this definition is that philosophers from the beginning have never understood what knowledge is or the nature of what they have been searching for. Is it any wonder that doing philosophy has created so much confusion and contradiction over the last twenty-five centuries? What doing philosophy needs most to keep it on track is a comprehensive definition that establishes a systematic methodology of doing philosophy.
Kelly
Re: "Project Logic"
Kelly, nice to have you back.
I am convinced you are right about the need for a comprehensive definition of Philosophy that creates the understanding necessary to do philosophy in a more systematic way. The Project will pay you to construct a definition that accomplishes this.
Wayne Leggette Sr.
I am convinced you are right about the need for a comprehensive definition of Philosophy that creates the understanding necessary to do philosophy in a more systematic way. The Project will pay you to construct a definition that accomplishes this.
Wayne Leggette Sr.
-
Arising_uk
- Posts: 12259
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am
Re: "Project Logic"
"Something can be or not be."
"Nothing can be and not be."
"If something then something else, and that something is, that something else is."
"If something is necessary then that something is."
"I am."
"I can speak and think in a language therefore at least one other exists besides myself."
Please send my $60 to the Mencap charity.
"Nothing can be and not be."
"If something then something else, and that something is, that something else is."
"If something is necessary then that something is."
"I am."
"I can speak and think in a language therefore at least one other exists besides myself."
Please send my $60 to the Mencap charity.
Re: "Project Logic"
Arising_uk,
I will send you $600 if you will support each of your six propositional sentences with logical arguments.
Wayne Leggette Sr.
I will send you $600 if you will support each of your six propositional sentences with logical arguments.
Wayne Leggette Sr.
Re: "Project Logic"
Wayne,
Definitions are propositional sentences that establish the meaning of things and conditions in the minds of those who read and believe them. Philosophy is a concept that exist only as it’s definition. The concept of Philosophy means different things to different people and the different meanings can be radically different from the one meaning that would be the most beneficial to everyone. A hammer has a different meaning to a carpenter than it does to a CPA. But, if a CPA needs the benefit of using a hammer, the benefit comes from using/holding the hammer as the carpenter does. The benefit of Philosophy comes from how we use it that makes it most beneficial. If it is beneficial to know that the condition of doing Philosophy is related to the condition of constructing knowledge, then a comprehensive definition of Philosophy must reveal the systematic process of constructing knowledge.
Definition: “Philosophy is the process of constructing knowledge of philosophical concepts, in the form of definitions, by identifying which concepts relate to the existence of each other.
Example of a philosophical concept: Truth
Example of constructing an argument to understand the nature of truth: If it is possible to recognize a thing or condition/concept by recognizing the attributes (other things and conditions/concepts) that relate to the state of its’ existence, then it is possible to illustrate the nature of the thing or concept with a true propositional sentence. And, propositional sentences are not true when they identify things and conditions that do not relate to the existence of each other.
The only existing condition that can be true or not true is a propositional statement. Every other existing thing or condition is itself and does not relate to the condition/concept of truth.
Submitted propositional sentence defining the nature of truth:Truth is a propositional statement/sentence that identifies two or more things and conditions/concepts that relate to the existence of each other.
Definitions are propositional sentences that establish the meaning of things and conditions in the minds of those who read and believe them. Philosophy is a concept that exist only as it’s definition. The concept of Philosophy means different things to different people and the different meanings can be radically different from the one meaning that would be the most beneficial to everyone. A hammer has a different meaning to a carpenter than it does to a CPA. But, if a CPA needs the benefit of using a hammer, the benefit comes from using/holding the hammer as the carpenter does. The benefit of Philosophy comes from how we use it that makes it most beneficial. If it is beneficial to know that the condition of doing Philosophy is related to the condition of constructing knowledge, then a comprehensive definition of Philosophy must reveal the systematic process of constructing knowledge.
Definition: “Philosophy is the process of constructing knowledge of philosophical concepts, in the form of definitions, by identifying which concepts relate to the existence of each other.
Example of a philosophical concept: Truth
Example of constructing an argument to understand the nature of truth: If it is possible to recognize a thing or condition/concept by recognizing the attributes (other things and conditions/concepts) that relate to the state of its’ existence, then it is possible to illustrate the nature of the thing or concept with a true propositional sentence. And, propositional sentences are not true when they identify things and conditions that do not relate to the existence of each other.
The only existing condition that can be true or not true is a propositional statement. Every other existing thing or condition is itself and does not relate to the condition/concept of truth.
Submitted propositional sentence defining the nature of truth:Truth is a propositional statement/sentence that identifies two or more things and conditions/concepts that relate to the existence of each other.
Re: "Project Logic"
Kelly,
Project Logic will buy your last submission and is transferring to your account the amount of seventy-five dollars ($75). The Project ask you to summarize the implications of the logic developed so far in this thread.
Wayne Leggette Sr.
Project Logic will buy your last submission and is transferring to your account the amount of seventy-five dollars ($75). The Project ask you to summarize the implications of the logic developed so far in this thread.
Wayne Leggette Sr.
Re: "Project Logic"
Wayne,
By far, the most important implication resulting from the logic developed thus far is the implication that: “the process of realistic or rational thinking is grounded on understanding the nature of existence. A thing exists as itself and not another thing because it has attributes that are different from the attributes of any other thing. This is the nature of existence. Philosophers never understood this. Some went so far as to attempt to understand the nature of existence by identifying every existing thing. For some unexplained reason they never recognized the existence of everything is a construct of its’ unique attributes. And, not understanding the nature of existence made it impossible for philosophers to understand the nature of knowledge and how realistic knowledge is constructed or the process of logical rational thinking. Rational thinking is the mental process of recognizing which attributes equate to the existence of a thing or condition. Not understanding this, philosophers have created a multitude of isms in their effort to explain what they did not understand about the nature of existence. The ignorance of the philosophers has been disguised by their isms and their ignorance passed from generation to generation to those who identified themselves with this or that ism. The greatest of all human tragedies has been the isms created by philosophers, to disguise their ignorance, and being the impenetrable obstacles keeping mankind from understanding the process of rational thinking.
Kelly
By far, the most important implication resulting from the logic developed thus far is the implication that: “the process of realistic or rational thinking is grounded on understanding the nature of existence. A thing exists as itself and not another thing because it has attributes that are different from the attributes of any other thing. This is the nature of existence. Philosophers never understood this. Some went so far as to attempt to understand the nature of existence by identifying every existing thing. For some unexplained reason they never recognized the existence of everything is a construct of its’ unique attributes. And, not understanding the nature of existence made it impossible for philosophers to understand the nature of knowledge and how realistic knowledge is constructed or the process of logical rational thinking. Rational thinking is the mental process of recognizing which attributes equate to the existence of a thing or condition. Not understanding this, philosophers have created a multitude of isms in their effort to explain what they did not understand about the nature of existence. The ignorance of the philosophers has been disguised by their isms and their ignorance passed from generation to generation to those who identified themselves with this or that ism. The greatest of all human tragedies has been the isms created by philosophers, to disguise their ignorance, and being the impenetrable obstacles keeping mankind from understanding the process of rational thinking.
Kelly