"Project Logic" #3

[Felasco]

Housekeeping: You might find it helpful to use the quote function. To put text in quotes, just highlight the text, and then click the quote button at top of the editor.

To summarize, as seen from here...

The Project is all about establishing realistic definitions of the conceptual words used to do philosophy

The project has requested realistic definitions. I've made a good faith effort to do just that.

My proposal suggests that the existence of separate things (key to your proposal) is a useful conceptual convention with practical value, (we agree here) but not a realistic definition of the real world (we disagree here).

You have politely declined to engage the argument I've supplied in response to your request. You won't agree with my proposition, but are unwilling to challenge it either.

You asked us to dance with you, and then once we got you out on the dance floor, you decided you didn't want to dance after all.

Good luck with your next dance partner!

[reasonvemotion]

And it follows; the existence of any thing is a construct of its’ unique attributes and if it’s attributes change, the state of its’ existence changes.

Give me an example of a change that has made this happen to prove your point.

[Felasco]

We have a new contestant!

[wleg]

Argument: If it is possible to use words to do philosophy that constructs useful knowledge, or do philosophy that does not construct useful knowledge, it follows; the words that symbolize concepts used to do philosophy must have realistic definitions, else the knowledge will be unrealistic and senseless.

Propositional statement: The process of using words to do useful Philosophy depends on using words symbolizing concepts having realistic definitions.

The subject of dancing has come up, dancing is fun, doing realistic and useful philosophy is challenging.

reasonvemotion: "Give me an example of a change that has made this happen to prove your point."

Wayne: Trees that have the attribute of leaves in the summer and lose their leaves in the fall. The state of the existence of a tree in the summer is changed by the change in temperature and time to a state of not having the attribute of leaves in the fall.

"We have a new contestant!"
We could use some new ideas supported by simple logical argument


Wayne Leggette Sr.

[Ginkgo]

Argument: If it is possible to use words to do philosophy that constructs useful knowledge, or do philosophy that does not construct useful knowledge, it follows; the words that symbolize concepts used to do philosophy must have realistic definitions, else the knowledge will be unrealistic and senseless.

Propositional statement: The process of using words to do useful Philosophy depends on using words symbolizing concepts having realistic definitions.

I'll argue the opposite if it wins me a prize.

In a funny sort of way words don't have realistic meanings. Wittgenstein tells us in in later works that language no simple essence. In other words, it is not possible for us to gain an insight into 'reality' by a careful analysis of language. Language is an artificial construction that has over time been piecemealed together to serve the purpose of communication. It doesn't give us the opportunity to look behind the veil to see, 'the truth'

Instead Wittgenstein tells us that language is a very complicated activity that has been learned in many different ways. It is the search for an essence, or the search for 'real' meaning behind experience which has been evident in Western philosophical history.

We are naturally driven by some sort of impulse to find a simple explanation. History has shown that problems in language, mathematics and empirical science cannot be solved by means of constructing an ideal interpretation of language.


Don't blame me it was Wittgenstein.

[reasonvemotion]

Wayne: Trees that have the attribute of leaves in the summer and lose their leaves in the fall. The state of the existence of a tree in the summer is changed by the change in temperature and time to a state of not having the attribute of leaves in the fall.

Thus it follows; It is possible to understand the existence of any thing by recognizing and remembering which attributes relate to the existence of which things.

The deciduous nature of that particular tree is inclusive in its very attributes which relate to the existence and uniqueness of it. Losing its leaves are intrinsic to its very nature of existence. If the tree were to lose the ability to be deciduous that to me would be a significant change, enough to warrant that the tree had changed from its original design to become another.

This will never happen.

[Felasco]

We could use some new ideas supported by simple logical argument

You've demonstrated that you will ignore new ideas supported by arguments once they are provided in response to your request.

[chaz wyman]

Argument: If it is possible to use words to do philosophy that constructs useful knowledge, or do philosophy that does not construct useful knowledge, it follows; the words that symbolize concepts used to do philosophy must have realistic definitions, else the knowledge will be unrealistic and senseless.

Propositional statement: The process of using words to do useful Philosophy depends on using words symbolizing concepts having realistic definitions.

In that case. Define the following:

Useful
Knowledge
symbolise
realistic
senseless
process.

[Ginkgo]

Argument: If it is possible to use words to do philosophy that constructs useful knowledge, or do philosophy that does not construct useful knowledge, it follows; the words that symbolize concepts used to do philosophy must have realistic definitions, else the knowledge will be unrealistic and senseless.

Propositional statement: The process of using words to do useful Philosophy depends on using words symbolizing concepts having realistic definitions.

In that case. Define the following:

Useful
Knowledge
symbolise
realistic
senseless
process.

I tend to agree. These words, don't have an essential meaning. They are here because language has evolved through convention. They are an artificial constructs used to convey meaning. Whenever we attempt to define these words,all we can do is define concepts in terms of other concepts.

[Felasco]

In a funny sort of way words don't have realistic meanings.

Thank you. Yes. Words have useful meanings, but not realistic meanings.

The words are useful, because the person we share them with is using the same "operating system" that we are, thought.

So when we say "tree" implying a separate object which doesn't actually exist, the other person recognizes what we mean because they are also using thought, which creates the same illusion of division for them. They see the tree as a separate object just as we do.

If we were both aware of how the divisive nature of thought is distorting our perception of the real world, the word "tree" might come to have a more precise and accurate meaning. Instead of referring to a separate object which doesn't exist, the word "tree" might refer to the compelling shared illusion of a separate object.

However, because humans, including philosophers, are generally not interested in examining the limitations of the equipment they are using, and we have much practical business to attend to, we skip the precise and accurate definition of tree, and use the shorthand version which implies the existence of a separate object.

I would propose while this shortcut is sensible and practical for regular people doing regular tasks, it's insufficient for philosophers busying themselves with the business of definitions.

[chaz wyman]

In a funny sort of way words don't have realistic meanings.

Thank you. Yes. Words have useful meanings, but not realistic meanings.

The words are useful, because the person we share them with is using the same "operating system" that we are, thought.

So when we say "tree" implying a separate object which doesn't actually exist, the other person recognizes what we mean because they are also using thought, which creates the same illusion of division for them. They see the tree as a separate object just as we do.

If we were both aware of how the divisive nature of thought is distorting our perception of the real world, the word "tree" might come to have a more precise and accurate meaning. Instead of referring to a separate object which doesn't exist, the word "tree" might refer to the compelling shared illusion of a separate object.

However, because humans, including philosophers, are generally not interested in examining the limitations of the equipment they are using, and we have much practical business to attend to, we skip the precise and accurate definition of tree, and use the shorthand version which implies the existence of a separate object.

I would propose while this shortcut is sensible and practical for regular people doing regular tasks, it's insufficient for philosophers busying themselves with the business of definitions.

In that case. Define the following:

Useful
Knowledge
symbolise
realistic
senseless
process.

[wleg]

reasonvemotion: "If the tree were to lose the ability to be deciduous that to me would be a significant change, enough to warrant that the tree had changed from its original design to become another."

Wayne: It is the state of existence of a tree with the attribute of leaves vs the state of existence of the same tree without the attribute of leaves. I'm sure you must recognize the state of existence of a tree is partially defined by having leaves or not having leaves. If you don't recognize the difference, then think of the attributes that define the state of existence of a living tree being removed to be the state of existence of lumber. All we're doing here is recognizing the state of existence of any thing is defined by its' attributes at a moment in time. That's all we are doing, using a tree thing as an example to explain, the nature of the existence of every thing as being defined by its' attributes. We are certainly not attempting to change the nature of any thing except the nature of our own understanding of the nature of existence itself.

Felasco, your reply describes the partial problem as lack of realistic definitions,and the larger problem causes by a divisive mind, but I don't see where you are describing a solution. You appear to almost identify the solution as being to construct realistic definitions of the philosophical concepts but never actually appear to go that far. I obviously think that is the solution.

chaz, you are asking me to define the philosophical concepts and I am offering to pay you to do it. Which is it going to be? But you are right, the philosophical concepts have to have realistic definitions before doing philosophy can make sense. Which means that constructing realistic definitions of these concepts in what doing philosophy is all about.

All,

Project Logic is not here to argue with other participants. The Project will buy propositional sentences supported by logical argument that enhance philosophical knowledge. The form of argument has been explained and demonstrated. Quoting earlier philosophers is not an argument, since nothing they stated was supported by logical argument and even if it were quoting them would not be an enhancement. And, The Project does not think it reasonable to believe the enhancement of philosophical knowledge ended with the death of everyone’s’ favorite philosopher.

We recognize that words and the ability to think systematically are the tools a philosopher has to do philosophy with. What is not realized is that the ability to think systematically comes from understanding the nature of existence. Constructing the knowledge to understand the nature of existence is sort of a “catch 22” situation. In order to understand how to construct knowledge we first have to construct knowledge to understand the nature of existence to understand how to construct knowledge. Not to worry, The Project has provided a tentative definition of existence to start the process of systematic thinking and offered to pay anyone to construct a more realistic definition. Thus, to begin doing realistic philosophy, everyone must agree on the same logical definition to understand the nature of existence

To begin the process of agreeing, everyone is asked to present a definition of existence supported by logical argument and we can then sort out which definition we will agree on. It’s not too obvious to most but this is an easy process, if everyone’s argument is logical then everyone’s argument will be the same argument. It is impossible to have different logic supporting knowledge of the same concept.

BTW, until 12:00 PM next Monday The Project will pay five thousand dollars ($5000.00) to the first person who can suggest a purpose for doing philosophy more beneficial to mankind that understanding and teaching the process of realistic thinking. Must be supported by logical argument.

Wayne Leggette Sr.

[reasonvemotion]

Wleg:

Knowledge makes sense when the attributes we remember are the attributes that relate to the existence of things and conditions.

The knowledge we have of material objects is stored in memory as concepts that represent the material objects we have knowledge of. The knowledge we have of concepts i.e. long, short, wide, true, false, pretty, ugly, fat, thin, est. is also stored in memory as concepts of concepts. So, all knowledge is concepts that represent material object..............

A general notion of a thing is usually concluded from the knowledge we have gathered of it from sensory appearances. But these appearances are not always a reliable source of knowledge of things. An example could be, a melted block of chocolate. The sensory perception I had of this chocolate has changed, yet, the chocolate itself remains. A concept of things, sensory impressions are not reliable guides.

[wleg]

reasonvemotion,

A general notion of a thing is usually concluded from the knowledge we have gathered of it from sensory appearances. But these appearances are not always a reliable source of knowledge of things. An example could be, a melted block of chocolate. The sensory perception I had of this chocolate has changed, yet, the chocolate itself remains. A concept of things, sensory impressions are not reliable guides.

You see the chocolate is melted, why is that not a reliable sensory guide? If you tell me; “The chocolate is melted”, you have identified the concept “melted” as being an attribute of the state of existence the chocolate is in. I don’t even have to see the melted chocolate, no sensory input required, to know the state of the existence of the chocolate. Philosophers have never understood how a thing is defined by its’ attributes and created senseless confusion because different people might have different sensory perception. Proof of this is Russell’s book “The Problems of Philosophy”.

Wayne Leggette Sr.

[reasonvemotion]

You see the chocolate is melted, why is that not a reliable sensory guide? If you tell me; “The chocolate is melted”, you have identified the concept “melted” as being an attribute of the state of existence the chocolate is in. I don’t even have to see the melted chocolate, no sensory input required, to know the state of the existence of the chocolate.

How else can I give you an example without explaining the process and name of it.

My sensory guide was that of a block of chocolate, now a brown mass, which has changed but is still the same. As I dont have sensory input of this brown mass, this means that my sensory impression of identification is unreliable.