Understanding Forum participants

[Ginkgo]

Uwot,

The fact that thinkers, in the beginning, thought to understand the conditions that relate to the existence of both physical things and abstracts concepts were called philosophers is not the point. The point is; soon after these thinkers adapted a systematic method of thinking they were called scientist and those who did not adapt a systematic process of thinking are still called philosophers.

Philosophers can have a systematic process to guide their thinking once they construct comprehensive definitions of the philosophical concepts. I am betting not a single person who identifies with Philosophy will agree with this statement.

kelly

In terms of the history of philosophy there have been (in general terms) two schools of thought. That is the say, the Rationalists and the Empiricists. The Rationalists identified closely with the metaphysics of the ancient world. Empiricism identifies more with modern science.

The rationalists are not adverse to starting out with sense experience, but believe that we can go beyond the sensory world in order to define such things as 'reality', 'truth' and 'existence'. Empiricists and to a large extent, modern science, rejects this idea and wants to claim that knowledge begins an ends with experience. The assumption is that only physical things exist.

Unfortunately a rationalist approach flies in the face of science because science always entertains the idea that knowledge is not fixed and that progress can be made via trial and error and the elimination of error. Basically the scientific method.

As Kant pointed out a long time ago; in terms of traditional metaphysics, one can construct a systematic argument for reality just as easily as one can construct a similar metaphysical argument for non-reality. There is no progression because there is no independent way of determining the best argument.

[HexHammer]

The core concept of philosophy hasn't changed, therefore my question is still relevant, just that today socalled philosophers are clueless about philosophy.

What do you think is the core concept of philosophy that so called philosophers are clueless about?

The simple concepts of factual knowledge and relevance, without these 2 it becomes cosy chat.

[wleg]

As Kant pointed out a long time ago; in terms of traditional metaphysics, one can construct a systematic argument for reality just as easily as one can construct a similar metaphysical argument for non-reality. There is no progression because there is no independent way of determining the best argument.

Ginkgo,

I agree, when both arguments are statements constructed using 'subjects' and 'predicates', not related to the existence of each other, there is no independent way of determining the best argument, unless there exist comprehensive definitions of the 'subjects'and 'predicates'. This is obviously the situation in all of Philosophy, no matter what school it is and explains the nature of the posts of most forum participants.

Wayne Kelly Leggette Sr.

[wleg]

Uwot,

Would you agree that the quickest best way for us to understand the philosophical beliefs of each other is for each of us to explain the foundation logic on which our beliefs are grounded? I believe that is the only way I can understand the 'nature' of your philosophical beliefs.

My philosophical beliefs are grounded on this logic; the 'subjects' and 'predicates' that construct my beliefs must relate to the existence of each other if what I believe is realistic and true.

I will be able to understand 'the nature' of your philosophical beliefs if you will explain the logic on which your beliefs are grounded.

Wayne Kelly Leggette Sr.

[uwot]

My philosophical beliefs are grounded on this logic; the 'subjects' and 'predicates' that construct my beliefs must relate to the existence of each other if what I believe is realistic and true.

I think what you are saying is that for a belief to be true, the thing it is a belief about has to exist. On the face of it, that is obviously true, at least with regard to 'subjects'. So for instance, in order for the sentence: 'There is a pink elephant.' to be true, there needs to be an elephant that is pink. Elephants exist, but what about pink?
'The nature' of my philosophical beliefs is empiricism, which Gingko has described very well, but I think it is confusing to claim that predicates like pinkness exist, in that respect, I am an anti-realist. In my view there is no pink that isn't a pink thing. The irony is that we can only infer the existence of things from the predicates we can perceive. As Kant noted, we assume things exists, because we can see, hear, feel, smell and taste them.
Descartes argued that because he was experiencing things, he must exist. He almost certainly did, but empiricism is the understanding that the only things that exist any possible beyond doubt, however ridiculous, is the experiences; the predicates of sentences.

[wleg]

Uwot,

I think what you are saying is that for a belief to be true, the thing it is a belief about has to exist. On the face of it, that is obviously true, at least with regard to 'subjects'. So for instance, in order for the sentence: 'There is a pink elephant.' to be true, there needs to be an elephant that is pink. Elephants exist, but what about pink?

Pink exist as an abstract concept with the electromagnetic attribute of its’ own wavelength, or whatever its unique attribute is that makes it different from other colors. Neither ‘pink’ (an abstract concept) nor ‘elephant’ (an object) relate to Philosophy. Philosophers should ‘not’ be asking, “Does pink exist”. The question philosophers should ask is, “What is the nature of existence” itself. This has been answered by the; "A thing is itself and not some other thing because....."argument. I won't repeat it for fear of making Majorblue cry.

Wayne Kelly Leggette Sr

[uwot]

The question philosophers should ask is, “What is the nature of existence” itself.

Are you really so stupid not to understand that asking whether elephants or pink exist is doing precisely that?

[aiddon]

According to wleg's criteria for advancing knowledge, all stupid posts should be deleted. He considers it hostile if you disagree or if you don't go along with his little logic game. Do what Ive done, uwot , and go elsewhere.

[Ginkgo]

As Kant pointed out a long time ago; in terms of traditional metaphysics, one can construct a systematic argument for reality just as easily as one can construct a similar metaphysical argument for non-reality. There is no progression because there is no independent way of determining the best argument.

Ginkgo,

I agree, when both arguments are statements constructed using 'subjects' and 'predicates', not related to the existence of each other, there is no independent way of determining the best argument, unless there exist comprehensive definitions of the 'subjects'and 'predicates'. This is obviously the situation in all of Philosophy, no matter what school it is and explains the nature of the posts of most forum participants.

Wayne Kelly Leggette Sr.

Hi Wayne,

Yes, but I see an additional problem when the subjects and predicates that are related to each other. Not me actually, but Russell.

There is a small town where there is only one barber( male). Everyone in the town either shaves themselves or is shaved by the barber. The problem is centred on what the barber does for a shave. He cannot either shave himself or not shave himself.

We could add the proviso in the form of a more comprehensive definition. Namely,"the barber shaves himself". We have solved one problem but created another. Our original axiom contains a contradiction.

[wleg]

Uwot,

I don’t deny that I am stupid, being constantly reminded of it on philosophy forums, I learned to accept and live comfortably knowing it years ago.

Look at the situation this way; the definition of an elephant and the definition of pink are different, so the definition of an elephant does not define the reality of pink and visa versa. Thus, the definition of existence (itself) does not define the existence of an elephant or pink. A comprehensive definition of existence does reveal the process necessary to construct realistic definition of an elephant, pink and every other existing material object and concept. We are dealing with three different definitions here. The problem is, philosophers have never constructed a comprehensive definition of "existence" thus philosophers have created a serious problem for everyone because without having a comprehensive definition of "existence" it is impossible to understand the process of rational philosophical thinking.


Aiddon,

I agree, I am hostile to off topic post that destroy the continuity of threads that have a stated purpose.

Ginkgo,

Curious that you bring up the “barber paradox” someone I was talking with the other day brought it up. All these word game toys that philosophers like to play with have no influence on whether and how the barber gets shaved. The reality is; he gets shaved and any use of language that makes a paradox, riddle or mystery of reality is a senseless misuse of words. Language is not perfect; the use of words does create a few paradoxes.

Wayne Kelly Leggette Sr.

[Ginkgo]

Ginkgo,

Curious that you bring up the “barber paradox” someone I was talking with the other day brought it up. All these word game toys that philosophers like to play with have no influence on whether and how the barber gets shaved. The reality is; he gets shaved and any use of language that makes a paradox, riddle or mystery of reality is a senseless misuse of words. Language is not perfect; the use of words does create a few paradoxes.

Wayne Kelly Leggette Sr.

Yes, this is correct. It is quite possible the barber might change his occupation and shave himself.

These types of paradoxes are only a means of trying to understand stubborn, deep seated problems in philosophy, mathematics and logic.

[uwot]

A comprehensive definition of existence does reveal the process necessary to construct realistic definition of an elephant, pink and every other existing material object and concept.

I really don't think so. Parmenides was the first to suggest that there is such a thing as existence, 'Being is', as it is usually translated. Ever since then, philosophers have been trying to work out what it's all about. There is an entire discipline that does exactly that; it's called ontology. Aristotle was very systematic in his attempt to define it, you could make less of a fool of yourself by familiarising yourself with his Categories. http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/categories.html
As I said, I am basically an empiricist, I don't believe that there is any such thing as pink that isn't a pink thing, if only, as you say, a particular blend of electromagnetic radiation. Likewise, I think it is nonsense to talk about existence without reference to existent things.
If you want to know about the nature of something, how many arms or legs it has, to use your example, look at it.

[wleg]

Uwot,
This is “what it’s all about”. The word “existence”, we can all agree, is an invented “concept” to symbolize a “state of being”. All there is left to disagree about is the definition of “existence”. Since philosophers have never constructed a “comprehensive definition”, this leaves room for infinite disagreement about the meaning of “existence”. Eliminating all the disagreement is merely a matter of constructing a “comprehensive” definition. This can be accomplished using this argument (Majorblue will start crying):

ARGUMENT: If a thing exists as itself and not as some other thing, it must have attributes that are different from the attributes of all other existing things. Else, if all the attributes of a thing are the same as any other thing, no other thing would exist.

In other words, the existence of every snowflake is different because it does not have the same attributes of size and shape that any other snowflake has. Assuming it is possible there might have existed two snowflakes with identical attributes of size and shape, it is still impossible that one of the snowflakes was made of the same drop of water. The water needed to make one snowflake can not make two snowflakes, thus each snowflake has the different attribute of being made of different water. The logic of this example alone dictates this definition:

DEFINITION OF EXISTENCE: “The existence of a thing is a construct of its attributes.”

The question now: is there anyone who can disagree with this definition? If there is, they should support their different definition by presenting an argument that refutes the argument above. Quoting some philosopher is not a logical argument.

Wayne Kelly Leggette Sr.

[uwot]

DEFINITION OF EXISTENCE: “The existence of a thing is a construct of its attributes.”
The question now: is there anyone who can disagree with this definition? If there is, they should support their different definition by presenting an argument that refutes the argument above.

I think you need to be clearer about what you mean by attributes. If what you are saying is that a complex entity is the sum of it components, then fair enough. Components, arms and legs for example exist. In the example of the snowflake (which reminds me of Descartes' analysis of a piece of wax) you mention size and shape. Do size and shape exist in the way that arms and legs do? Can you pick a shape, bolt on a few more 'attributes' and create a thing? Plato believed you could; I would be very surprised. It seems to me that in order for something to have a shape, there first has to be something.
You can attribute all sorts of things to matter, but if I were to define existence I would say something like: occupies space and time. Lots of philosophers allow that mental entities, ideas, exist. Karl Popper had an interesting take; he argued that the products of ideas, stories and music exist in a vaguely material way. His argument was something like, If something affects the material world, it exists. Stories and music affect (the behaviour of people in) the material world. Therefore; stories and music exist.

Quoting some philosopher is not a logical argument.

No, but it is philosophy.

[wleg]

----------------------------------------"Understanding Forum participants"----------------------------------

The subjects of our thinking are limited by which subjects we have interest in. The number of subjects it is possible to think about is infinite, but, our interests determine which subjects we choose. Our interest in the subjects we think about is the result of the limited way we choose to satisfy our individual needs.

To satisfy any need is pleasurable, thus; we are interested in thinking about the subjects that provide the most pleasurable way to satisfy our physical and psychological needs. We think different from each other because the ways we choose to satisfy the same needs are different. Some who participate on this forum attempt to advance philosophical knowledge as a way of satisfying their psychological needs. Others satisfy the same needs by simply identifying themselves with Traditional Philosophy.

Advancing philosophical knowledge creates new ideas that naturally are different from tradition philosophical ideas. This creates an emotional problem for those who merely identify themselves with traditional philosophical ideas. They feel threatened by new ideas different from the traditional ideas their self-esteem depends on. This makes it extremely difficult to have the continuity necessary to construct ideas that advance philosophical knowledge; when other participants have no interest, feel threatened and destroy continuity with post attacking new ideas different from the ideas their self-esteem depends on.

Our psychological existence is a construct of our individual ideas. Ideas different from our own create a threat to our ideas being right and threatens the state of our psychological existence or self-esteem. Participants who identify with traditional ideas call out the names of philosophers to prove the correctness of their ideas. They don’t realize philosophers did not understand the “nature of existence” and their ideas do not reflect the reality of the things their ideas are about. Tradition philosophical ideas can not be right; proof of this is the confusion and contradiction these ideas cause. Thus, participants who identify with the ideas of the philosophers they call out, are confused.

This helps explain the "nature of thinking", the "nature of ideas to our psychological existence", to help us "understand Forum participants".

Wayne Kelly Leggette Sr.