Understanding Forum participants

[wleg]

Uwot,

I wager I know more about dynamite than you ever will, having used, sold, and made nitroglycerin before the behavior of irrational thinkers resulted in the restrictions. But you are right about one thing; dynamite will not shift me from my opinion: “for philosophy to make sense and be useful, philosophers must ground their thinking on comprehensive definitions of the twenty-five abstract concepts.”

The Philosophy you are doing has no logical foundation so you call out the name of this or that philosopher and ism to support your ideas; yet the ‘subjects’ of their ideas did not have comprehensive definitions. You can prove me wrong by posting ten propositional philosophical statements made by philosophers in the last twenty-five centuries that can be supported by logical argument. Is ten too many to ask for? How about five? That too many, how about one philosophical statement supported by logical argument? I will be waiting for you to respond with an example.


Spheres,

The only thing I claim is: “for philosophy to make sense and be useful, philosophers must ground their thinking on comprehensive definitions of the twenty-five abstract concepts.”

You don't appear to disagree about this, you appear to just ignore it, and ramble on incoherently. Do you agree; that for philosophical discourse to make sense the subjects of the discourse "must" have universal comprehensive definitions? This is a direct specific question that can be answered with a simple "yes" or "no". Be a man, get from behind your favorite philosopher or ism and answer the question yes or no.

Wayne Kelly Leggette Sr.

[uwot]

I wager I know more about dynamite than you ever will, having used, sold, and made nitroglycerin before the behavior of irrational thinkers resulted in the restrictions.

I'm sure you do know a great deal more about dynamite than I do, the reason being that you have experience of it; you have empirical data that informs your knowledge. Even if you were to pass all your knowledge to me, in the form of as many abstract concepts as you wish, I still wouldn't know dynamite in the way you do.

But you are right about one thing; dynamite will not shift me from my opinion: “for philosophy to make sense and be useful, philosophers must ground their thinking on comprehensive definitions of the twenty-five abstract concepts.”

I'm sorry, I have missed the 25 abstract concepts. Where have you posted them?

The Philosophy you are doing has no logical foundation so you call out the name of this or that philosopher and ism to support your ideas; yet the ‘subjects’ of their ideas did not have comprehensive definitions.

Any philosopher that you have heard of and many more that you haven't, will use the same logical foundation as every other. As a minimum, they will be consistent with Aristotelian syllogisms, or they will simply not be taken seriously by anyone who knows anything about philosophy. Logic, to a large degree is philosophy. The reason there is so much disagreement is nothing to do with a lack of logical rigour, logic can be shown to be invalid, the disagreements stem from the premises which cannot be proven logically or demonstrated empirically; for example: god exists, or, it is wrong to cause suffering, or the world is an illusion.

You can prove me wrong by posting ten propositional philosophical statements made by philosophers in the last twenty-five centuries that can be supported by logical argument. Is ten too many to ask for?

It's a bit much in one go.

How about five?

Well...

That too many, how about one philosophical statement supported by logical argument? I will be waiting for you to respond with an example.

Oh all right then; how about this from Descartes' Discourse on Method Ch 2? http://www.literature.org/authors/desca ... er-02.html

"And as a multitude of laws often only hampers justice, so that a state is best governed when, with few laws, these are rigidly administered; in like manner, instead of the great number of precepts of which logic is composed, I believed that the four following would prove perfectly sufficient for me, provided I took the firm and unwavering resolution never in a single instance to fail in observing them.

The first was never to accept anything for true which I did not clearly know to be such; that is to say, carefully to avoid precipitancy and prejudice, and to comprise nothing more in my judgement than what was presented to my mind so clearly and distinctly as to exclude all ground of doubt.

The second, to divide each of the difficulties under examination into as many parts as possible, and as might be necessary for its adequate solution.

The third, to conduct my thoughts in such order that, by commencing with objects the simplest and easiest to know, I might ascend by little and little, and, as it were, step by step, to the knowledge of the more complex; assigning in thought a certain order even to those objects which in their own nature do not stand in a relation of antecedence and sequence.

And the last, in every case to make enumerations so complete, and reviews so general, that I might be assured that nothing was omitted.

The long chains of simple and easy reasonings by means of which geometers are accustomed to reach the conclusions of their most difficult demonstrations, had led me to imagine that all things, to the knowledge of which man is competent, are mutually connected in the same way, and that there is nothing so far removed from us as to be beyond our reach, or so hidden that we cannot discover it, provided only we abstain from accepting the false for the true, and always preserve in our thoughts the order necessary for the deduction of one truth from another."

[wleg]

Uwot,

You appear to have presented a multitude of propositional statements. Which one or more (identify the specific ones) that you can construct a logical argument to support the truth of the statements.

Any true propositional statement can be supported by a logical argument. I need to see the argument that supports the statements being true.

Wayne Kelly Leggette Sr.

[uwot]

Any true propositional statement can be supported by a logical argument. I need to see the argument that supports the statements being true.

The propositional statement that Descartes was leading up to is 'I think, therefore I am'. If you like, the previous post is logical argument that supports it.
What do you mean by propositional statement? Does 'The sky is blue' count?

[wleg]

Uwot,

'I think, therefore I am'.

If Descartes had attempted to construct a logical argument to support his propositional statement; “I think, therefore I am”. He would 'not' have been able to. Here is an example of the argument he would have attempted to construct:

If I exist because I have the ability to think, then no other thing without the ability to think can exist. Well, obviously this argument would have created a bit of a mystery for Descartes because the chair he was sitting on, when he wrote this, was not supposed to exist. Thus, just as obvious, Descartes did not construct a logical argument to support his propositional statements and the unwarranted credence awarded him and his propositional statements have confused mankind for centuries.

Philosophers did not support their statements with logical arguments simply because they did not understand how. Constructing logical arguments is grounded in understanding the “nature of existence” itself.

Yes, “the sky is blue” counts as a “true” proposition statement because it has a “subject” and “predicate” that relate/equate to the existence of each other. By us agreeing to what is symbolized by the word “sky” and the word “blue”, we can agree that the sky is blue. This demonstrates why there is no agreement in Philosophy; because there are no comprehensive definitions of the twenty-five subject words: Existence, Reality, Knowledge, Ideas, Rational, Thought , Truth, Need, Right, Good, Purpose, Meaning, Value, Experience, Perception, Equal, Different, Consciousness, Sense, Concept, , Logic, Reason, Belief, Behavior, Problems, ?,?,?.

Wayne Kelly Leggette Sr.

[uwot]

'I think, therefore I am'....If I exist because I have the ability to think, then no other thing without the ability to think can exist. Well, obviously this argument would have created a bit of a mystery for Descartes because the chair he was sitting on, when he wrote this, was not supposed to exist

Descartes didn't believe that thinking was a necessary condition for existence. If you were to read the Discourse on method, even the little bit I quoted, you would discover that what Descartes was attempting to do, was to find some proposition that was undeniably true. He points out that it is possible that his senses are deceiving him; that he is dreaming, or hallucinating, or that an evil daemon is feeding him false information so that he cannot uncritically trust his senses to reliably provide him with the truth. For all that he might be wrong about the sensations of an external world though, the thing he found he couldn't deny was that those sensations were happening to him. 'I think, therefore I am' is an argument. 'I am' is a propositional statement. It is supported by one of your 25 subjects words,to wit, thought.

Thus, just as obvious, Descartes did not construct a logical argument to support his propositional statements and the unwarranted credence awarded him and his propositional statements have confused mankind for centuries.

That is the danger of making propositional statements about things you have no experience of; it is a problem for any rationalist approach. What you describe as obvious is not true, Descartes did construct a logical argument; there is no unwarranted credence as even the flimsiest grasp of later philosophy would demonstrate. It is not mankind that is confused, it is those people who try to understand philosophy without actually reading any.

Philosophers did not support their statements with logical arguments simply because they did not understand how. Constructing logical arguments is grounded in understanding the “nature of existence” itself.

No it isn't. Constructing logical arguments is grounded in understanding the rules of logic. We do not know the nature of existence; we spend billions of dollars building machines the size of cities to help us find out, but as 'I think, therefore I am' illustrates, the nature of reality is irrelevant to logic.

[Ginkgo]

Descartes didn't believe that thinking was a necessary condition for existence. If you were to read the Discourse on method, even the little bit I quoted, you would discover that what Descartes was attempting to do, was to find some proposition that was undeniably true. He points out that it is possible that his senses are deceiving him; that he is dreaming, or hallucinating, or that an evil daemon is feeding him false information so that he cannot uncritically trust his senses to reliably provide him with the truth. For all that he might be wrong about the sensations of an external world though, the thing he found he couldn't deny was that those sensations were happening to him. 'I think, therefore I am' is an argument. 'I am' is a propositional statement. It is supported by one of your 25 subjects words,to wit, thought.

Thus, just as obvious, Descartes did not construct a logical argument to support his propositional statements and the unwarranted credence awarded him and his propositional statements have confused mankind for centuries.

That is the danger of making propositional statements about things you have no experience of; it is a problem for any rationalist approach. What you describe as obvious is not true, Descartes did construct a logical argument; there is no unwarranted credence as even the flimsiest grasp of later philosophy would demonstrate. It is not mankind that is confused, it is those people who try to understand philosophy without actually reading any.

Philosophers did not support their statements with logical arguments simply because they did not understand how. Constructing logical arguments is grounded in understanding the “nature of existence” itself.

No it isn't. Constructing logical arguments is grounded in understanding the rules of logic. We do not know the nature of existence; we spend billions of dollars building machines the size of cities to help us find out, but as 'I think, therefore I am' illustrates, the nature of reality is irrelevant to logic.

I would pretty much agree with this except to add that Descartes argued for the existence of matter that can be perceived by the senses. In fact he was arguing for two types of substances,viz. mental substance of the non physical type and physical substance in the form of matter. So yes, I also agree that it would be incorrect to portray Descartes as someone who denies the existence of the physical world.

[aiddon]

No it isn't. Constructing logical arguments is grounded in understanding the rules of logic. We do not know the nature of existence; we spend billions of dollars building machines the size of cities to help us find out, but as 'I think, therefore I am' illustrates, the nature of reality is irrelevant to logic.

Agree in totality with uwot. Refreshing to see someone talking sense around here. Philosophy is philosophy, logic is logic. The two are not interchangeable. There is a neurotic attempt on this thread to distil everything down to mere logical statements. Logic has its limitations, as Heisenberg demonstrated. I think some participants on this thread need to revisit their university philosophy texts (if they have any) instead of assuming they know what the likes of Descartes actually meant.

[wleg]

Those who identify with the unsuccessful ideas of traditional philosophers would have everyone shackle their thinking to these failed ideas. The ideas of philosophers bake no bread, plant no seed, and carry no water. These toxic ideas destroy the ability to think rationally of those who identify with them. Proof is those who have lost their ability to think rationally do not recognize the enormous amount of knowledge created by the systematic thinking of scientist vs no knowledge created by the unsystematic thinking of philosophers is proof of failed ideas.

Wayne Kelly Leggette Sr.

[uwot]

Those who identify with the unsuccessful ideas of traditional philosophers would have everyone shackle their thinking to these failed ideas.

What unsuccessful ideas? What do you think makes an idea unsuccessful?
Philosophy is not about shackling anyone's thinking, that's totalitarianism. If people choose to identify with traditional ideas, they are more likely to be religious than philosophical.

The ideas of philosophers bake no bread, plant no seed, and carry no water.

Do you think that is a criticism of philosophy? How would the thinking you wish to introduce help with any of those activities?

These toxic ideas destroy the ability to think rationally of those who identify with them.

What toxic ideas do you have in mind?

Proof is those who have lost their ability to think rationally do not recognize the enormous amount of knowledge created by the systematic thinking of scientist vs no knowledge created by the unsystematic thinking of philosophers is proof of failed ideas.

Which particular philosopher, that has lost their ability to think rationally, do you have in mind? Can you give an example of any published philosopher using unsystematic thinking, or an example of a failed idea?
Seriously Wayne; do you know anything about philosophy?

[wleg]

Uwot says: Seriously Wayne, do you know anything about philosophy?

Wayne says: I know that a ‘true’ philosophical propositional statement can be supported by a logical argument. And, I know that philosophers have not grounded their statements on logical arguments. Recent proof of this; you have not presented a single philosophical statement made by a philosopher that can be supported by argument. Thus, I know the writings of philosophers have not constructed knowledge because they have never understood how knowledge is constructed. I also know, the simple solution to this dilemma is for philosophers to understand how knowledge is constructed by first understanding the “nature of Existence”. And I know, accomplishing this requires new ideas which are a threat to those who identify for honorific reason with the failed ideas of traditional Philosophy.

Wayne Kelly Leggette Sr.

[uwot]

Uwot says: Seriously Wayne, do you know anything about philosophy?

Wayne says: I know that a ‘true’ philosophical propositional statement can be supported by a logical argument. And, I know that philosophers have not grounded their statements on logical arguments. Recent proof of this; you have not presented a single philosophical statement made by a philosopher that can be supported by argument.

You might not agree with it, but 'I think, therefore I am' is a statement grounded on logical arguments. As I think Harold Wilson once said: 'I can only give you the facts; I cannot give you the intellectual capacity to understand them.'

Thus, I know the writings of philosophers have not constructed knowledge because they have never understood how knowledge is constructed.

It doesn't follow from your argument. The premise "you have not presented a single philosophical statement made by a philosopher that can be supported by argument." is false. Even if it were true, the most that you could reasonably infer is that my knowledge of philosophy is as poor as yours, leaving the possibility that there are many examples of statements supported by arguments. If you had ever read any philosophy, you would know that that is, in fact, the case.

I also know, the simple solution to this dilemma is for philosophers to understand how knowledge is constructed by first understanding the “nature of Existence”.

What you call 'understanding the "nature of existence"' is what people who know what they're on about call taxonomy. Look it up.

And I know, accomplishing this requires new ideas which are a threat to those who identify for honorific reason with the failed ideas of traditional Philosophy.

That was perhaps true of the esteem heaped on Plato and particularly Aristotle in the middle ages, but philosophy has moved on. Believe it or not, Wayne, making stuff up and insisting you 'know' it, isn't the way to do philosophy.

[Ginkgo]

Uwot says: Seriously Wayne, do you know anything about philosophy?

Wayne says: I know that a ‘true’ philosophical propositional statement can be supported by a logical argument. And, I know that philosophers have not grounded their statements on logical arguments. Recent proof of this; you have not presented a single philosophical statement made by a philosopher that can be supported by argument. Thus, I know the writings of philosophers have not constructed knowledge because they have never understood how knowledge is constructed. I also know, the simple solution to this dilemma is for philosophers to understand how knowledge is constructed by first understanding the “nature of Existence”. And I know, accomplishing this requires new ideas which are a threat to those who identify for honorific reason with the failed ideas of traditional Philosophy.

Wayne Kelly Leggette Sr.

Wayne,I am somewhat puzzled. The example of Descartes was broached recently. Descartes gives us a very detailed analysis of both existence and essence.

[Felasco]

Those who identify with the unsuccessful ideas of traditional philosophers would have everyone shackle their thinking to these failed ideas. The ideas of philosophers bake no bread, plant no seed, and carry no water. These toxic ideas destroy the ability to think rationally of those who identify with them. Proof is those who have lost their ability to think rationally do not recognize the enormous amount of knowledge created by the systematic thinking of scientist vs no knowledge created by the unsystematic thinking of philosophers is proof of failed ideas.

Start a blog.

Do the thing you feel should be done here.

Forget about other people, and dive in to "constructing knowledge" in a step by step manner and/or whatever else you feel is essential on your own, in the way you feel it should be done.

When you're done, or well in to it, come back here and post the link and we may visit and comment.

Until then, it looks like just another ego trip to me....

[wleg]

Uwot,
I’m still waiting for you to post a propositional statement, with subject being one of the twenty-five concepts, made by philosopher in the last twenty-five centuries that can be supported by a logical argument.

Ginkgo,
You claim: “Descartes gives us a very detailed analysis of both existence and essence”.

I say: Descartes’ analysis of existence/essence does not explain how ‘knowledge’ is constructed thus it is a long way from being detailed/comprehensive. The only reason to understand the “nature of existence” is to understand how ‘knowledge’ is constructed. Knowledge is constructed by recognizing the “existence of a thing” is a construct of its’ attributes. Thus, knowledge is constructed by remembering which attributes equate to the existence of which things. This simple explanation of how knowledge is constructed is the knowledge to understand the mechanics of rational thinking. Rational thinking is the learned process of understanding things and conditions by recognizing their attributes.

If you believe Descartes’ attempt at understanding the “nature of existence” is sufficient, then where is the benefit of his analysis and why are we still attempting to understand what he was saying. Let’s face the fact, traditional Philosophy today has become a cult and philosophers are the High Priests. Proof of this, is, absolute opposition to any ideas different from those of the High Priest.

Felasco,
Thanks for the advice, I plan to do as you suggest in the near future. Until then, dealing with the cult-like thinking of you guys is good practice.

Wayne Kelly Leggette Sr.