Understanding Forum participants

[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.

Yes, without us, without the social context, you'd have nobody to be superior to, which is the real agenda. Ok, I get it now.

[wleg]

Felasco,

chuckle,,,"without the social context, you'd have nobody to be superior to", really,are you left with only this remark to defend your shackled process of thought.

[marjoramblues]

[Felasco]

chuckle,,,"without the social context, you'd have nobody to be superior to", really,are you left with only this remark to defend your shackled process of thought.

I'm reasoning quite clearly wleg. I've examined the evidence over a period of time, and come to the same conclusion as a number of others.

Your primary interest is in repeating an ego driven proposal. As example...

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

The point here is that you wleg can reason and have successful unshackled ideas, while others can not. You repeat this same assertion over and over in each thread, almost every post, changing the wording of the assertion a bit here and there.

You don't believe in the value of what you say is important, or you'd be actually doing it, instead of hanging around here endlessly repeating how unqualified everyone else is to do it. Your intellectual proposals are just a cover story. The real story is to promote the assertion "wleg is smart, while others are stupid".

I'm not sure you yourself see any of this, and you may have bought the cover story you're selling yourself.

The story you're trying to sell is the most ordinary proposal possible on philosophy forums. The majority of us are trying to sell the same story to one degree or another. Except for me of course, because I'm bigger, better, and totally smarter than everybody else.

[marjoramblues]

[wleg]

Felasco,

The story you're trying to sell is the most ordinary proposal possible on philosophy forums. The majority of us are trying to sell the same story to one degree or another.

Exactly, what are you attempting to sell? You already know that I am attempting to sell the process of rational thinking that begins with understanding the "nature of existence" to understand how knowledge is constructed which is the process of rational thinking. You know this is what I am trying to sell. Now, tell me what you are trying to sell.


Wayne Kelly Leggette Sr.

[Felasco]

You already know that I am attempting to sell the process of rational thinking that begins with understanding the "nature of existence" to understand how knowledge is constructed which is the process of rational thinking.

This is the cover story, which you appear to have successfully sold to yourself.

I'm trying to sell my imaginary brilliance.

See how easy that is?

[uwot]

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.

This is from the preface to the first edition of AJ Ayers Language, Truth and Logic. Truth and logic being two of your "twenty-five subject words".

"The views which are put forward in this treatise derive from the doctrines of Bertrand Russell and Wittgenstein, which are themselves the logical outcome of the empiricism of Berkeley and David Hume. Like Hume, I divide all genuine propositions into two classes: those which, in his terminology, concern ‘relations of ideas’, and those which concern ‘matters of fact’. The former class comprises the a priori propositions of logic and pure mathematics, these I allow to be necessary and certain only because they are analytic. That is, I maintain that the reason why these propositions cannot be confuted in experience is that they do not make any assertion about the empirical world, but simply record our determination to use symbols in a certain fashion. Propositions concerning empirical matters of fact, on the other hand, I hold to be hypotheses, which can be probable but never certain. And in giving an account of the method of validation I claim also to have explained the nature of truth."

Sounds right up your street, eh? Why not read the whole thing and let us know what you think? https://archive.org/details/AlfredAyer

Another you might try is Bertrand Russell's The Problems of Philosophy. That's only got 'Problems' from your "twenty-five subject words", but this, from chapter 1 contains another:
Appearance and Reality

"Is there any knowledge in the world which is so certain that no reasonable man could doubt it? This question, which at first sight might not seem difficult, is really one of the most difficult that can be asked. When we have realized the obstacles in the way of a straightforward and confident answer, we shall be well launched on the study of philosophy--for philosophy is merely the attempt to answer such ultimate questions, not carelessly and dogmatically, as we do in ordinary life and even in the sciences, but critically, after exploring all that makes such questions puzzling, and after realizing all the vagueness and confusion that underlie our ordinary ideas."

You can read that on http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/5827/pg5827.txt

They are both relatively short books, so no excuses. I had to read them as an undergraduate. I don't know what beginners start with these days, but I'll let you judge whether they hindered my rational faculties.

... dealing with the cult-like thinking of you guys is good practice.

Glad to be of service.

[wleg]

Uwot,
I fast read “Language, Truth and Logic” and I have not read so much nonsense since reading “The Problems of Philosophy” years ago.

“According to Ayer, no proposition concerning "matters of fact" can ever be shown to be necessarily true, because there is always a possibility that it may be refuted by further empirical testing. Logical certainty is possible only for analytic observations, which are tautologies, and not for empirical observations concerning "matters of fact."
His nonsense says that my proposition stating “a matter of fact”: I have a Golden Retriever cannot be true because sometime in the future I might have a German Sheppard. Chuckle,,He also says: “Philosophy is not a search for first principle; the function of Philosophy is wholly critical. What nonsense; can you explain how being critical can be logical when it not based on logical principles?

Russell’s nonsense is just as bad; he tries to claim there is no such thing as truth because two people looking a the same table will describe it differently. What nonsense; both are describing what they see according to their ability to use language. The fact their description of the table is different has nothing at all to do with the nature of “truth”. Each description is true according to how each sees the table.

Let’s cut to the chase, we don’t have another twenty-five centuries. You present propositional statements made by philosophers, one at a time, and if I can’t debunk the statement you get two dollars. If I can debunk the statements you give me one dollar. This may sound crass but how else can it be done. You have the advantage money wise and almost infinite statements you can choose from.

Wayne Kelly Leggette Sr.

[Felasco]

You already know that I am attempting to sell the process of rational thinking ...

Rational thinking might begin with a clear understanding of what one's goal is. The real goal.

If your real goal here is to inflate your ego, you've come to the right place, and are using the correct procedure. If this is your real goal, I have nothing much to add. I will yell at you once in awhile, you can yell at me too, and both our egos will enjoy the buzz. Case closed, mission accomplished.

If your real goal really is selling the process of rational thinking, then you are in the wrong place, using the wrong procedure. You will best sell rational thinking by demonstrating it yourself, and you are not accomplishing that by demanding a careful step by step analysis on a forum that prides itself on inclusiveness and lax rules.

The evidence suggests either that 1) ego inflation is your real goal, or 2) you are lacking enough rational thought to see the flaw in your plan.

[wleg]

Felasco

You appear to be obsessed with the influence ego has on posting behavior. Let me present my understanding of ego.

We have a physical existence and a psychological existence and we have to satisfy our physical and psychological needs in a rational way to stay healthy. Thus, if the way we satisfy our physical needs does not conform to our biological requirements we will become physically unhealthy. Our psychological needs do not have biological requirements so there is nothing obvious that limits how these needs should be satisfied.

We have two psychological needs:
1- The need not to be bored.
2- The need for self-esteem.

I am satisfying my “need not to be bored” at the moment by composing a reply to you. I am also satisfying my need for self-esteem, at the same time, by constructing what I obviously believe is an intelligent comprehensive reply. This is the way I choose to satisfy my need for self-esteem and enhance the state of my psychological existence or ego.

There are infinitely different ways, some constructive and some destructive, to satisfy our physical and psychological needs. The only possible way to choose the constructive ways is to think rationally. Thus, in order to enhance the state of my psychological existence or ego, I am attempting to construct the ideas necessary to understand the mechanics of rational thinking.

Doing realistic Philosophy is thinking rationally to choose constructive ways to satisfy our needs.

Wayne Kelly Leggette Sr.

[Ginkgo]

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.



Wayne Kelly Leggette Sr.

But, we understand perfectly well what Descartes was trying to say. What part of his "Mediatations" are you referring to?

The benefits of his analysis resulted in the beginning of modern science.


Descartes does give his idea of existence in terms of a definition and attributes. Basically he is saying that the definition of a triangle necessitates the existence of a triangle. In the same way he said that the definition of God necessitates the existence of God. This is sometimes know as an ontological argument.

[wleg]

Ginkgo,

The evidence that philosophers have failed is the confusion and contradiction caused by their writings. Philosophy is not rocket science it only involves twenty-five abstract concepts that still need comprehensive definitions. What's the problem with attempting to construct the needed definitions? The problem is that once the knowledge is constructed there won't be a need for philosophers, everyone who has the knowledge will be a rational thinker and there won't be a need for confused philosophers.

[Ginkgo]

Ginkgo,

The evidence that philosophers have failed is the confusion and contradiction caused by their writings. Philosophy is not rocket science it only involves twenty-five abstract concepts that still need comprehensive definitions. What's the problem with attempting to construct the needed definitions? The problem is that once the knowledge is constructed there won't be a need for philosophers, everyone who has the knowledge will be a rational thinker and there won't be a need for confused philosophers.

As we are on the topic of Descartes,I'm still not sure why you think Descartes was confused.

He basically has used the method you suggest.

[wleg]

Ginkgo,

The whole problem today with Philosophy is; it is still treating the ideas of Descartes and other philosophers as the answers to solve problems. If science did this, where would scientific knowledge be? Philosophers constructed their ideas without understanding how knowledge is constructed and their ideas have created more problems than they have solved. Evidence and proof of this is the many different Schools of Philosophy and multitude of Isms, all contradicting each other.

The only problems of Philosophy are constructing universal comprehensive definitions of the twenty-five philosophical concepts that reveal the mechanics of rational thinking. The fact this has not been accomplished cast doubt on the usefulness of the philosophical ideas of Descartes and all the other philosophers. Their ideas have outlived their usefulness and now present an obstacle to anyone attempting to advance philosophical knowledge. It appears you might have formal educational exposure and a degree in traditional Philosophy. If this is so, I ask: what advancement in philosophical knowledge have you accomplished as a result of your philosophical education?

If you will present propositional statements of philosophers you believe are true and useful, I will examine them and probably can show how useless they are. I think the important thing to remember about Philosophical knowledge is how it is limited to understanding just twenty-five or so abstract concepts. Any other subjects will not be an interest of Philosophy.

Wayne Kelly Leggette Sr.