wleg wrote:Ginkgo,
The difference between my ontology and traditional ontology; my otology is grounded on understanding the “nature of existence” illustrated by the argument: “a thing is itself and not some other thing because it has attributes different from the attributes of any other thing.
When ontology is not grounded on a realistic understanding of the “nature of existence”, Ontology becomes the ‘thing’ in itself, chasing its’ tail like all the other isms. The fact that you are stuck on the belief; not understanding the nature of gravity (which is not a philosophical subject) cast doubt on the definitions of “existence” and “knowledge” being universal, is evidence of this. Because we finally construct universal definitions of “existence” and “knowledge”, doesn’t mean at the same time we have to understand every existing thing and condition.
Wayne Kelly Leggette Sr.
Wayne, if you are investigating the existence of objects, their properties and their existence then you are doing traditional ontology.
I am not stuck on the ontological status of gravity. Everyone is at the moment. Gravity is very much a philosophical subject because quantum mechanics has thrown up more philosophical questions than just about any other topic in the history of philosophy.
The slower I read the writings of philosophers, the more contradictions I see. I slowly read your last post and then read it two more times and the only thing I get from reading it; there is nothing I can disprove that Descartes said because he never arrived at any conclusions. Then I remembered why I have been arguing with you guys all along; if philosophers have never arrived at any conclusions, why reference them as credible to solve the problems of Philosophy. Why not dig out the first principles ourselves and solve the problems ourselves. Where is the logic in shackling our thinking to the ideas of those who have not solved a single philosophical problem in twenty-five centuries?
Ginkgo,
What concerns me, is, understanding the nature of the twenty-five or so abstract concepts which will reveal the mechanics of rational thinking, nothing else. These concepts are all that science left for philosophers to understand. If philosophers believe gravity and particles are interest of Philosophy; I believe this demonstrates again how confused philosophers are.
wleg wrote:
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.
Well, now I am pretty much confused. I have to go and play golf this afternoon, so perhaps before I go you can help me.
Ginkgo and Ben are golfing men. I'm the bad golfer he is the good one. We usually play in a four ball together. Because I always get the yips when putting Ben always reminds me that "ALL SHORT PUTTS ARE NEVER HOLED".
I think such a proposition is useful because I tell myself just before I putt, "don't be short". Now, is relation to the truth factor of the proposition, I would like to know does this proposition qualify as a synthetic apriori proposition?
chuckle,, I have no idea. Doing my kind of philosophy is the mental process of systematically recognizing which abstract concepts relate to the existence of each other. The product of this thinking is then illustrated with a simple propositional sentence.
"Synthetic apriori proposition" is terminology related to the condition of not understanding the nature of knowledge and how knowledge is constructed. IOW, believing knowledge is related to language and not understanding it is a state of mind.
wleg wrote:chuckle,, I have no idea. Doing my kind of philosophy is the mental process of systematically recognizing which abstract concepts relate to the existence of each other. The product of this thinking is then illustrated with a simple propositional sentence.
"Synthetic apriori proposition" is terminology related to the condition of not understanding the nature of knowledge and how knowledge is constructed. IOW, believing knowledge is related to language and not understanding it is a state of mind.
In pure rethorical terms this is a masterpiece, but it's unfortunaly only smoke a scenes to viel the lack of having a clue about anything you are talking about.
You never come with anything specific, but merely empty rethorics, but I'm sure you feel selfimportaint when you burst out these exorbiant metaphors.
The slower I read the writings of philosophers, the more contradictions I see. I slowly read your last post and then read it two more times and the only thing I get from reading it; there is nothing I can disprove that Descartes said because he never arrived at any conclusions.
Wayne, what uwot is leading you to is the idea that Descartes undertakes a process of systematic skepticism in his approach to knowledge. Descartes basically said that it is possible to doubt everything in the material world. However, there was one thing that he could not doubt. That being his own existence. Hence the, "I think, therefore I am" statement. Hence, his conclusion being that it is impossible for him to doubt his own existence.
Ginkgo, Uwot,
I think I understand what the problem is; you two are satisfied to stop your philosophical understanding at the point Descartes and other philosophers have left philosophical knowledge, and I am not. I am saying: the argument, “a thing is itself because it has attributes different from the attributes of any other thing”, advances philosophical knowledge far beyond the level of Descartes and other philosophers. From this argument we can construct a universal comprehensive definition of “existence” to understand the nature of “knowledge/consciousness” and understand how “knowledge” is constructed to understand the “mechanics of rational thinking”. The Problems of Philosophy can be easily solved if philosophers use the logic of “The Argument” to solve the problems.
wleg wrote:Ginkgo, Uwot,
I think I understand what the problem is; you two are satisfied to stop your philosophical understanding at the point Descartes and other philosophers have left philosophical knowledge, and I am not. I am saying: the argument, “a thing is itself because it has attributes different from the attributes of any other thing”, advances philosophical knowledge far beyond the level of Descartes and other philosophers. From this argument we can construct a universal comprehensive definition of “existence” to understand the nature of “knowledge/consciousness” and understand how “knowledge” is constructed to understand the “mechanics of rational thinking”. The Problems of Philosophy can be easily solved if philosophers use the logic of “The Argument” to solve the problems.
Wayne Kelly Leggette Sr.
But, don't you think that in order to say with any confidence that uwot and myself are happy to stop where other philosophers have left off, one (yourself) would need a working knowledge of the philosophers involved? Also,don't you think it would be of benefit to you to understand what Descartes was saying, then provide your criticism? In this particular case. I don't see how it is possible to mount a criticism of Descartes (not reaching any conclusion)when what he is saying is not understood.
wleg. I like your general idea of wiping the slate clean and attempting to have a philosophical discussion without relying on the jargon of past philosophers. However, I agree with the others that your level of detail leaves something to be desired, which may be an inability to explain or may be something else.
Wittgenstein once began a treatise with the proposition 'The world is everything that is the case.' If he had left it there, with that level of generality, I don't think he would been taken seriously. Similarly, if Descartes had merely said, 'I think, therefore I am' and nothing else, no one would be talking of him centuries later. The brilliance of both lay in the context, details, and arguments. Actually, both treatises are unusually short for philosophical treatises and Descartes' is almost completely ordinary language - jargon free - if you change your mind and want to start reading philosophy. And Wittgenstein's style was very much like yours, with only seven propositions in the entire treatise.
Ginkgo,
I have stated in a post or two, sometime in the past, that it is not Descartes and the like that I am being critical of. I’m sure they were sincere and did the best they could; it is those who continue to accept the “ideas” of Descartes and the others as the final word, who I am critical of. Obviously, any criticism related to the state Philosophy is in today might appear to be directed at the philosophers but my criticism is about accepting their ideas as the final word.
The first principle related to ideas; if ideas can not be supported by a logical argument, they can’t be true. Philosophers have never understood this principle because none of their ideas are grounded on a logical argument, at least none that I have read. Occasionally an idea can be constructed by accident that is true, but the person who constructs it can not construct an argument to support it. "I think, therefore I am" is a true statement because it identifies one attribute (thinking) related to the existence of Descartes, but the statement is practically worthless in itself, because it does not explain the nature of the existence of all things. If Descartes had said: “I am a construct of my attributes” then we would assume that all existing things are a construct of their attributes. While Descartes statement has resulted in much (infinite) discussion, it hasn't created the understanding necessary for mankind to understand how knowledge is constructed to understand the mechanics of rational thinking.
Wyman,
“The argument” (a thing is itself… est.) supports the logic of what I have been saying. The detail is in the argument and not once has anyone mentioned the argument, so “it must be something else”. This is why I keep pounding the table on and on; the logic to get Philosophy on the right track is the detail of the argument. What can I say, except to say: everyone I explain it to can understand the logic of “the argument”, except those who identify with philosophy.
wleg wrote:Ginkgo,
I have stated in a post or two, sometime in the past, that it is not Descartes and the like that I am being critical of. I’m sure they were sincere and did the best they could; it is those who continue to accept the “ideas” of Descartes and the others as the final word, who I am critical of. Obviously, any criticism related to the state Philosophy is in today might appear to be directed at the philosophers but my criticism is about accepting their ideas as the final word.
The first principle related to ideas; if ideas can not be supported by a logical argument, they can’t be true. Philosophers have never understood this principle because none of their ideas are grounded on a logical argument, at least none that I have read. Occasionally an idea can be constructed by accident that is true, but the person who constructs it can not construct an argument to support it. "I think, therefore I am" is a true statement because it identifies one attribute (thinking) related to the existence of Descartes, but the statement is practically worthless in itself, because it does not explain the nature of the existence of all things. If Descartes had said: “I am a construct of my attributes” then we would assume that all existing things are a construct of their attributes. While Descartes statement has resulted in much (infinite) discussion, it hasn't created the understanding necessary for mankind to understand how knowledge is constructed to understand the mechanics of rational thinking.
Wayne Kelly Leggette Sr.
Wayne, your above two paragraphs are in conflict. In your first paragraph you say that you are not critical of the ideas of such people as Descartes. Rather you say you are critical of people who accept these ideas as the final world.
Yet in your second paragraph you mount a criticism of such philosophers, i.e. we get a criticism Descartes methodology. Which paragraph do you want us to go with? It can't be both.
"Obviously, any criticism related to the state Philosophy is in today might appear to be directed at the philosophers but my criticism is about accepting their ideas as the final word."
"a thing is itself because it has attributes different from the attributes of any other thing"
I'll accept that as true. However, I'll add that the enumeration of attributes can only be determined by a method. Until you elucidate a method, the proposition is too vague to be of use. I can throw out a couple of possibilities for a method - agreement among observers, scientific experiment, introspection.
In other words, as several posters have pointed out, your definition of knowledge seems to resemble belief - a state of mind towards a proposition or event. Beliefs can be true or false. Knowledge is usually defined as true as opposed to false. What method do you have for determining whether a knowledgeable state of mind is correct as opposed to incorrect?
