Understanding Forum participants

[wleg]

Quote: “What method do you have for determining whether a knowledgeable state of mind is correct as opposed to incorrect?”

A realistic state of mind or belief, recognizing attributes that relate to the existence of a thing and or condition, can be supported by a logical argument. Unrealistic state of mind or belief can not be supported by logical argument. Understanding the “nature of existence” to understand “how knowledge is constructed” is the beginning of “rational thinking” and filters out ideas that are created by an irrational unsystematic process of thinking.

If a state of mind or belief can not be supported by a logical argument, it 'can not' be true.

Please use philosophical examples if attempting to debunk the above.

Wayne Kelly Leggette Sr.

[uwot]

If a state of mind or belief can not be supported by a logical argument, it 'can not' be true.

Could you give an example of how your system would work? What logical argument supports my state of mind or belief that Wayne Leggette owns a Golden Retriever?

[wleg]

Uwot,
I would argue that your state of mind appears confused, at best, as I believe most will agree a Golden Retriever is not a philosophical subject.

However, it can be argued; if my dog has the attributes we agree are the attributes of a Golden Retriever and I say to you: “My dog is a Golden Retriever”, and you believe me, my propositional statement has created a state of your mind that is realistic. The fact it is possible you may not believe me would create a different state of mind. The possibility that I do not have a Golden Retriever, yet say I do, has nothing to do with the nature of truth; it has to do with the nature of propositional statements that are "not true". Philosophers have believed that because statements can be false and not illustrate reality this cast doubt on any statements being true. Talk about an unrealistic confused state of mind.

Wayne Kelly Leggette Sr.

[Impenitent]

the troll's favorite food is villagers crossing the bridge...

of course the troll's state of mind, feelings of pleasure, as he devours villagers can not be supported by a "logical argument"

why let the troll's illogical pleasure continue?

-Imp

[Ginkgo]

"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."

Wayne, I think this is just more than an appearance. Your criticism was directed at philosophers, not just those of us who accept their ideas.

"Descartes did not construct a logical argument to support his propositional statements and unwarranted credence was awareded to him and his propositional statements confused mankind for centuries"

His nonsense (Ayer) says that my proposition stating a "matter of fact...."

"Russell's nonsense is just as bad..."

"Synthetic apriori propositions is terminology related to the condition of not understanding the nature of knowledge"

Sounds like a criticism of traditional philosophers to me.

One could understand mounting a criticism of such philosophers if one understood what they were saying.

[wleg]

Ginkgo,
“One could understand mounting a criticism of such philosophers if one understood what they were saying.”

If one could understand what philosophers have said, do you think what they said would cause so much confusion? Confusion and contradiction are two obvious attributes that related to the existence of traditional Philosophy. Identify what philosophers have said that has solved a philosophical problem.

Wayne Kelly Leggette Sr.

[Ginkgo]

Ginkgo,
“One could understand mounting a criticism of such philosophers if one understood what they were saying.”

If one could understand what philosophers have said, do you think what they said would cause so much confusion? Confusion and contradiction are two obvious attributes that related to the existence of traditional Philosophy. Identify what philosophers have said that has solved a philosophical problem.

Wayne Kelly Leggette Sr.

I think they have generated far more problems then they have solved. But that's the whole idea.

[uwot]

Uwot,
I would argue that your state of mind appears confused, at best, as I believe most will agree a Golden Retriever is not a philosophical subject.

All right then, give me an example of a propositional statement about a subject that is philosophical.

[wleg]

Uwot,

1- The existence of a thing is a construct of its’ attributes.

2- Knowledge is the state of mind when we recognize two or more things that relate to the existence of each other.

3- A propositional statement is true when the subject and predicate relate to the existence of each other.

Ginkgo,
“I think they (philosophers) have generated far more problems than they have solved. But that's the whole idea.”

Philosophers have generated far worse problems for mankind than they can imagine. By not constructing comprehensive definitions of the philosophical concepts, they have kept mankind from understanding the mechanics of rational thinking.

Wayne Kelly Leggette Sr.

[Ginkgo]

Uwot,

1- The existence of a thing is a construct of its’ attributes.

2- Knowledge is the state of mind when we recognize two or more things that relate to the existence of each other.

3- A propositional statement is true when the subject and predicate relate to the existence of each other.

Ginkgo,
“I think they (philosophers) have generated far more problems than they have solved. But that's the whole idea.”

Philosophers have generated far worse problems for mankind than they can imagine. By not constructing comprehensive definitions of the philosophical concepts, they have kept mankind from understanding the mechanics of rational thinking.

Wayne Kelly Leggette Sr.

For the past hour have been listening to the rain fall on the roof. Looking at the skylight in the roof I can see rain falling. My state of mind is that if it has been raining then the streets outside are wet. In other words I recognise the existence of rain with the streets being wet. But the relationship I would normally expect (streets being wet) is not there. The streets are dry.

Quite simply there is no logical necessity when it comes to subject and predicate relationships that are a state of mind.

I actually should have added that this is in relation to causation and prediction.

[wleg]

Ginkgo says: “Quite simply there is no logical necessity when it comes to subject and predicate relationships that are a state of mind.”

I say: “Traditional Philosophy is the asylum for those enamored with their own words, unrestricted by reality.”

Wayne Kelly Leggette Sr.

[Kuznetzova]

wleg and kelly are the same person using two screen names?
This person talks to itself in threads?

memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=8409
memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=4954

[Kuznetzova]

It is not mankind that is confused, it is those people who try to understand philosophy without actually reading any.

Ooo! Burn...

[wleg]

chuckle,,,Kuznetzova, I would have expected you to take my side of the argument. After all, I agreed with you about "Discourse of the woo-woo peddlers", "Western Philosophy is bankrupt" and "How does the philosopher react to artillery shells". I never can figure girls.

[uwot]

Uwot,

1- The existence of a thing is a construct of its’ attributes.

2- Knowledge is the state of mind when we recognize two or more things that relate to the existence of each other.

3- A propositional statement is true when the subject and predicate relate to the existence of each other.

Thanks Leggy. You have stated these several times; I'd like to see them in action. In other words, can you demonstrate how these axioms would work on a propositional sentence that has a philosophical subject?
Are the three stand alone axioms; or can you deduce 1 from 2? If not, how do we know 1 is knowledge?
I'm not sure what you mean by 'relate' in 3. Could you give an example?