Understanding Forum participants

[wleg]

Uwort,
The empirical evidence, illustrated by the nature of you previous posts, justifies one to doubt you have an interest in the relationship the existence of knowledge has to the existence of things and conditions. The relationship is revealed by “the augment”, which you seem to ignore.

Wayne Kelly Leggette Sr.

[Wyman]

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.

Now we're getting somewhere. I agree that a true belief supported by a logical argument is as good a definition of knowledge as I've seen. Perhaps 'rational' argument would be better. Logic is usually used to describe deductive proofs based on axioms. Rational can be given a more pragmatic reading. We will pounce on you for sure - requesting you to list your axioms - if you demand a logical argument in that sense. A rational argument could be just what intelligent, rational people agree on after thoughtful consideration.

However, your statement 'If a state of mind or belief can not be supported by a logical argument, it 'can not' be true' may be over-broad. As I brought up before, if I tell my 5 year old that 'e=mc squared' and he repeats it, you said that he has knowledge. Which leads me to believe that a knowledgeable 'state of mind' is dependent, not so much on the rational argument, as on the proposition acquired. For surely my five year old can give no argument for his 'true' proposition other than 'Daddy told me.' Kind of like religious people.

So, do you agree that a knowledgeable state of mind requires more than just true belief based on faith or authority ('It's true because I looked it up on wikipedia')?

[wleg]

Wyman,

You will probably agree the effort to construct understanding/knowledge on a forum like this is very fragmented. It becomes fragmented in a thread by the irrelevant unnecessary posts and then the effort jumps to other threads causing the effort to be extremely fragmented. Constructing original knowledge without fragmentation is difficult enough and attempting to on a public forum is near impossible. However, if a public forum is all one has to work with at the moment one has to work with what one has.

The only possible way to understand the relationship the existence of knowledge has to the existence of things and conditions is to understand the logic of the argument:

If a thing exists as itself and not some other thing, it must have attributes that are different from the attributes of any other existing thing. Else, every existing thing would be the same thing. This is the nature/logic of existence. And it follows, to have knowledge that distinguishes one thing from another thing we must mentally recognize and remember which attributes relate/equate to the existence of which things. This is the nature/logic of knowledge and explains how knowledge is constructed and also explains the process of rational thinking.

We can think rationally when we “know” the process of understanding the existence of a thing is the systematic mental process of identifying/recognizing the attributes that equate to the existence of the thing we are thinking to understand. Simple! Now recognize! That constructing knowledge “as yet” has nothing to do with language. If we need to express our state of mind or knowledge, we can construct a propositional statement identifying a thing, as subject, and then identify the attributes that equate to the existence of the thing, as predicates. Philosophers did not recognize how knowledge is constructed and “believed it is not constructed”, and believed it is “justified true belief” which reveals “nothing” about how knowledge is constructed. This resulted in philosophers believing knowledge originates in language and resulted in the creation of “formal logic” as a way to understand when language is true and when it is contradictory. Philosophers enormously complicated and have obscured the simple process of understanding the nature of knowledge.

You say: So, do you agree that a knowledgeable state of mind requires more than just true belief based on faith or authority ('It's true because I looked it up on wikipedia')?

I say: If we recognize our state of mind or knowledge can be either realistic or unrealistic, and what we believe will reflect our state of mind, the authority for our beliefs should conform to the “logic of existence”. IOW, if we can not identify the attributes that equate to the existence of the subject of our beliefs we can assume there is no logical authority. The relationship of “beliefs” to the state of our own existence is better discussed once we understand our psychological needs.

Wayne Kelly Leggette Sr.

[HexHammer]

You will probably agree the effort to construct understanding/knowledge on a forum like this is very fragmented. It becomes fragmented in a thread by the irrelevant unnecessary posts and then the effort jumps to other threads causing the effort to be extremely fragmented. Constructing original knowledge without fragmentation is difficult enough and attempting to on a public forum is near impossible. However, if a public forum is all one has to work with at the moment one has to work with what one has.

Noone is preventing you from writing a post with your desired topic, only youself.

What you are really saying is that people interrupts your cosy chat, since you havn't even attempted constructing anything real, because you are chasing an illusion that can never be reached.

You should very well know that knowledge doesn't come from ignorents sitting and imagine things, but by intense study by knowledgeable people who have studied in a field.

[Ginkgo]

The only possible way to understand the relationship the existence of knowledge has to the existence of things and conditions is to understand the logic of the argument:

If a thing exists as itself and not some other thing, it must have attributes that are different from the attributes of any other existing thing. Else, every existing thing would be the same thing. This is the nature/logic of existence. And it follows, to have knowledge that distinguishes one thing from another thing we must mentally recognize and remember which attributes relate/equate to the existence of which things. This is the nature/logic of knowledge and explains how knowledge is constructed and also explains the process of rational thinking.


Wayne Kelly Leggette Sr.

I suspected you were trying to get at some type of transcendental idealism, that's why I mention Kant before. Remember I mentioned the synthetic apriori. You also said Kant was a philosopher you could agree with. That's probably why

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendental_idealism

[wleg]

Ginkgo,

I am attempting to eliminate transcendental idealism and every other ism by simply understanding the nature of “existence” itself. “The existence of a thing is a construct of its’ attributes.” This applies to every physical thing, every condition, every experience, every abstract concept and any thing else it is possible to imagine. It doesn't matter if we have the mental ability to identify the attributes of a thing to understand the nature of it’s existence or not. If we do not have the mental ability to identify enough attributes to understand the nature of a condition like gravity, it is still a construct of its’ attributes; we just don’t recognize them at this time. This approach to understanding the existence of things and conditions by understanding the nature of “existence” itself is different from any other approach or ism.

Wayne Kelly Leggette Sr.

[wleg]

Hex,

Noone is preventing you from writing a post with your desired topic, only youself.

That's right, I could sit alone and write, but then I would miss having you looking over my shoulder and constantly telling me what an idiot I am. There is something reassuring about knowing someone is reading ones' posts.

[Ginkgo]

Ginkgo,

I am attempting to eliminate transcendental idealism and every other ism by simply understanding the nature of “existence” itself. “The existence of a thing is a construct of its’ attributes.” This applies to every physical thing, every condition, every experience, every abstract concept and any thing else it is possible to imagine. It doesn't matter if we have the mental ability to identify the attributes of a thing to understand the nature of it’s existence or not. If we do not have the mental ability to identify enough attributes to understand the nature of a condition like gravity, it is still a construct of its’ attributes; we just don’t recognize them at this time. This approach to understanding the existence of things and conditions by understanding the nature of “existence” itself is different from any other approach or ism.

Wayne Kelly Leggette Sr.

Ok, it was only a suggestion. Generally the way it works is that if you are passionate about something and you think you have something to contribute to philosophical knowledge then you are best to set it out your ideas as a thesis. A thesis generally contain other people ideas as well as your own. This usually involve specific references, and or relevant quotes. So you really need a working knowledge other other philosophers who have contributed in the area of study.



Again, this is only a suggestion.

[wleg]

Ginkgo,
Excellent suggestion. I will collaborate with those who have an excellent education in Traditional Philosophy, would like to advance philosophical knowledge and have a passion for writing. Within in the near future, I hope to be able to identify the nature of a monetary stimulus to encourage this strategy.

Wayne Kelly Leggette Sr.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Spheres,

The only thing I claim is: “for philosophy to make sense and be useful, philosophers must ground their thinking on comprehensive definitions Yes!
of the twenty-five abstract concepts.” No!

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.

And there you go!

[WanderingLands]

My experience from participating on Philosophy Forums over the last sixteen years makes it apparent that people who participate do so for one of two reasons. By far the majority do so with no thought of collaborating with other participates to advance philosophical knowledge, nor do they appear to have any interest and mental ability to do so. These participates identify themselves with Philosophy attempting to appear intelligent to enhance their self-esteem. Having an intelligent dialogue with these participates is impossible for they feel threatened by any idea different from their own. This creates an extremely challenging environment for the very few participates, usually no more that one or two, whose interest is creating new ideas to advance philosophical knowledge.

The advancement of philosophical knowledge demands the creation of new different ideas that can be supported by a logical argument. This is a difficult mental process that can be made easier if on a Philosophy Forum there is collaboration between those with the same interest, but the process is easily disrupted and terminated by those on the forum whose only interest is to discredit any ideas different from their own.

Creating original ideas that advance philosophical knowledge depends on participates understanding the mental process of systematic reasoning.

I will stop and wait for replies that reveal which participants have an interest in collaborating and who feel threatened.

kelly

I've seen the same thing as what you've said in this post. Whenever there's an organized institution focusing on philosophy and science, it's always the people with sheep-like mentality that are treated with praise by those who gave them a podium to speak on. Institutions are sure a hell to try can bring something more profound into "their" circles.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Uwot,

1- The existence of a thing is a construct of its’ attributes.
More accurately, The existence of a thing, is determined by the physics of the universe, whether humans come to terms with it's attributes or not, as only time will tell if they're actually capable of doing so.

2- Knowledge is the state of mind when we recognize two or more things that relate to the existence of each other.
More accurately, human knowledge can only be said to exist when the conceptualization of any particular bit of existence is co complete that nothing more could ever be added to make it more complete, such that the conceptualization is much like a blue print, or a carbon copy; xerox anyone? Anything less and it's merely belief along the path to knowledge; an incomplete copy.


3- A propositional statement is true when the subject and predicate relate to the existence of each other.
Not exactly, only when it's true that further knowledge, ad infinitum, could in no way change the relationship of the two, could this be said, to be true.


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.

And that's my contribution to further knowledge, to try and come to terms with that, when mans ideas/concepts are so complex, relative to his own minds ability, that his words become confused, as his contradiction reveals.

[EagerForTruth]

Ok, I'm not going to try and nitpick any of the various hidden or open hostile comments I don't think. As someone who used philosophical forums before most people even really were aware of them (I went to philosophy chat rooms on the ancient prodigy or the slightly less ancient aol 2.5) I will say in any forum online since I can remember ever existed there is predictably a large mass of people who either speak without knowledge, speak with knowledge but bad intent, or speak with intolerance for other people's ideas.

Now that is quite frustrating it is true. Then again, even worse the few who being with (mostly) good intent and content, often allow their own responses and attitudes toward the discussion be perverted by the ones who never had it to begin with. Criticizing people's intelligence, whether direct or implied, is itself a poor way to approach philosophical discussions. Logic of course is the bedrock beginning of philosophical exchanges, but I think it is also just the beginning. In a field where logic can bring much light to things, other qualities such as compassion, empathy, ability to understand another's perspective and realization that the objective is not to be correct in your own ideas or arguments but to constructively exchange qualified ideas with others while being open to the possibility that each part of the discussion may contain it's own elements of truth.

I am not part of the intellectual establishment, although in mindset I do quite consider myself to be "intellectual", I do also think often times the ones who have become members in the establishment by both behavior and association, have also insulated themselves from almost anyone significantly dissimilar from themselves. Not only does that prevent access to other points of view, in the case of highly educated people, it can lead to a certain...intolerance or dismissal of ideas not supported by their tiny group of elites.

To disagree or criticize logical, respectfully, and compassionately is better not only for the one who's being criticized but the one who's doing it. Admittedly, it doesn't (even nearly) remove peoples resistance to being criticized or corrected, but at least it's the right way to attempt. Their acceptance of a good or true idea (or lack thereof) is not what validates it. Personally I like to dismiss anything blatantly uncooperative, aggressive, or destructive, and take whatever elements of whatever comment may have validity, although even valid ones can generate more conflict rather than cooperation and agreement if the tenor of them has any kind of arrogant, dismissive, or intolerant tone to it.

After all the ancient greek definition of philosophy is the "love of wisdom" and there is much more to wisdom than logic, nor is wisdom something that anyone can claim to know more fully than everyone else or know with complete surety.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Ok, I'm not going to try and nitpick any of the various hidden or open hostile comments I don't think. As someone who used philosophical forums before most people even really were aware of them (I went to philosophy chat rooms on the ancient prodigy or the slightly less ancient aol 2.5) I will say in any forum online since I can remember ever existed there is predictably a large mass of people who either speak without knowledge, speak with knowledge but bad intent, or speak with intolerance for other people's ideas.
What do you think of this?
'Men are four.
He who knows not, and knows not he knows not,
He who knows not, and knows he knows not,
He who knows and knows not he knows,
He who knows and knows he knows.


Now that is quite frustrating it is true. Then again, even worse the few who being with (mostly) good intent and content, often allow their own responses and attitudes toward the discussion be perverted by the ones who never had it to begin with. Criticizing people's intelligence, whether direct or implied, is itself a poor way to approach philosophical discussions. Logic of course is the bedrock beginning of philosophical exchanges, but I think it is also just the beginning. In a field where logic can bring much light to things, other qualities such as compassion, empathy, ability to understand another's perspective and realization that the objective is not to be correct in your own ideas or arguments but to constructively exchange qualified ideas with others while being open to the possibility that each part of the discussion may contain it's own elements of truth.

I am not part of the intellectual establishment, although in mindset I do quite consider myself to be "intellectual", I do also think often times the ones who have become members in the establishment by both behavior and association, have also insulated themselves from almost anyone significantly dissimilar from themselves. Not only does that prevent access to other points of view, in the case of highly educated people, it can lead to a certain...intolerance or dismissal of ideas not supported by their tiny group of elites.

To disagree or criticize logical, respectfully, and compassionately is better not only for the one who's being criticized but the one who's doing it. Admittedly, it doesn't (even nearly) remove peoples resistance to being criticized or corrected, but at least it's the right way to attempt. Their acceptance of a good or true idea (or lack thereof) is not what validates it. Personally I like to dismiss anything blatantly uncooperative, aggressive, or destructive, and take whatever elements of whatever comment may have validity, although even valid ones can generate more conflict rather than cooperation and agreement if the tenor of them has any kind of arrogant, dismissive, or intolerant tone to it.

After all the ancient greek definition of philosophy is the "love of wisdom" and there is much more to wisdom than logic, nor is wisdom something that anyone can claim to know more fully than everyone else or know with complete surety.

[EagerForTruth]

hmmm to that insert I'll say quite full of distinctions between different the different willingness people have to be aware (or not aware, or not aware of being aware) but perhaps the trickest part is that I think there's probably many states of partial awareness and trying to be aware exactly which one you're in, and to what degree....well I try my hardest but god knows that even I can't truly know which one at any time regarding a certain truth? I do try to develop my ideas at all times keeping the best possible attitude and intention in mind. After that, as that's the best anyone can do, I just have to hope I have it right I like to think one of the most important things though is anytime there's something that might require revising...it's good to not shut it out in a willful rejection of truth.