Changing Technique

[Arising_uk]

Tusock your new sock-puppet then wleg?

[Tusok]

So rational means reasoned and logical, which dictates that all rational thought must proceed in a step by step manner from a predicate, to a conclusion. So I would suggest that any rational discussion on the subject of reality must have an established starting point, or primary predicate from which further rational judgements can proceed from.

And I would also suggest that any further ambiguity in respect to word definitions should be resolved as the terms are encountered.

Hello again James, it looks like we're pulling on the same yoke. And I certainly hope wleg is wielding his hoe nearby.

I've got a question for you about "rational," and to keep things moving I'll wait and address "reality" later on.

So, three quick queries on your definition of rational. First, I've seen many variations on what individuals consider to be "reasoned" or "logical." Can we agree on what a logical process entails?

Second, the "predicate." It's nice to think that, like geometers, philosophers could start with unbreakable axioms as their foundation. But is it possible for us to identify such a predicate?

Third, is it conceivable that any philosophical discussion could come to a "conclusion?" I'd really like to think so, so rest assured, even though I'm asking the question I'm on your side, solidly. But in all the years I've seen / read / listened to such discussions, the concept of conclusion appears to be the last thing on anyone's mind. Usually these threads die out from lack of progress and interest.

To wleg, don't think I'm deconstructing your original question endlessly, but it does address your question of existence, though obliquely. This train of thought is worth pursuing, and James has it laid out nicely. But my questions are relevant because one person's logic is another's magic. I'd like to think our goal is to strive for the robust proofs of the mathematician, and maybe even learn something practical along the way!

Tusok

[Felasco]

But in all the years I've seen / read / listened to such discussions, the concept of conclusion appears to be the last thing on anyone's mind. Usually these threads die out from lack of progress and interest.

Thanks for being rational, for listening to the real world evidence.

[wleg]

Felasco,

Is the "real world evidence" you are referring to, the 'confusion and contradiction' caused by the irrational ideas of traditional Philosophy? The real "real world evidence" is how little, if any, knowledge Philosophy has constructed. Proof of this is, you can not identify any propositional statements, of philosophers, that construct knowledge.

I am critical of traditional Philosophy and philosophers because those who identify themselves with Philosophy are keeping mankind from understanding the mechanics of "rational thinking". They resist any collaborative effort to construct the comprehensive definitions of the philosophical concepts, needed to understand "systematic rational thinking.

Wayne Kelly Leggette Sr.

[Felasco]

I am critical of traditional Philosophy and philosophers because those who identify themselves with Philosophy are keeping mankind from understanding the mechanics of "rational thinking". They resist any collaborative effort to construct the comprehensive definitions of the philosophical concepts, needed to understand "systematic rational thinking.

Yes, I know this is an important theme for you, and I apologize for not being more cooperative. I have no personal beef with you, as I'm sure you're a good fellow.

My impatience, and perhaps that of others, is that the thrust of all your threads appears to be to present yourself as an, or perhaps the, authority on rational thinking, but then you don't do it yourself.

There is exactly no chance whatsoever that the project which is so important to you can ever accomplish it's goals here on this forum. Thus, your continual ongoing pursuit of it here strikes this one user as not being a good example of rational thinking.

That said, I could be wrong, I definitely type too much, and it's really not any of my business. I'm not unsupportive of your basic idea, but decline to take it seriously if you're not going to.

[wleg]

Felasco says: “There is exactly no chance whatsoever that the project which is so important to you can ever accomplish it's goals here on this forum. Thus, your continual ongoing pursuit of it here strikes this one user as not being a good example of rational thinking.”

I say: Where would you suggest is a place better to construct the ideas to understand the mechanics of rational thinking than a Philosophy forum?

I realize the greatest drawback to a forum like this is participants who feel threatened by the new ideas being constructed and make every effort to derail the process. This obstacle merely demonstrates the need to develop techniques necessary to overcome the obstacle. I will try the technique of asking you a question since you are a participant who appears threatened by any ideas different from your own. Do you believe that understanding and teaching the process of rational thinking is the greatest benefit Philosophy can be to mankind. YES or NO

Wayne Kelly Leggette Sr.

[HexHammer]

I say: Where would you suggest is a place better to construct the ideas to understand the mechanics of rational thinking than a Philosophy forum?

I realize the greatest drawback to a forum like this is participants who feel threatened by the new ideas being constructed and make every effort to derail the process. This obstacle merely demonstrates the need to develop techniques necessary to overcome the obstacle. I will try the technique of asking you a question since you are a participant who appears threatened by any ideas different from your own. Do you believe that understanding and teaching the process of rational thinking is the greatest benefit Philosophy can be to mankind.

You are so obsessed to define and waste time on what already has been well defined decades ago, but that you are glaringly ignorent about, which is why you have this idyllic fairytale vision to define (again).

Dude, wake up read some science stuff, you sorely need it.

[Felasco]

I say: Where would you suggest is a place better to construct the ideas to understand the mechanics of rational thinking than a Philosophy forum?

A philosophy forum where you can control what gets published, and what does not. Your own philosophy forum. That's the only way you'll be able to create the ordered step by step no interruptions dialog you keep saying you want.

Sorry, I thought I'd explained this a couple times already, but perhaps you missed it. Should I post another duck photo?

[wleg]

Felasco,
Well, accomplishing what I am attempting may not be as hopeless as you pretend. It appears the Fairy Godmother has killed off your duck. I wonder what I would have to sacrifice to make Hex disappear?

[HexHammer]

Ignorence

[marjoramblues]

[Felasco]

I wonder what I would have to sacrifice to make Hex disappear?

I've already told you a dozen times, but you appear to be too dense to get it, or more likely, you like Hex being here so you can pose yourself as being above somebody.

[marjoramblues]

[Tusok]

Tusok, I agree with you, a good starting point would be to agree a definition of rational, and proceed to a method of rational thought. It also seems to be point on which there cannot be much debate, as there is only one meaning of rational, and it seems to be pretty unambiguous.

Hello again, James (and Wayne I presume watching over us),

I'ts a good starting point, and you saw my three questions. But I'm afraid that we might have to back up one more step.

I used to think as you, that reason and rational thought were well-defined paths to discovery. Socratic syllogisms were my mantra. Then I started meeting people. Then I started meeting girls. Then I got married. Need I say more?

No, really, should I say more? Which is why we need to have a definition of reason and rational that applies to everyone. Care to take the first swing? (PS - I've looked up the popular definitions, so you can take off from there if you want!)

Tusok

[wleg]

Rational: The process of thought, grounded in understanding the nature of human needs, to recognize ways of satisfying our needs most beneficial to the state of our existence.

Wayne Kelly Leggette Sr.