Letter by letter

[Age]

Concept is a thought of -that- which is can either be known to be true or false. The difference between a concept being true or false is that -that- exists (or doesn’t)

I’d like to propose that “that” which is true maintains its consistency without the thought of it, and that which is false has no element “that” weather thought of or not

But, whether 'that' is true, or false, can only ever be arrived at through, and from, thought, itself.

[Ollie.ha]

To tell if something is real without creating it you reference the desired reference “that” with yet another “that”


Now tell me if I’m wrong but this doesn’t prove to be coherent, which means it is basically useless. You could have all the thought in the world but if it can’t be explained logically it is moot.

[henry quirk]

I’d like to propose that “that” which is true maintains its consistency without the thought of it, and that which is false has no element “that” whether thought of or not

I agree: that which is real (that exists) is real (does exist) even if no one knows about it, and, that which is not real (does not exist) doesn't exist, even if everyone thinks it does.

[accelafine]

FFS

[Ollie.ha]

I think most people have trouble doing philosophy because while they think -of- things, they may not be thinking -about- them

[henry quirk]

I think most people have trouble doing philosophy because while they think -of- things, they may not be thinking -about- them

Can you explain the difference between thinking of things and thinking about things?

[Ollie.ha]

Thinking of things is a creative method of thinking, the topic being something itself

Thinking about things is a logical process where the subject is something other than the thought itself

When you think about things you don’t affect their status of existence, when you think of things you do.

[Age]

To tell if something is real without creating it you reference the desired reference “that” with yet another “that”


Now tell me if I’m wrong but this doesn’t prove to be coherent, which means it is basically useless. You could have all the thought in the world but if it can’t be explained logically it is moot.

Are 'you' addressing anyone in particular here?

If yes, the 'who', exactly?

[Ollie.ha]

No, most of the forum think very well in my opinion. I was only mentioning others I know personally

[henry quirk]

Thinking of things is a creative method of thinking, the topic being something itself

Thinking about things is a logical process where the subject is something other than the thought itself

When you think about things you don’t affect their status of existence, when you think of things you do.

Seems a bit arcane to me: can you give me a concrete example?

What does it mean, for example, to think of apples? Or to think about apples?

[Ollie.ha]

When you think “of” an Apple you imagine the qualities of an Apple; red, round, stem etc

When you think “about” an Apple you reference it without thinking of its qualities directly

I’m hesitant but to take that bit back, it doesn’t really make sense to the conversation
Plus it was unnecessarily judgmental…

[henry quirk]

When you think “of” an Apple you imagine the qualities of an Apple; red, round, stem etc

When you think “about” an Apple you reference it without thinking of its qualities directly

I see. To think of is consider constituents while to think about is to consider totality. Thinking of an engine is considering its parts; thinking about an engine is considering the engine as a whole.

I’m hesitant but to take that bit back, it doesn’t really make sense to the conversation
Plus it was unnecessarily judgmental…

Was I offensive? My apologies.

[Ollie.ha]

No worries

To be honest I lost track of this conversation on my first reply…

Back to the original topic: how can we know, letter by letter, what is good to write?

[henry quirk]

No worries

I guess the point of this conversation is to describe thinking about thinking about things

Seems so. Such a conversation, though, goes against the convention of the day, that being the relentless push to reduce all wholes, including man, to pieces and parts. To speak of irreducibles is almost heresy. Which, of course, means I'm all in for such a conversation.

It appears to me there are irreducibles. Man, example, is irreducible. It's impossible to consider man, as man, except as a whole. In an examination of his pieces and parts (his blood, organs, tissues, etc) there's nothing of him. He, as a whole, as an identity, a person, can only be discerned and grappled with as a whole. When he self-interrogates he doesn't consult his neuronal activity or his brain states or glandular discharges. When man self-interrogates he interrogates himself as whole, as person, as discrete identity, as person.

[henry quirk]

No worries

To be honest I lost track of this conversation on my first reply…

Back to the original topic: how can we know, letter by letter, what is good to write?

Midstream change...okay...I can go with the flow.

We can know what we write is good when what we write is true.