Reality is an Emergence

[Veritas Aequitas]

Don't know where you get the two views,
1. woman is savior of human race
2. woman is the man's downfall
This has nothing to do with what-is-Philosophy per se.

The fact is, in general, man and woman must work as a team in complementarity to ensure the preservation of the human species. This is so evident.

Nah, you are veering into the woo woo and illusory world without providing evidence, justification and arguments.
This is at most driven by your subjective feeling, fantasy and that is psychological.

When we do philosophy-proper we must always start from real grounds not jump into la la land without evidence and rational argument.

I''m sending you a book, which you will never read, but which you should. Camille Paglia is a radical, lesbian feminist.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/v4z8ypp8t0f0m ... e.pdf?dl=0 Feminism is the idea that Woman, the Natural being, will save the world with her sense of compassion and family togetherness, community. I think you are sort of a feminist.

I like these two guys with their pink angel wings, right out of heaven. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXRAKsVEcXU If you know religious writing, especially the Book of Revelation, you know that it is pure showbiz.

I am familiar with feminism [with arrogance] I believe is an extreme perversion within humanity.

Whatever you like is very personal and subjective.
However if you insist to put your views over others, then you have to provide justified arguments which is imperative within a philosophy forum.

[tapaticmadness]

Nah, you are veering into the woo woo and illusory world without providing evidence, justification and arguments.
This is at most driven by your subjective feeling, fantasy and that is psychological.

.

I come from a place you apparently know nothing about. I am driven by art and literature, which you dismiss as negligible.

Don't assume I am that ignorant.
Point is I am very crazy and aggressive in gathering knowledge.

I have inclination for the arts [not fanatical] but not literature.
But what is critical with philosophy is one need to be familiar with the Philosophy of the Arts and Philosophy of Literature.
I have also covered the psychology, evolutionary psychology & neuroscience and other knowledge of the arts.
Therefore I understand why people are driven to the Arts and Literature in preference over say Science, Mathematics, Logic, Engineering and the likes.

It is bit controversial but Howard Garner's Multiple Intelligences will give you and idea why humans tend to gravitate to certain pigeon holes they have a proclivity for.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of ... elligences

Aren't you getting close to falling into psychologism and thus being susceptible to the criticism of that. I don't think you can turn philosophy into psychology. https://www.google.com/search?q=husserl ... e&ie=UTF-8

[Veritas Aequitas]

I come from a place you apparently know nothing about. I am driven by art and literature, which you dismiss as negligible.

Don't assume I am that ignorant.
Point is I am very crazy and aggressive in gathering knowledge.

I have inclination for the arts [not fanatical] but not literature.
But what is critical with philosophy is one need to be familiar with the Philosophy of the Arts and Philosophy of Literature.
I have also covered the psychology, evolutionary psychology & neuroscience and other knowledge of the arts.
Therefore I understand why people are driven to the Arts and Literature in preference over say Science, Mathematics, Logic, Engineering and the likes.

It is bit controversial but Howard Garner's Multiple Intelligences will give you and idea why humans tend to gravitate to certain pigeon holes they have a proclivity for.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of ... elligences

Aren't you getting close to falling into psychologism and thus being susceptible to the criticism of that. I don't think you can turn philosophy into psychology. https://www.google.com/search?q=husserl ... e&ie=UTF-8

Your point is very outdated;

Example:

Although the term continues to be used today, criticisms and defenses of psychologism have mostly been absorbed into wider debates over the pros and cons of philosophical naturalism. Therefore this entry focuses on a time when, and a place where, psychologism was still a much-debated distinct issue.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/psyc ... #ExaPsyRea

One of the argument in condemning Psychologism is the following;

1. Psychology is defined as the science which studies all (kinds of) laws of thought.
2. Logic is a field of inquiry which studies a subset of all laws of thought.
Ergo, logic is a part of psychology.

The above is very rhetoric.
Psychology is the study of human behavior and 'laws of thought' is merely a subset.

You are also being very rhetoric in you above accusation of psychologism.

Note I stated;

the Philosophy of the Arts and Philosophy of Literature.
I have also covered the psychology, evolutionary psychology & neuroscience and other knowledge of the arts.

It is not only psychology but other necessary knowledge to get to the bottom of things, in this case the Arts and Literature.

Why people have proclivity towards the Arts and Literature over Science, mathematics, logic is basically a human behavior, thus psychology is relevant as one tool of knowledge [with others] to dig into its truths.

In a study of Philosophy of Philosophy, we will definitely have to turn to psychology, neurosciences, etc. because all its activities are happening mainly in the human brain surrounded by an external environment.

I wonder you will be surprised if I present,
biology is the root of logic, which is translated to;
psychology is the root of logic.

The Evolution of Reason: Logic as a Branch of Biology
William S. Cooper

[tapaticmadness]

Don't assume I am that ignorant.
Point is I am very crazy and aggressive in gathering knowledge.

I have inclination for the arts [not fanatical] but not literature.
But what is critical with philosophy is one need to be familiar with the Philosophy of the Arts and Philosophy of Literature.
I have also covered the psychology, evolutionary psychology & neuroscience and other knowledge of the arts.
Therefore I understand why people are driven to the Arts and Literature in preference over say Science, Mathematics, Logic, Engineering and the likes.

It is bit controversial but Howard Garner's Multiple Intelligences will give you and idea why humans tend to gravitate to certain pigeon holes they have a proclivity for.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of ... elligences

Aren't you getting close to falling into psychologism and thus being susceptible to the criticism of that. I don't think you can turn philosophy into psychology. https://www.google.com/search?q=husserl ... e&ie=UTF-8

Your point is very outdated;

Example:

Although the term continues to be used today, criticisms and defenses of psychologism have mostly been absorbed into wider debates over the pros and cons of philosophical naturalism. Therefore this entry focuses on a time when, and a place where, psychologism was still a much-debated distinct issue.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/psyc ... #ExaPsyRea

One of the argument in condemning Psychologism is the following;

1. Psychology is defined as the science which studies all (kinds of) laws of thought.
2. Logic is a field of inquiry which studies a subset of all laws of thought.
Ergo, logic is a part of psychology.

The above is very rhetoric.
Psychology is the study of human behavior and 'laws of thought' is merely a subset.

You are also being very rhetoric in you above accusation of psychologism.

Note I stated;

the Philosophy of the Arts and Philosophy of Literature.
I have also covered the psychology, evolutionary psychology & neuroscience and other knowledge of the arts.

It is not only psychology but other necessary knowledge to get to the bottom of things, in this case the Arts and Literature.

Why people have proclivity towards the Arts and Literature over Science, mathematics, logic is basically a human behavior, thus psychology is relevant as one tool of knowledge [with others] to dig into its truths.

In a study of Philosophy of Philosophy, we will definitely have to turn to psychology, neurosciences, etc. because all its activities are happening mainly in the human brain surrounded by an external environment.

I wonder you will be surprised if I present,
biology is the root of logic, which is translated to;
psychology is the root of logic.

The Evolution of Reason: Logic as a Branch of Biology
William S. Cooper

Only idealists/materialists believe that the laws of logic are derived from human psychology, therefore I am not surprised that you agree with them. Logical Form is not basically human behavior. It is a real part of extra-human existence. Btw, the philosophy of philosophy is indeed an interesting study.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Aren't you getting close to falling into psychologism and thus being susceptible to the criticism of that. I don't think you can turn philosophy into psychology. https://www.google.com/search?q=husserl ... e&ie=UTF-8

Your point is very outdated;

Example:

Although the term continues to be used today, criticisms and defenses of psychologism have mostly been absorbed into wider debates over the pros and cons of philosophical naturalism. Therefore this entry focuses on a time when, and a place where, psychologism was still a much-debated distinct issue.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/psyc ... #ExaPsyRea

One of the argument in condemning Psychologism is the following;

1. Psychology is defined as the science which studies all (kinds of) laws of thought.
2. Logic is a field of inquiry which studies a subset of all laws of thought.
Ergo, logic is a part of psychology.

The above is very rhetoric.
Psychology is the study of human behavior and 'laws of thought' is merely a subset.

You are also being very rhetoric in you above accusation of psychologism.

Note I stated;

the Philosophy of the Arts and Philosophy of Literature.
I have also covered the psychology, evolutionary psychology & neuroscience and other knowledge of the arts.

It is not only psychology but other necessary knowledge to get to the bottom of things, in this case the Arts and Literature.

Why people have proclivity towards the Arts and Literature over Science, mathematics, logic is basically a human behavior, thus psychology is relevant as one tool of knowledge [with others] to dig into its truths.

In a study of Philosophy of Philosophy, we will definitely have to turn to psychology, neurosciences, etc. because all its activities are happening mainly in the human brain surrounded by an external environment.

I wonder you will be surprised if I present,
biology is the root of logic, which is translated to;
psychology is the root of logic.

The Evolution of Reason: Logic as a Branch of Biology
William S. Cooper

Only idealists/materialists believe that the laws of logic are derived from human psychology, therefore I am not surprised that you agree with them. Logical Form is not basically human behavior. It is a real part of extra-human existence. Btw, the philosophy of philosophy is indeed an interesting study.

I don't believe you have read the book I linked in which he had provided his justified argument.

Suggest you don't jump to conclusion but at least read the book to understand [not necessary agree with] his argument and provide your counter views.

Yes, the philosophy of philosophy should be interesting and it will definitely entailed evolutionary psychology, neurosciences, etc. and philosophy itself.

[tapaticmadness]

I don't believe you have read the book I linked in which he had provided his justified argument.

Suggest you don't jump to conclusion but at least read the book to understand [not necessary agree with] his argument and provide your counter views.

Yes, the philosophy of philosophy should be interesting and it will definitely entailed evolutionary psychology, neurosciences, etc. and philosophy itself.

Yes, I haven't read that particular book, but I am well acquainted with the arguments that materialist writers like you present. Have you read any non-materialist writers? Or do you live in a bubble? I recommend Gustav Bergmann https://www.amazon.com/s?k=gustav+bergm ... nb_sb_noss

[Veritas Aequitas]

I don't believe you have read the book I linked in which he had provided his justified argument.

Suggest you don't jump to conclusion but at least read the book to understand [not necessary agree with] his argument and provide your counter views.

Yes, the philosophy of philosophy should be interesting and it will definitely entailed evolutionary psychology, neurosciences, etc. and philosophy itself.

Yes, I haven't read that particular book, but I am well acquainted with the arguments that materialist writers like you present. Have you read any non-materialist writers? Or do you live in a bubble? I recommend Gustav Bergmann https://www.amazon.com/s?k=gustav+bergm ... nb_sb_noss

Again your view on materialism is outdated.
"Materialism" had been debunked by Berkeley long ago.
The new idea from the dead materialism is physicalism.

Physicalism is closely related to materialism.
Physicalism grew out of materialism with advancements of the physical sciences in explaining observed phenomena. The terms are often used interchangeably, although they are sometimes distinguished, for example on the basis of physics describing more than just matter (including energy and physical law). The philosophical zombie argument[3] is an attempt to challenge physicalism.

I have read loads of books on philosophy, thus they are likely to be non-materialistic.

Re Bergmann,

Pursuing methods of philosophical analysis derived from those of Moore, the early Wittgenstein, and Carnap, Bergmann sought to resolve philosophical problems by informally discussing the construction of an "ideal language" whose semantic features would indicate the most fundamental structure of reality. Thus, for Bergmann, the basic question of ontology is: what kinds of things must exist in order for us to devise a formal language in which everything can be perspicuously expressed?
http://www.philosophypages.com/ph/berg.htm

Again this is outdated.

Show me other philosophers at present who are still following the ideas [ontology] of Bergmann?

I will definitely read whatever books you recommend if you can present their arguments in simple form that show they have a strong arguments against my philosophical views, especially that of philosophical anti-realism of Kant.

[tapaticmadness]

I don't believe you have read the book I linked in which he had provided his justified argument.

Suggest you don't jump to conclusion but at least read the book to understand [not necessary agree with] his argument and provide your counter views.

Yes, the philosophy of philosophy should be interesting and it will definitely entailed evolutionary psychology, neurosciences, etc. and philosophy itself.

Yes, I haven't read that particular book, but I am well acquainted with the arguments that materialist writers like you present. Have you read any non-materialist writers? Or do you live in a bubble? I recommend Gustav Bergmann https://www.amazon.com/s?k=gustav+bergm ... nb_sb_noss

Again your view on materialism is outdated.
"Materialism" had been debunked by Berkeley long ago.
The new idea from the dead materialism is physicalism.

Physicalism is closely related to materialism.
Physicalism grew out of materialism with advancements of the physical sciences in explaining observed phenomena. The terms are often used interchangeably, although they are sometimes distinguished, for example on the basis of physics describing more than just matter (including energy and physical law). The philosophical zombie argument[3] is an attempt to challenge physicalism.

I have read loads of books on philosophy, thus they are likely to be non-materialistic.

Re Bergmann,

Pursuing methods of philosophical analysis derived from those of Moore, the early Wittgenstein, and Carnap, Bergmann sought to resolve philosophical problems by informally discussing the construction of an "ideal language" whose semantic features would indicate the most fundamental structure of reality. Thus, for Bergmann, the basic question of ontology is: what kinds of things must exist in order for us to devise a formal language in which everything can be perspicuously expressed?
http://www.philosophypages.com/ph/berg.htm

Again this is outdated.

Show me other philosophers at present who are still following the ideas [ontology] of Bergmann?

I will definitely read whatever books you recommend if you can present their arguments in simple form that show they have a strong arguments against my philosophical views, especially that of philosophical anti-realism of Kant.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/1alssf4w7g4ft ... 9.pdf?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/xy61l7tgg04bg ... 2.pdf?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/4ifsg1giperyd ... 3.pdf?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/28lwk9zmoa7yl ... 4.pdf?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/znlep117vn96g ... 5.pdf?dl=0

Here is Reinhardt Grossmann, The Existence of the World. He was a close associate of Bergmann. At the beginning of his career, Bergmann wrote papers on the foundation of psychology. He was an early proponent of Experimental Psychology, which basically means you hook up electrical meters to the human nervous system and then place the person is various situations to see what readings you get. It is purely materialistic. His psychology was materialistic, but his philosophy was not.

I come from the University of Iowa, where Bergmann taught. His successors are still there and they still operate from out of his ideas. His ideas are not outdated.

[Skepdick]

I will definitely read whatever books you recommend if you can present their arguments in simple form that show they have a strong arguments against my philosophical views, especially that of philosophical anti-realism of Kant.

The arguments are trivial. Philosophy is stuck in the paradigm of language games, all while Philosophers have neither a clue what "language" is, nor a clue what a "game" is.

So if you are going to be talking about being "debunked". Computer Science (language recognition) and Game Theory debunked all philosophy.

Speaking of Game Theory... RIP John Conway.

[tapaticmadness]

I will definitely read whatever books you recommend if you can present their arguments in simple form that show they have a strong arguments against my philosophical views, especially that of philosophical anti-realism of Kant.

The arguments are trivial. Philosophy is stuck in the paradigm of playing language games.

Philosophers don't even know what language is and how/why it works.
So if you are going to be talking about being "debunked". Computer Science (language recognition) debunked philosophy.

Are you really, seriously going to try to impress us with Computer Science? That's absurd. The only way computer science "debunks" philosophy is by parading around as high and mighty because they are computer scientists, high priests of Technology.

[Skepdick]

Are you really, seriously going to try to impress us with Computer Science? That's absurd. The only way computer science "debunks" philosophy is by parading around as high and mighty because they are computer scientists, high priests of Technology.

Computer science is not about technology. Before it came to mean "technology" a computer was a job description. You are simply ignorant of history.

Simply observe your over-reaction, even though I pointed out that computer science is about language recognition.

The fact that computer scientists are the "high priests of Technology" is but a side effect/consequence of the ancient wisdom "Knowledge is power".
Computer scientists have knowledge - to the extent that knowledge is possible. If they didn't - they wouldn't be powerful.

I made my case. If you are going to play language games, first you need to ask (and answer) the questions: What is language? What is a game?

My view on the matter: Philosophy is circular. Computer science is recursive.

[tapaticmadness]

Are you really, seriously going to try to impress us with Computer Science? That's absurd. The only way computer science "debunks" philosophy is by parading around as high and mighty because they are computer scientists, high priests of Technology.

Computer science is not about technology. Before it came to mean "technology" a computer was a job description. You are simply ignorant of history.

Simply observe your over-reaction, even though I pointed out that computer science is about language recognition.

The fact that computer scientists are the "high priests of Technology" is but a side effect/consequence of the ancient wisdom "Knowledge is power".
Computer scientists have knowledge - to the extent that knowledge is possible. If they didn't - they wouldn't be powerful.

I made my case. If you are going to play language games, first you need to ask (and answer) the questions: What is language? What is a game?

My view on the matter: Philosophy is circular. Computer science is recursive.

The questions What is language and What is a game cannot be answered by anybody either philosopher or computer scientist. As for circularity and recursivity, those are just magical words that are suppose to silence all dissent.

[Skepdick]

The questions What is language and What is a game cannot be answered by anybody either philosopher or computer scientist.

I can answer it. I know what the answer is because I can create all those things: languages, games, questions, answers...

What I cannot create I do not understand --Richard Feynman.

Luciano Floridi has sufficiently answered it. According to me anyway.

https://global.oup.com/academic/product ... us&lang=en&

As for circularity and recursivity, those are just magical words that are suppose to silence all dissent.

You are welcome to dissent. And the High Priests are welcome to ignore you.

Isn't that Philosophy's game? I don't want your language - I'll invent my own.

Oh wait. That's computer science

The High Priests of Technology are powerful, PRECISELY because they wield the the power of language and the super-power of self-expression.

John 1:1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

They don't just use languages - they invent them! Engineer them! Mould them to fit a very human need - the need for self-expression and creation.

What could be more powerful than inventing your own, provably-coherent, private language to spite Wittgenstein?

[tapaticmadness]

The questions What is language and What is a game cannot be answered by anybody either philosopher or computer scientist.

I can answer it. I know what the answer is because I can create all those things: languages, games, questions, answers...

What I cannot create I do not understand --Richard Feynman.

Luciano Floridi has sufficiently answered it. According to me anyway.

https://global.oup.com/academic/product ... us&lang=en&

As for circularity and recursivity, those are just magical words that are suppose to silence all dissent.

You are welcome to dissent. And the High Priests are welcome to ignore you.

Isn't that Philosophy's game? I don't want your language - I'll invent my own.

Oh wait. That's computer science

The High Priests of Technology are powerful, PRECISELY because they wield the the power of language and the super-power of self-expression.

John 1:1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

They don't just use languages - they invent them! Engineer them! Mould them to fit a very human need - the need for self-expression and creation.

What could be more powerful than inventing your own, provably-coherent, private language to spite Wittgenstein?

I'm a great fan of conceptual art. Here are some examples of concrete and visual poetry. Maybe you too will like it. http://www.ubu.com/vp/ Ubuweb has a lot of great language stuff.

[tapaticmadness]

The questions What is language and What is a game cannot be answered by anybody either philosopher or computer scientist.

I can answer it. I know what the answer is because I can create all those things: languages, games, questions, answers...

What I cannot create I do not understand --Richard Feynman.

Luciano Floridi has sufficiently answered it. According to me anyway.

https://global.oup.com/academic/product ... us&lang=en&

As for circularity and recursivity, those are just magical words that are suppose to silence all dissent.

You are welcome to dissent. And the High Priests are welcome to ignore you.

Isn't that Philosophy's game? I don't want your language - I'll invent my own.

Oh wait. That's computer science

The High Priests of Technology are powerful, PRECISELY because they wield the the power of language and the super-power of self-expression.

John 1:1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

They don't just use languages - they invent them! Engineer them! Mould them to fit a very human need - the need for self-expression and creation.

What could be more powerful than inventing your own, provably-coherent, private language to spite Wittgenstein?

I really like William Burroughs. He had a magical view of language. He saw language as a virus. https://www.amazon.com/Word-Virus-Willi ... =8-1-fkmr1

also this https://www.dropbox.com/s/6fiy7vlbxq8eo ... s.pdf?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/as4olyehc4d5q ... s.pdf?dl=0