Philosophy Now Forum

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Jan 24, 2021 12:37 am First, there has never been thousands of philosophy books in bookstores, especially not in mall bookstores back in the early 70s. I stumbled upon it in a small philosophy section in a mall bookstore and I was intrigued.

That's precisely my point! If you were not interested in philosophy (how could you be, you didn't even have an idea what it was), in a bookstore full of books about thing you knew nothing about - you chose to buy THAT book.

Why?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Jan 24, 2021 12:37 am Right. You can't have an interest in something when you have no idea what it is, but once you discover (something about) whatever it is, once you gain some idea of that thing, you can have an interest in it. How is this not obvious?

Because I am asking you how you "gained some idea of what philosophy is?"

For somebody that objects to long responses you sure seem to encourage them by avoiding simple questions like "What is philosophy?"

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Jan 24, 2021 12:37 am That in no way implies that you can't become interested in something that you didn't previously know about.

I thought this was clear right from the beginning? To become interested requires learning what it is.

And with your most recent response it seems that to learn what it is it requires being intrigued by it.

Which, ironically, brings us right back to square one. Because we got ourselves in this mess here....

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Jan 23, 2021 11:08 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sat Jan 23, 2021 11:07 pm We need to argue that you're not interested in it enough to study it? You're arguing that you are interested in it?

You'd need to argue that anybody should show any interest in it.

So, instead of arguing why anybody should show any interest in philosophy, now need to argue why anybody should be intrigued by it.

Potato, potatoh.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Jan 24, 2021 12:39 am Logical, having to do with logic.

A paper that talks about a connection between logic and metaphysics isn't contrary to noting that the three traditional divisions of metaphysics includes first principles, as first principles are logical in nature.

This is viciously circular.

Are the first principles of logic logical in nature?

If you going to answer "yes" then you best explain what logic is prior to its principles being postulated.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Jan 24, 2021 12:53 am LOL ONCE AGAIN, you use the 'conventional' word but do NOT place 'it' in RELATION to ANY 'thing' specific.

Say what?

I have no idea what that is supposed to amount to--"placing 'it' in RELATION to ANY 'thing' specific"

How do you define the word 'conventional' here?

Why would this be such a mystery? Common usage (at least in a particular milieu).

But the, so called, "relevant literature" has NOT YET concluded ANY 'thing', of ANY REAL substance NOR satisfaction.

What in the world are you talking about? For example, look at how "metaphysics" is defined in a bunch of philosophy sources.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Jan 24, 2021 12:35 am

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Jan 24, 2021 12:34 am First principles are logical in nature.

You continue to confuse the world of logic with the real world...

What does it even mean for something to be "logical" ?

What it means for something to be 'logical' means that it has been solved or answered through a process of reasoning, which makes PERFECT sense.

Although, and OBVIOUSLY, what can be, so called, "logical" to one person may not necessarily be "logical" AT ALL to "another".

Therefore, for something to be Truly 'logical', then 'it' would have to make PERFECT sense for EVERY one.

By the way, this is HOW the 'real world' is Truly KNOWN, SEEN, and RECOGNIZED.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Jan 24, 2021 12:53 am That's precisely my point! If you were not interested in philosophy (how could you be, you didn't even have an idea what it was), in a bookstore full of books about thing you knew nothing about - you chose to buy THAT book.

Once you head to a section named "philosophy" and start looking at the books there, you get some idea of what "philosophy" refers to, no?

Seriously, it's like I'm explaining this to a retard.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Jan 24, 2021 12:55 am If you going to answer "yes" then you best explain what logic is prior to its principles being postulated.

What? You asked what "logical" was as if you had no idea. (Again, because you're playing stupid, which I have no patience for.)

This is why I thought you might be JohnGuru, in conjunction with your user name. Playing stupid was his whole schtick, and it's about 80% of your schtick. He was also a computer programmer/tech, although that's a large percentage of the people on these boards.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Jan 24, 2021 12:39 am

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Jan 24, 2021 12:35 am

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Jan 24, 2021 12:34 am First principles are logical in nature.

You continue to confuse the world of logic with the real world...

What does it even mean for something to be "logical" ?

Logical, having to do with logic.

LOL Does 'truth' have something to do with 'true' also?

I found using the same, or same sort of, word in the definition/meaning of a word is just circular, or faulty, reasoning, and is NOT REALLY helpful at all.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Jan 24, 2021 12:39 am A paper that talks about a connection between logic and metaphysics isn't contrary to noting that the three traditional divisions of metaphysics includes first principles, as first principles are logical in nature.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Jan 24, 2021 1:04 am I found using the same, or same sort of, word in the definition/meaning of a word is just circular, or faulty, reasoning, and is NOT REALLY helpful at all.

Why be helpful to someone playing stupid?

Some people seem to apparently have the notion that that somehow is what philosophy basically amounts to: playing stupid. That's not something I'm eager to indulge.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Jan 24, 2021 12:59 am What? You asked what "logical" was as if you had no idea. (Again, because you're playing stupid, which I have no patience for.)

Dude... One of us is playing stupid the other may actually be stupid.

I asked you if the first principles of logic are themselves logical.

You know, because the principles of logic come before logic.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Jan 24, 2021 12:59 am This is why I thought you might be JohnGuru, in conjunction with your user name. Playing stupid was his whole schtick, and it's about 80% of your shtick. He was also a computer programmer/tech, although that's a large percentage of the people on these boards.

I'll change my name to Socrates if you makes you sleep better.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Jan 24, 2021 1:06 am I asked you if the first principles of logic are themselves logical.

First principles in metaphysics ARE NOT THE FIRST PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC.

I told you this already. They're first principles of metaphysics.

Advocate wrote: ↑Wed Oct 21, 2020 6:06 pm ...any questions that can be answered logically but not empirically and do not depend on perspective.

Is this definition necessary and sufficient?

Metaphysics as "being qua being" is the observation of the repetition of being. It is observation considering observation is the assumption of patterns, patterns are limits which repeat.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Jan 23, 2021 7:16 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Jan 23, 2021 7:07 pm Synthetic a priori depends on naturalism as the frame and system of belief. Naturalism is form of pantheism. The biosphere is an ecological system. Within that system humans retain inherent brain-mind patterns. Chomsky has described generative grammar, for instance, as deep structure of human language.It's probable in a habitat that is measurable by values of space and time that humans, by process of natural selection, are inherently able to synthesise values of space and time.

The frame of the system is still part of the system.

And I further draw your attention to the fact that you've framed your beliefs in the language of "systems"; and you've framed those beliefs in Chomsky's universal grammar.

The synthetic a priory is still synthesised and in so far as synthesis goes - I think "synthesis" means exactly the same thing as "first principles thinking".

It still begs the question: When we are synthesising ideas (such as the idea of "systems", "space" and "time") what are we synthesising those ideas from?

Experience! Obviously. "space" and "time" are empirical, not conceptual. Space is memory. We don't really know what time is.

I accept Skepdick's objection.

I say "objection" (singular) because Skepdick's objections belong in the set of systems that contribute to the system of systems 'beyond' which there is 'nowhere else to go'.

Whether or not there is such a system of systems is impossible to ascertain. Isn't it funny how God keeps cropping up!

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Jan 24, 2021 10:42 am Whether or not there is such a system of systems is impossible to ascertain. Isn't it funny how God keeps cropping up!

Creation (of systems) is so misunderstood.

All it ever was - the construction of powerful languages (such as the language of "systems") for understanding the world.
Chomsky called that faculty "generative grammars" - language that generates language.

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

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Jan 23, 2021 7:16 pm Experience! Obviously. "space" and "time" are empirical, not conceptual. Space is memory. We don't really know what time is.

Space is memory? ...but wo/man (the beings that invented the concept of TIME) don't understand what time IS?

..Skepdick - I understand things the opposite way around.

TIME is man made - a measure of events.

SPACE is - (fuk nose the speed of light at pace (where S is representative of a Sin wave) = S_pace?)

Clearly, we perceive SPACE as 3D and with time 4D. ..and nothing can be perceived by the human brain - space\time without the concept of both (ergo spacetime)

(btw. N E thing that is empirical is also conceptual)

[quote=attofishpi post_id=492286 time=1611488380 user_id=6293]
[quote=Skepdick post_id=491983 time=1611425775 user_id=17350]
Experience! Obviously. "space" and "time" are empirical, not conceptual. Space is memory. We don't really know what time is.
[/quote]

Space is memory? ...but wo/man (the beings that invented the concept of TIME) don't understand what time IS?

..Skepdick - I understand things the opposite way around.

TIME is man made - a measure of events.

SPACE is - (fuk nose the speed of light at pace (where S is representative of a Sin wave) = S_pace?)

Clearly, we perceive SPACE as 3D and with time 4D. ..and nothing can be perceived by the human brain - space\time without the concept of both (ergo spacetime)

(btw. N E thing that is empirical is also conceptual)
[/quote]

Space is the correlation between our internal and external senses. Time is change - measured change. Both are varieties of change. All physical processes can be understood as relative to change.