Philosophy Now Forum

James Markham wrote:I've looked through the replies on this thread, and I think there are three suggestions of significant questions, they are
1. What is the nature of consciousness?

2. What is the nature of knowledge?

3. What is the nature of existence?

So as I said in the original post, it's now my intention to create threads on each of these subjects, along with any other future suggestions that are significantly different to the above three.

Now that you have got to the meat of your thread, James, I feel it is safe to jump in without being personally attacked. May I offer another question pertaining to reality that I think is fundamental : the nature of morality. Perhaps it cannot be tackled until the first three questions have been addressed.

Aiddon, thanks for jumping in and giving your suggestion. I agree that this is certainly a very fundamental question, but I think we may have to wait for quite a while if we deal with these questions one at a time. So I'm going to give your question some thought, and I'll make it the topic of the next thread. Thanks again.

wleg wrote:James,

My questions:
1- What is a comprehensive definition of “truth”?
2- What is a comprehensive definition of “reality”?

What I mean by comprehensive is a definition that reveals the difference between “truth” and “non-truth”. And the difference between “reality” and “fantasy”.

Wayne Kelly Leggette Sr.

A theory supported by experimental data is part of what I call truth. A theory contradicted by such data is part of not-truth.

Ludwik

Kowalskil,

Thanks for the definition; I believe you might be the only participant to summit one.

Let me modify what I mean by comprehensive, I didn't realize this was what I meant to say but failed to do so until just reading it again.

A comprehensive definition of “truth” reveals explicitly how a true propositional statement is constructed, thus reveals the difference between true statements and ones that are not true.

When you say: “A theory supported by experimental data”, how are you using experimental? Did you mean to say empirical data?

Wayne Kelly Leggette Sr.

wleg wrote:Kowalskil,

Thanks for the definition; I believe you might be the only participant to summit one.

Let me modify what I mean by comprehensive, I didn't realize this was what I meant to say but failed to do so until just reading it again.

A comprehensive definition of “truth” reveals explicitly how a true propositional statement is constructed, thus reveals the difference between true statements and ones that are not true.

When you say: “A theory supported by experimental data”, how are you using experimental? Did you mean to say empirical data?

Wayne Kelly Leggette Sr.

Yes, empirical data resulting from reproducible laboratory experiments.

Ludwik

It's perhaps helpful to recall that "the truth" is not actually the truth, but a collection of symbols about the truth.

As example, while it's the truth that my screen name is Felasco, the screen name Felasco is not actually me, but a symbolic concept in the reader's mind which points to the real me.

This seems important because the symbolic version of the truth will be affected and distorted by the properties of the symbol creating system.

As example, it seems the first thing a scientist would want to do is understand the equipment they are using to make their observations, and then account for any distortions that equipment may introduce in to the data. If they don't do this, then they'll never know how well their data represents the real world the data points to, ie, how true their data really is.

It seems that philosophers, unlike scientists, are largely uninterested in the equipment they are using to make their observation and process their data.

kowalskil,

I agree, "truth" must be able to be reproduced. In Philosophy though, there is no lab except that created by comprehensive definitions that must be universal. Else, everyone has their own lab in the form of different Schools of Philosophy or Isms with the only purpose to support the pseudo "truth" of everyone's own definitions. The existing different Schools of Philosophy and Isms all contradicting each other is proof of this.

Felasco,
Any agreement about the name being used as a substitute (user name) does not distort anything. We accept the use of a substitution name.

Wayne Kelly Leggette Sr.

wleg wrote:kowalskil,

I agree, "truth" must be able to be reproduced. In Philosophy though, there is no lab except that created by comprehensive definitions that must be universal. Else, everyone has their own lab in the form of different Schools of Philosophy or Isms with the only purpose to support the pseudo "truth" of everyone's own definitions. The existing different Schools of Philosophy and Isms all contradicting each other is proof of this.

Felasco,
Any agreement about the name being used as a substitute (user name) does not distort anything. We accept the use of a substitution name.

Wayne Kelly Leggette Sr.

Yes, philosophy is not science. It is based on logic, like mathematics. A philosophical debate if pointless unless participants accept the same axioms. A philosophical theory (like a mathematical theorem) is part of truth when no logical mistake was found (by experts) in its justification.

That is what I think,

Ludwik

kowalskil wrote:Yes, philosophy is not science. It is based on logic, like mathematics. A philosophical debate if pointless unless participants accept the same axioms. A philosophical theory (like a mathematical theorem) is part of truth when no logical mistake was found (by experts) in its justification.

Philosophy = love of wisdom.

Wisdom is refined knowledge.

Knowledge are factual knowledge and accepted theories.

Knowledge and accepted theories are based on science.

Anything else is cosy chat, not philosoophy.

HexHammer wrote:

kowalskil wrote:Yes, philosophy is not science. It is based on logic, like mathematics. A philosophical debate if pointless unless participants accept the same axioms. A philosophical theory (like a mathematical theorem) is part of truth when no logical mistake was found (by experts) in its justification.

Philosophy = love of wisdom.

Wisdom is refined knowledge.

Knowledge are factual knowledge and accepted theories.

Knowledge and accepted theories are based on science.

Anything else is cosy chat, not philosoophy.

a) Chat is an informal conversation.
b) An artistic activity, such as painting, is not an "accepted theory based on science."
c) Therefore, according to what HexHammer wrote, painting is informal conversation.

Ludwik




Ludwik

Hex,
Since one definition of philosophy includes knowledge and principles that govern and influence moral judgement, science alone cannot be the only evidence used as I believe you are implying. So I don't believe you are talking about philosophy.

kowalskil wrote:Anything else is cosy chat, not philosoophy.

a) Chat is an informal conversation.
b) An artistic activity, such as painting, is not an "accepted theory based on science."
c) Therefore, according to what HexHammer wrote, painting is informal conversation.

Ludwik




Ludwik[/quote]Has paiting in itself anything to do with philosophy? ..no!

You make a logical phallacy.

HexHammer wrote:

kowalskil wrote:Anything else is cosy chat, not philosoophy.

a) Chat is an informal conversation.
b) An artistic activity, such as painting, is not an "accepted theory based on science."
c) Therefore, according to what HexHammer wrote, painting is informal conversation.

Ludwik




Ludwik

Has paiting in itself anything to do with philosophy? ..no!

You make a logical phallacy.[/quote]

Er, it's fallacy. You are getting mixed up with something else. Best you get it right.

Ludwik, welcome. Word of warning: don't engage HexHammer. He is highly disruptive on this forum.

aiddon wrote:Er, it's fallacy. You are getting mixed up with something else. Best you get it right.

Ludwik, welcome. Word of warning: don't engage HexHammer. He is highly disruptive on this forum.

I defeat you with logic and reason, and you call me disruptive.

Just because I burst your silly fairytale bubbles and make you wake up to reality, it's disruptive?

This is excatly why philosophy are outdated, noone wants to hire navelgazing cosy chatters who doesn't understand anything of science, who lacks cognitive abilities, who doesn't comprehend the simple concept of relevance.

It's so tragic that noone here can defeat me intellectually, when they have lost, they resort to blatant trolling.

HexHammer wrote:

aiddon wrote:Er, it's fallacy. You are getting mixed up with something else. Best you get it right.

Ludwik, welcome. Word of warning: don't engage HexHammer. He is highly disruptive on this forum.

I defeat you with logic and reason, and you call me disruptive.

Just because I burst your silly fairytale bubbles and make you wake up to reality, it's disruptive?

This is excatly why philosophy are outdated, noone wants to hire navelgazing cosy chatters who doesn't understand anything of science, who lacks cognitive abilities, who doesn't comprehend the simple concept of relevance.

It's so tragic that noone here can defeat me intellectually, when they have lost, they resort to blatant trolling.

Since you are the only person on this forum that knows what he is talking about and the rest of us don't then I welcome and thank you in directing us away from our mass state of delusion. All hail the enlightened one.
Why don't you write a book for us to study, can I suggest a title "mein kampf"