Philosophy Now Forum

wleg wrote:Ginkgo,

The whole problem today with Philosophy is; it is still treating the ideas of Descartes and other philosophers as the answers to solve problems. If science did this, where would scientific knowledge be? Philosophers constructed their ideas without understanding how knowledge is constructed and their ideas have created more problems than they have solved. Evidence and proof of this is the many different Schools of Philosophy and multitude of Isms, all contradicting each other.

The only problems of Philosophy are constructing universal comprehensive definitions of the twenty-five philosophical concepts that reveal the mechanics of rational thinking. The fact this has not been accomplished cast doubt on the usefulness of the philosophical ideas of Descartes and all the other philosophers. Their ideas have outlived their usefulness and now present an obstacle to anyone attempting to advance philosophical knowledge. It appears you might have formal educational exposure and a degree in traditional Philosophy. If this is so, I ask: what advancement in philosophical knowledge have you accomplished as a result of your philosophical education?

If you will present propositional statements of philosophers you believe are true and useful, I will examine them and probably can show how useless they are. I think the important thing to remember about Philosophical knowledge is how it is limited to understanding just twenty-five or so abstract concepts. Any other subjects will not be an interest of Philosophy.

Wayne Kelly Leggette Sr.

Within recent time I would like to think that my partial zombie argument contributed something to Chalmers' philosophical zombie. He though so anyway. Also, going back a while, I would like to think my published contribution to the Philosophy Now magazine also contributed a little in the way of education.


Perhaps you can look at Descartes' Ontological Argument and tell me in what ways he hasn't explained how knowledge is constructed.
It seems to me that he has used some of the criteria you propose.

wleg wrote:Uwot,
I fast read “Language, Truth and Logic” and I have not read so much nonsense since reading “The Problems of Philosophy” years ago.

Indeed. Did you read Russell with the same attention you gave Ayer?

wleg wrote:“According to Ayer, no proposition concerning "matters of fact" can ever be shown to be necessarily true, because there is always a possibility that it may be refuted by further empirical testing. Logical certainty is possible only for analytic observations, which are tautologies, and not for empirical observations concerning "matters of fact." His nonsense says that my proposition stating “a matter of fact”: I have a Golden Retriever cannot be true because sometime in the future I might have a German Sheppard. Chuckle,

No it doesn't. Having read it so fast, you have managed to miss one of the main themes of the book and the Logical Positivism it espouses, the verification principle. Your ownership of a Golden Retriever can be verified empirically by the simple expedient of you pointing to a particular Golden Retriever and saying: 'That's mine.'
The one word in the title that isn't in your list of things that philosophy should be interested in is 'Language'; something that philosophy is very interested in. Perhaps if you had been a bit more thorough in your reading, you would understand logical necessity. Necessarily true means it couldn't be any other way. The statement 'Wayne has a Golden Retriever' may be true, I'll take your word for it, but it might not be the case. One day it will not be true, as least with regard to the dog you currently own and Wayne for that matter. My condolences in advance.
The point Ayer was making is that you cannot tell whether an empirical statement it is true by analysing the statement in the way you can tell whether a mathematical statement, 2+2=4 etc, is true.

wleg wrote:He also says: “Philosophy is not a search for first principle; the function of Philosophy is wholly critical. What nonsense; can you explain how being critical can be logical when it not based on logical principles?

You read that so fast you mistook 'first principle' for 'logical principle'.

wleg wrote:Russell’s nonsense is just as bad; he tries to claim there is no such thing as truth because two people looking a the same table will describe it differently. What nonsense; both are describing what they see according to their ability to use language. The fact their description of the table is different has nothing at all to do with the nature of “truth”. Each description is true according to how each sees the table.

Again you completely miss the point. No one denies that the table is real, but the empirical data we base that claim on is different for each of us and any statement we make about what we see, for instance, will only be true from that angle, in that light, at that time. It goes back to Kant's distinction between phenomena and noumena; we all know the table is there, because we can see, hear, feel, smell and taste it, if you are so inclined. But the sense perceptions are not the table, we cannot perceive the table directly, we are reliant on our senses to gain any knowledge of the external world, and as Descartes pointed out, our senses are not infallible, and as Russell pointed out the sense perceptions themselves change, so as Ayer concluded, any statement about the 'real' world is contingent.

wleg wrote:Let’s cut to the chase, we don’t have another twenty-five centuries.

We may not have another 16 years. If I were you, I wouldn't waste my time trying to tell philosophers to do taxonomy. I suspect I wasted my time suggesting you look it up.

wleg wrote:You present propositional statements made by philosophers, one at a time, and if I can’t debunk the statement you get two dollars. If I can debunk the statements you give me one dollar. This may sound crass but how else can it be done. You have the advantage money wise and almost infinite statements you can choose from.

You haven't debunked 'I think therefore I am' yet, much less anything said by Russell or Ayer. I'm $6 up already.

Ginkgo, Uwot,

Let’s cut to the chase; imagine that no philosopher has ever lived and we want to understand the nature of “knowledge” and how it is constructed. Would we not have to first understand the nature of the “existence” of things we want to construct knowledge of, to know how to construct knowledge? One doesn't have to be very observant to see that the things around us are different because they have different physical characteristics/attributes. And also, it is obvious that while multiple things have the same physical attributes we can see they have different abstract characteristics i.e. long, big, small, red, green est. Is it not easy then to use language to construct a definition that applies to the existence of all things?

KNOWLEDGE/CONSCIOUSNESS: An abstract concept symbolizing the state of mind when we recognize the attributes which equate to the existence of things and conditions.

But the reality is, philosophers have existed and for twenty-five centuries they have written and written and written attempting to explain what our simple definition explains about how “knowledge” is constructed. The accumulation of their writings, attempting to explain what they could not understand has caused enormous confusion. So much confusion, that it is difficult for many to accept a simple comprehensive definition. The tragedy is, this simple definition is key to begin understanding the process of rational thinking. Mankind needs more than anything else a universal definition of “knowledge” to understand the mechanics of rational thinking.

Wayne Kelly Leggette Sr.

wleg wrote:Ginkgo, Uwot,

Let’s cut to the chase; imagine that no philosopher has ever lived and we want to understand the nature of “knowledge” and how it is constructed. Would we not have to first understand the nature of the “existence” of things we want to construct knowledge of, to know how to construct knowledge? One doesn't have to be very observant to see that the things around us are different because they have different physical characteristics/attributes. And also, it is obvious that while multiple things have the same physical attributes we can see they have different abstract characteristics i.e. long, big, small, red, green est. Is it not easy then to use language to construct a definition that applies to the existence of all things?

Yes, I agree, it is. However, let me use two versions of scientific realism to demonstrate the problem you are facing. I will use the terms you suggest such as, small, red and green.

A scientific realist might say, "I can see a large red and green apple". This particular object has no special ontological status. It exists exactly as it is; in a completely objective way. Describing any physical objects in terms of these types of attributes is sufficient for science to progress and this is all we need to know. It adequately explains the existence of an apple.

However, there is a problem and it comes from a different school of scientific realism. What about gravity?" they would say. "It exists, but we cannot describe it in terms of shape, colour, weight, or any other physical attribute. "But who is to say that it doesn't have an existence?"


You see the problem?

Ginkgo,

I really don’t see a problem, if we admit there are a few conditions such as gravity that we don’t yet have mental astuteness to understand.

I think the problem you are referring to is cause by equating knowledge to language. When knowledge is recognized as a “state of mind” the problem does not exist. Language is used to express/illustrate our state of mind or knowledge ,and, if our knowledge is not sufficient to understand the nature of gravity language is useful to say: I don’t know.

Wayne Kelly Leggette Sr.

wleg wrote:Ginkgo,

I really don’t see a problem, if we admit there are a few conditions such as gravity that we don’t yet have mental astuteness to understand.

I think the problem you are referring to is cause by equating knowledge to language. When knowledge is recognized as a “state of mind” the problem does not exist. Language is used to express/illustrate our state of mind or knowledge ,and, if our knowledge is not sufficient to understand the nature of gravity language is useful to say: I don’t know.

Wayne Kelly Leggette Sr.

I don't really see how you can want "a universal definition of knowledge" and also want a, "we don't know" category" On this basis it can't be universal. This is pretty much the problem that ontology addresses.

Ginkgo,
You say: I don't really see how you can want "a universal definition of knowledge" and also want a, "we don't know" category" On this basis I can't be universal. This is pretty much the problem that ontology addresses.

I say: You are creating a problem that in reality does not exist; it only exists in the woo woo land of Ontology. There is no ontology problem created by not knowing when knowledge is recognized as a state of mind. The only problem; we are not able to recognize enough attributes that equate to the existence of the condition of gravity.

Your exposure to the toxic ideas of traditional Philosophy has destroyed your ability to think outside the Philosophy box.

Wayne Kelly Leggette Sr.

wleg wrote:Let’s cut to the chase; imagine that no philosopher has ever lived and we want to understand the nature of “knowledge” and how it is constructed.

We don't have to imagine; anyone with a grasp of the history of ideas will know that there was a time when no (recognised) philosopher had lived. The first person identified as a philosopher in the western tradition was Thales of Miletus. What distinguished him as a thinker is that he challenged orthodoxy and asked how the world might work if the stories about gods were not true. The thing about gods is that they are not constrained by any laws of nature, they have it in their power to make the sun come up tomorrow as a bowl of petunias. If you believe in gods, you cannot know anything about the natural world. Far from being a world of ordered serenity that religious apologists claim, the world of gods is a total shambles of supernatural whimsy. If you want to know anything, dump the deities; look at the natural world. Next, try and structure your thinking so that whatever conclusions you draw from the things that you observe are consistent;apply logic. But, perhaps most importantly, never assume that that you believe is 'The Truth': accept that the world might surprise you.

wleg wrote:Would we not have to first understand the nature of the “existence” of things we want to construct knowledge of, to know how to construct knowledge? One doesn't have to be very observant to see that the things around us are different because they have different physical characteristics/attributes.

Defining entities by their characteristics/attributes, as I keep telling you is taxonomy. Suppose you were to tell me all the characteristics of you Golden Retriever; what then? Will I know it (him or her to you) as you do? What use is that list of qualities? What does it tell me about your dog?

wleg wrote:And also, it is obvious that while multiple things have the same physical attributes we can see they have different abstract characteristics i.e. long, big, small, red, green est.

If "long, big, small, red, green" are not physical attributes, what are? What, then, are your abstract characteristics.

wleg wrote:Is it not easy then to use language to construct a definition that applies to the existence of all things?

You keep intimating that it is. You also tell us that you have been trying for 16 years. If it is so easy, why are we waiting?

wleg wrote:KNOWLEDGE/CONSCIOUSNESS: An abstract concept symbolizing the state of mind when we recognize the attributes which equate to the existence of things and conditions.

Knowledge and consciousness are two different things. Unless you are an arch empiricist and insist that all we know are the things we are immediately conscious of, do you know your dog's name when you are not conscious of it?
We know 2+2=4. What are the attributes that equate to the existence of such a thing. How do they differ from the attributes that equate to the existence of your dog?

wleg wrote:But the reality is, philosophers have existed and for twenty-five centuries they have written and written and written attempting to explain what our simple definition explains about how “knowledge” is constructed. The accumulation of their writings, attempting to explain what they could not understand has caused enormous confusion. So much confusion, that it is difficult for many to accept a simple comprehensive definition.

I have said it before, the confusion is with those who have never troubled themselves with learning about philosophy.

wleg wrote: The tragedy is, this simple definition is key to begin understanding the process of rational thinking. Mankind needs more than anything else a universal definition of “knowledge” to understand the mechanics of rational thinking.

The tragedy is that everyone already thinks they are thinking rationally, as Descartes said: 'Common sense is the most equitably distributed commodity in the world; no man thinks he has less than his fair share'. You still haven't debunked 'I think,therefore I am'. When do I get my $6?

wleg wrote:
I say: You are creating a problem that in reality does not exist; it only exists in the woo woo land of Ontology. There is no ontology problem created by not knowing when knowledge is recognized as a state of mind. The only problem; we are not able to recognize enough attributes that equate to the existence of the condition of gravity.

Wayne Kelly Leggette Sr.

But Wayne, what you said here in relation to gravity is an expression of an ontological problem. Again, the point I am making is that you system cannot be universal if it can't, or doesn't take into account the existence of gravity. Instead, perhaps you could say that the system has the potential for universality in the future.

I'm not sure what you have against ontology, but it is a bit hard to avoid when doing philosophy.Believe it or not you have been doing ontology for the last whatever number of pages in this discussion. In other words, the system you are proposing is an ontology.

Ginkgo,
The difference between my ontology and traditional ontology; my otology is grounded on understanding the “nature of existence” illustrated by the argument: “a thing is itself and not some other thing because it has attributes different from the attributes of any other thing.

When ontology is not grounded on a realistic understanding of the “nature of existence”, Ontology becomes the ‘thing’ in itself, chasing its’ tail like all the other isms. The fact that you are stuck on the belief; not understanding the nature of gravity (which is not a philosophical subject) cast doubt on the definitions of “existence” and “knowledge” being universal, is evidence of this. Because we finally construct universal definitions of “existence” and “knowledge”, doesn’t mean at the same time we have to understand every existing thing and condition.

Wayne Kelly Leggette Sr.

wleg wrote:The difference between my ontology and traditional ontology; my otology is grounded on understanding the “nature of existence” illustrated by the argument: “a thing is itself and not some other thing because it has attributes different from the attributes of any other thing.

Could you have two things that are indistinguishable, other than the fact that one is slightly to the left of the other? If so, can't we distinguish material things simply by spatial location, or is that an attribute? If so, does it become a different thing if you move it?
The thing is, your argument puts the cart before the horse. I've said it before; it is surely the case that a thing has different attributes to another thing, because they are not the same thing, rather than their being different things because they have different attributes. It's a subtle difference; you may have missed it last time.

Anyway, I don't suppose I'm any closer to getting my $6. As Einstein said:
"Too many of us look upon Americans as dollar chasers. This is a cruel libel, even if it is reiterated thoughtlessly by the Americans themselves."
My apologies to the many fine Americans who contribute positively to this forum, and who I do not doubt would honour their liabilities.

Uwot,
If Descartes said: “I think therefore I am”, to establish the logic for his existence, how is it possible to differentiate his existence from the existences of everyone else who thinks? If this is not what he was attempting to do, then you translate and inform me what he was attempting, and I will continue.

chuckle,,,Your feeble attempt to shame me to pay you $6 is worth the laugh.

My disappointment with the participants of this form is that they don't think outside the box. And that reminds me of a cartoon I saw in The New Yorker magazine of a cat owner looking down at his cat, who was siting near his litter box, saying, "Never, ever think outside the box". HaHaHa

I think participants have told themselves a similar thing, not to think outside their boxes or bubbles. A lot of philosophy is done that way, head up box, as a friend of mine described it.

wleg wrote:Uwot,
If Descartes said: “I think therefore I am”, to establish the logic for his existence, how is it possible to differentiate his existence from the existences of everyone else who thinks?

What are you thinking right now, Wayne? I can guarantee it's not what I'm thinking. We've been here before though: Descartes was not trying to "establish the logic for his existence". He was trying to find some proposition that was undeniably true, in the hope that he could build a body of knowledge from first principles, as 'the geometers' did, and you are trying to. Most people who understand it accept that it's a pretty good effort; if there is anything that thinks, it necessarily exists; in the case of Rene Descartes, that thinking thing was Rene Descartes..
You have though, stumbled upon what many people think is the flaw in Descartes' argument, which just goes to show that we don't simply agree with him for 'honorific' reasons. Gingko has already pointed out that Descartes was a dualist, he believed in mind and body as separate entities. In order to 'prove' that anything other than himself as a rational being existed, he had to make up an all powerful, benevolent god who would see to it that he wasn't wrong about any 'clear and distinct ideas' that he had. As luck would have it, that's more or less what the Catholic Church was peddling, so they didn't do to Descartes what they had done to Galileo. Even so, he thought it prudent to live in Holland for a while. Like I said though, we've been through this; you've got to read slower, Wayne; you're missing all the detail.

wleg wrote:If this is not what he was attempting to do, then you translate and inform me what he was attempting, and I will continue.

How many times do I need to tell you?

wleg wrote:chuckle,,,Your feeble attempt to shame me to pay you $6 is worth the laugh.

Drat! You saw through my ruse. There's no flies on you, Wayne. Now where am I going to get $6 from?

Spike, sorry you feel that way. Do you have a better box I can stick my head up? Failing that: do you have $6 to spare?

spike wrote:My disappointment with the participants of this form is that they don't think outside the box. And that reminds me of a cartoon I saw in The New Yorker magazine of a cat owner looking down at his cat, who was siting near his litter box, saying, "Never, ever think outside the box". HaHaHa

I think participants have told themselves a similar thing, not to think outside their boxes or bubbles. A lot of philosophy is done that way, head up box, as a friend of mine described it.

Good point, but I think one needs a good understanding of what is inside the box before one attempts to think outside.