Philosophy Now Forum

Curse you HexHammer; you have exposed my feeble grasp of metallurgy, clearly I am not a true philosopher. Ah well, back to cosy chats.

Kelly wrote:Uwot,

Read your last post, don’t you see a perfect example of using “platitudes”.

Bah! Curse you too, kelly. Twice in one day; I am well and truly rumbled.

Kelly wrote:... the "core values" the founding philosophers attempted to establish was understanding the nature of the concepts i.e. existence, knowledge, truth, right, consciousness, etc.

If you ask me, the founding philosophers are generally reckoned to be the Milesians, Thales, Anaximander and Anaximenes. They were doing ontology mostly; what is the world made of? and physics, how does it work? The Pythagoreans tried to introduce a bit of mathematical rigour and the Eleatics did the same with logic. The Sophists were a bit dodgy, I grant you, but philosophers have generally tried to be systematic. The problem the Milesians had is the same one we have today, our scientific knowledge is limited by technology. If you cannot 'see' it, it's hypothetical. Hence the requirement for mathematical and logical rigour. Plus ca change.
Incidentally, HexHammer, the logic is the bit philosophers are good at. Good ones at any rate.

uwot wrote:Curse you HexHammer; you have exposed my feeble grasp of metallurgy, clearly I am not a true philosopher. Ah well, back to cosy chats.

You forgot the other challenge, even kids should be able to solve it.

HexHammer wrote:You forgot the other challenge, even kids should be able to solve it.

My humiliation is complete!

Uwot,

The fact that thinkers, in the beginning, thought to understand the conditions that relate to the existence of both physical things and abstracts concepts were called philosophers is not the point. The point is; soon after these thinkers adapted a systematic method of thinking they were called scientist and those who did not adapt a systematic process of thinking are still called philosophers.

Philosophers can have a systematic process to guide their thinking once they construct comprehensive definitions of the philosophical concepts. I am betting not a single person who identifies with Philosophy will agree with this statement.

kelly

Uwot,

You make the propositional statement: Philosophers are good at logic. The simple fact that philosophers have never constructed a comprehensive definition of the concept Logic, that reveals its’ nature and how Logic is constructed, cast serious doubt on their ability to be good at Logic. What they have done, the result of not understanding the nature of Logic, is claim Logic originates in language (as in Formal Logic), thus confuse and deny mankind the enormous benefits of understanding the mechanics of logical thinking.

Logic is the relationship things and conditions have to the existence of each other. Language is logical when a propositional statement identifies things and conditions that relate, creating useful knowledge. To attempt to explain the nature of Logic as a function of language (formal Logic), ignoring the nature of Existence (things and conditions that relate to the Existence of each other) creates devastating confusion for mankind about what is logical.

kelly

Kelly wrote:Logic is the relationship things and conditions have to the existence of each other.
kelly

Perhaps if you were to demonstrate the systematic process by which you arrived at this conclusion, it could serve as a template for what you wish philosophers to do.

HexHammer wrote:

Skip wrote:Maybe it just proves that philosophy is alive.

Tell me how great is the demand for philosophers out there in the real world? .....infact what are they good at ?

I didn't realize the degree of wantedness and the possession of marketable skills are life-sign. Lot of dead people walking around, then - including some engineers.

Philosophy, like art, should never have been considered a profession. It's something people do in their spare time - starting with A band of Cro-Magnon, (magna?) replete from a good termite-feast, sitting on a warm rock, kicking around ideas about where termites might have come from, whether they're conscious, and how to predict their behaviour. Anyone could play.


These days, people generally and philosophers in particular, take themselves way too seriously.

Skip wrote:

HexHammer wrote:

Skip wrote:Maybe it just proves that philosophy is alive.

Tell me how great is the demand for philosophers out there in the real world? .....infact what are they good at ?

I didn't realize the degree of wantedness and the possession of marketable skills are life-sign. Lot of dead people walking around, then - including some engineers.

Philosophy, like art, should never have been considered a profession. It's something people do in their spare time - starting with Neanderthals, after a good termite-feast, sitting on a warm rock, kicking around ideas about where termites might have come from, whether they're conscious, and how to predict their behaviour. These days, people generally and philosophers in particular, take themselves way too seriously.

Please don't dodge the question with silly rethorics.

Uwot,

Perhaps if you were to demonstrate the systematic process by which you arrived at this conclusion, it could serve as a template for what you wish philosophers to do.

The process of understanding how Logic is the relationship things and conditions have to the existence of each other requires first we understand the nature of Existence. A thing exist as itself and not some other thing because it has attribute that are unique only to it’s’ existence. In other words, the state of my existence is logical because I am a construct of my unique attributes and the state of your existence is logical because you are a construct of your unique attributes. We both have arms and legs, and many other attributes, and I am a construct of mine and you are a construct of yours. If I lose a leg, the state of my existence logically changes because I have one attribute less. If I lose ‘all’ my attributes, I logically cease to exist. This is the Logic of the relationship that things and their attributes have to the existence of each other.

I never have difficulty making anyone understand this except those who identify with philosophy. I once had a professional philosopher say: “philosophers are not sure there is such a thing as attributes”. Go Figure. I will bet any normal ten - sixteen year old kid can understand the logical relationship the existence of things have to the existence of their attributes, without much further explanation. Also, I would bet there are few philosophers who can understand this because their ability to think logically has been diminished by their exposure to toxic Philosophy.

Conclusion: The template philosophers must use to do useful philosophy is conform their thinking to the nature of the existence of the concept they are attempting to understand by systematically recognizing its unique attributes.

kelly

Please don't dodge the question with silly rethorics.

I don't give a fig about the question: it wasn't relevant to my post. My comment was a response to Kelly griping about how people don't agree about philosophical concepts. I said maybe that proves philosophy is hard to nail down, because it's still changing. Then again, maybe it doesn't. If you say it's dead because it's unemployable, i'm okay with that, too.

Too bad i'm a slow editor and you're a super-fast poster: now they don't match!

Kelly wrote:The process of understanding how Logic is the relationship things and conditions have to the existence of each other requires first we understand the nature of Existence.
A thing exist as itself and not some other thing because it has attribute that are unique only to it’s’ existence.

Is it not rather the case that a unique set of attributes can be attributed to any given thing, because it is not some other thing?

Kelly wrote:In other words, the state of my existence is logical because I am a construct of my unique attributes and the state of your existence is logical because you are a construct of your unique attributes.

This is not a process; you are simply redefining 'logical' to mean 'related to one another'.

Kelly wrote:We both have arms and legs, and many other attributes, and I am a construct of mine and you are a construct of yours. If I lose a leg, the state of my existence logically changes because I have one attribute less.

Since you are describing yourself as a collection of arms and legs, I would assume that you are a materialist.
Have you heard of the Ship of Theseus? How much of you can you lose without logically changing? Suppose for some mad Frankenstein experiment, your arms and legs were grafted onto me and vice versa. At what point do I cease to be me?

Kelly wrote:If I lose ‘all’ my attributes, I logically cease to exist.

Do you still exist if you are dead?

Kelly wrote:This is the Logic of the relationship that things and their attributes have to the existence of each other.

If by attributes you mean physical components, legs etc, are you sure that philosophy is the best way to investigate them? Are you not simply a reductionist?

Kelly wrote:I never have difficulty making anyone understand this except those who identify with philosophy. I once had a professional philosopher say: “philosophers are not sure there is such a thing as attributes”. Go Figure.

So far you have mentioned arms and legs 'and many other attributes'. Not many philosophers would deny arms and legs exist. What else do you mean by attribute?

Kelly wrote:I will bet any normal ten - sixteen year old kid can understand the logical relationship the existence of things have to the existence of their attributes, without much further explanation.

I think anyone who knows what 'logic' means would be confused.

Kelly wrote:Also, I would bet there are few philosophers who can understand this because their ability to think logically has been diminished by their exposure to toxic Philosophy.

I think I am too poisoned ever to see things your way. My understanding of logic is that it is a way of analysing language to find out whether arguments are valid. You appear to believe logic is the thing that connects arms and legs, for instance.

Kelly wrote:Conclusion: The template philosophers must use to do useful philosophy is conform their thinking to the nature of the existence of the concept they are attempting to understand by systematically recognizing its unique attributes.

kelly

The 'nature of the existence of the concept' is ontology'; 'systematically recognizing its unique attributes' is more like science.
If you wish to be 'systematic', we should first agree on what we mean by 'logic'.

Skip wrote:

Please don't dodge the question with silly rethorics.

I don't give a fig about the question: it wasn't relevant to my post. My comment was a response to Kelly griping about how people don't agree about philosophical concepts. I said maybe that proves philosophy is hard to nail down, because it's still changing. Then again, maybe it doesn't. If you say it's dead because it's unemployable, i'm okay with that, too.

Too bad i'm a slow editor and you're a super-fast poster: now they don't match!

The core concept of philosophy hasn't changed, therefore my question is still relevant, just that today socalled philosophers are clueless about philosophy.

HexHammer wrote:The core concept of philosophy hasn't changed, therefore my question is still relevant, just that today socalled philosophers are clueless about philosophy.

What do you think is the core concept of philosophy that so called philosophers are clueless about?

Skip wrote:Philosophy, like art, should never have been considered a profession.

Philosophy maybe, but art? What about music or literature? Aren't some people's efforts worth paying for?