Philosophy Now Forum

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 9:12 am You are going into the wrong direction.
Note this is a philosophy forum and thus we need to conform to the general understanding of what is philosophy.

I would suggest that the general understanding of what philosophy is would come from what the word 'philosophy' derived from.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 9:12 amWhat I had presented to you as generally understood as 'epistemology' is based on the consensus of the majority of those within the philosophy community.

If the general understanding of what is philosophy, is the love-of-wisdom, then,
The majority of those within the philosophy community would obviously be that community with a love-of-wisdom, which is by all accounts the only community with that love is the community of human beings. That is, humanity or ALL human beings.
So, the consensus of the majority within the philosophy, or human, community would be the majority of human beings, and NOT as you are trying to suggest just a certain group of human beings that exist within the WHOLE group of human beings.

As can be noticed here select groups of people try and hijack words and phrases for their own underlying reasons.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 9:12 amUntil you have published your version of what is 'epistemology' and accepted by the majority of peers, then you have to start from the general understanding of what is epistemology within the common community of philosophy.

The common community of philosophy IS ALL human beings. Therefore, the peers are also ALL human beings. The ironic part here is that the younger a human being is the more truer philosopher they are.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 9:12 amIn any case, your concept of epistemology is not likely to be accepted by the average people engaged in philosophy.

The people engaged in what you call "philosophy" are so entwined in trying to outwit each other with words, in support of their own distorted BELIEFS, that they have forgotten the actual art of forming sound, valid arguments.

A group of adults engaged in actually trying their hardest to support, and to find support for, their own distorted views is NOT philosophy. Philosophy is much different than that. Philosophy is just desiring to stay OPEN so that you can continue to learn more, and anew. Very, very few of the people engaged in what you call "philosophy" have this desire. Most of these people prefer to find and use words so that they will appear elite, individually and as a group, from the rest of that group known as humanity.

I have not yet inquired, but I think it might be hard to find just one sound, valid argument that has been formulated in the past century or two by one of these adults who like to be referred to and known as a "philosopher". Remember, a 'sound, valid argument' is one that is an unambiguous fact that can not be disputed.

If you do happen to find one, or many, then share them all here. I especially would like to see it/them. Also, it has to be a sound, valid argument that has has some real affect on the well-being of humanity or on anything else in the rest of the world. Otherwise, it is just an unambiguous fact that can not be disputed about some truly unimportant thing.

Age wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 10:33 am I would suggest that the general understanding of what philosophy is would come from what the word 'philosophy' derived from.

Insufficient. Philosophy is derived from love and wisdom.

We can't have general understanding of philosophy if we have no general understanding of love or wisdom.
You've turned an equation with one unknown (philosophy), into an equation with two unknowns (love + wisdom).

You are going the wrong way...

I have a much better way. First you need a vision. You can have a vision by asking this question of yourself: What do I want and why?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 10:14 am

I have been raising the number one critical point here. That is, there is NO uniform consensus on what the definition of God IS, yet.

Until that is discovered, then there is NO point in discussing if a THING, with no actual real definition, exists or not.

But you seem to miss my point nearly every time we talk.

Have you read the Wiki article?

That article presented a range of ideas of God and imply there is no consensus on all these ideas by all theists.

Did you not include the word 'FULL' because you now understand better incorrectness of its usage, or for some other reason?

So, we are back to my basic point, which is, there is NO consensus on the definition of or for the word God. So, again, it would be rather foolish to say something like; There is NO God, especially if and when NO consensus of what God actually IS has yet been presented. ALSO, I will reiterate, it would be rather JUST AS foolish to say something like; There IS a God, especially if and when NO consensus of what God actually IS has yet been presented.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 10:14 amThe monotheists, the polytheists, the pantheists, the panentheists, the deists do not agree with each other in various forms but there is a fundamental core definition of what is a God, i.e. the generic idea of a deity.

Well then WHAT IS THAT "fundamental core definition of what is a God"?

Just write THAT definition down, so that we can have a closer look at it.

Age wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 10:44 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 10:14 am

I have been raising the number one critical point here. That is, there is NO uniform consensus on what the definition of God IS, yet.

Until that is discovered, then there is NO point in discussing if a THING, with no actual real definition, exists or not.

But you seem to miss my point nearly every time we talk.

Have you read the Wiki article?

That article presented a range of ideas of God and imply there is no consensus on all these ideas by all theists.

Did you not include the word 'FULL' because you now understand better incorrectness of its usage, or for some other reason?

So, we are back to my basic point, which is, there is NO consensus on the definition of or for the word God. So, again, it would be rather foolish to say something like; There is NO God, especially if and when NO consensus of what God actually IS has yet been presented. ALSO, I will reiterate, it would be rather JUST AS foolish to say something like; There IS a God, especially if and when NO consensus of what God actually IS has yet been presented.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 10:14 amThe monotheists, the polytheists, the pantheists, the panentheists, the deists do not agree with each other in various forms but there is a fundamental core definition of what is a God, i.e. the generic idea of a deity.

Well then WHAT IS THAT "fundamental core definition of what is a God"?

Just write THAT definition down, so that we can have a closer look at it.

This is perfectly adequate:

''God
/ɡɒd/Submit
noun
1.
(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
2.
(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.''


Now if you want to rewrite the dictionary then feel free. I think you might need to get it peer-reviewed though.
You can call your big toe 'god' for all I care, but you might get laughed at.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 10:54 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 10:44 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 10:14 am
Have you read the Wiki article?

That article presented a range of ideas of God and imply there is no consensus on all these ideas by all theists.

Did you not include the word 'FULL' because you now understand better incorrectness of its usage, or for some other reason?

So, we are back to my basic point, which is, there is NO consensus on the definition of or for the word God. So, again, it would be rather foolish to say something like; There is NO God, especially if and when NO consensus of what God actually IS has yet been presented. ALSO, I will reiterate, it would be rather JUST AS foolish to say something like; There IS a God, especially if and when NO consensus of what God actually IS has yet been presented.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 10:14 amThe monotheists, the polytheists, the pantheists, the panentheists, the deists do not agree with each other in various forms but there is a fundamental core definition of what is a God, i.e. the generic idea of a deity.

Well then WHAT IS THAT "fundamental core definition of what is a God"?

Just write THAT definition down, so that we can have a closer look at it.

This is perfectly adequate:

''God
/ɡɒd/Submit
noun
1.
(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
2.
(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.''


Now if you want to rewrite the dictionary then feel free. I think you might need to get it peer-reviewed though.
You can call your big toe 'god' for all I care, but you might get laughed at.

Your dictionary is wrong. I will sell you a correct one for $50...

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 10:38 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 10:33 am I would suggest that the general understanding of what philosophy is would come from what the word 'philosophy' derived from.

Insufficient. Philosophy is derived from love and wisdom.

We can't have general understanding of philosophy if we have no general understanding of love or wisdom.
You've turned an equation with one unknown (philosophy), into an equation with two unknowns (love + wisdom).

Are you trying to suggest to me that you use words like 'love' and 'wisdom' but you have no general understanding of what 'love' or 'wisdom' mean?

That is a fairly hard thing you are expecting me to accept.

You now want me to accept that there is no general understanding of love and wisdom, which also infers that you have NO general understanding. Yet, you also want me to accept that there is NO God. How do you KNOW this yet you do not even have a general understanding of what two words like love and wisdom are?

I agree wholeheartedly with you that you are, at the moment, incapable of providing a general understanding of love and wisdom, but think about it seriously, when you use those words there is some sort of thinking what they generally mean going on within that head of yours.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 10:38 amYou are going the wrong way...

I have a much better way. First you need a vision. You can have a vision by asking this question of yourself: What do I want and why?

I already KNOW those answers.

By the way 'philosophy', 'love', AND 'wisdom' are KNOWN, to me.

Also, that was a fairly weak attempt at distraction from the point.

By the way, the vision you have and I have is the exact same vision. The difference is you believe you KNOW the way, which involves you BELIEVING you are better than others and that YOUR WAY is the right way.

Age wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 10:59 am Are you trying to suggest to me that you use words like 'love' and 'wisdom' but you have no general understanding of what 'love' or 'wisdom' mean?

Of course I do. But...

Age wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 10:59 am That is a fairly hard thing you are expecting me to accept.

Why is THAT hard for you to accept, but accepting that we have different meaning of 'God' isn't as hard?

Age wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 10:59 am You now want me to accept that there is no general understanding of love and wisdom, which also infers that you have NO general understanding.

Is the general understanding of 'love' and 'wisdom' the same as the general understanding of 'God'?

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 10:38 amYou are going the wrong way...
By the way, the vision you have and I have is the exact same vision. The difference is you believe you KNOW the way, which involves you BELIEVING you are better than others and that YOUR WAY is the right way.

Well yes. Because I know how to measure knowledge. Objectively. And so my way is better than your way IF I can demonstrate that your way is wrong in some way that mine isn't.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 10:55 am

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 10:54 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 10:44 am

Did you not include the word 'FULL' because you now understand better incorrectness of its usage, or for some other reason?

So, we are back to my basic point, which is, there is NO consensus on the definition of or for the word God. So, again, it would be rather foolish to say something like; There is NO God, especially if and when NO consensus of what God actually IS has yet been presented. ALSO, I will reiterate, it would be rather JUST AS foolish to say something like; There IS a God, especially if and when NO consensus of what God actually IS has yet been presented.



Well then WHAT IS THAT "fundamental core definition of what is a God"?

Just write THAT definition down, so that we can have a closer look at it.

This is perfectly adequate:

''God
/ɡɒd/Submit
noun
1.
(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
2.
(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.''


Now if you want to rewrite the dictionary then feel free. I think you might need to get it peer-reviewed though.
You can call your big toe 'god' for all I care, but you might get laughed at.

Your dictionary is wrong. I will sell you a correct one for $50...

It's not my dictionary; it's the dictionary.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 10:54 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 10:44 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 10:14 am
Have you read the Wiki article?

That article presented a range of ideas of God and imply there is no consensus on all these ideas by all theists.

Did you not include the word 'FULL' because you now understand better incorrectness of its usage, or for some other reason?

So, we are back to my basic point, which is, there is NO consensus on the definition of or for the word God. So, again, it would be rather foolish to say something like; There is NO God, especially if and when NO consensus of what God actually IS has yet been presented. ALSO, I will reiterate, it would be rather JUST AS foolish to say something like; There IS a God, especially if and when NO consensus of what God actually IS has yet been presented.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 10:14 amThe monotheists, the polytheists, the pantheists, the panentheists, the deists do not agree with each other in various forms but there is a fundamental core definition of what is a God, i.e. the generic idea of a deity.

Well then WHAT IS THAT "fundamental core definition of what is a God"?

Just write THAT definition down, so that we can have a closer look at it.

This is perfectly adequate:

''God
/ɡɒd/Submit
noun
1.
(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
2.
(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.''

You are right, it is perfectly adequate and what I have been patiently waiting for. Now, would you like to pick one?

Besides the input of just one word both are absolutely correct. But that is NOT because they are correct from your perspective and from your usage of words but because of another perspective and another way of looking at and seeing things.

If you would like we can delve into this much deeper and in much greater detail than you could even yet imagine, but if you are going to carry on sarcastically and with full skepticism like you have been, then there is NO use.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 10:54 amNow if you want to rewrite the dictionary then feel free. I think you might need to get it peer-reviewed though.

A process which is unfolding right this very minute.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 10:54 amYou can call your big toe 'god' for all I care, but you might get laughed at.

I am sure that would get laughed at more than just might.

But what you just said was a funny thing to say, considering that there was NO connection between that and what we are talking about.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 11:06 am It's not my dictionary; it's the dictionary.

THE dictionary? Well that is an appeal to authority

Are you talking about the Miriam-Webster, or the Oxford, or the Digital Google dictionary, or dictionary.com?

Which one is THE dictionary?

I suspect what you meant to say was 'the dictionary I PREFER"

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 11:03 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 10:59 am Are you trying to suggest to me that you use words like 'love' and 'wisdom' but you have no general understanding of what 'love' or 'wisdom' mean?

Of course I do. But...

Age wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 10:59 am That is a fairly hard thing you are expecting me to accept.

Why is THAT hard for you to accept, but accepting that we have different meaning of 'God' isn't as hard?

Age wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 10:59 am You now want me to accept that there is no general understanding of love and wisdom, which also infers that you have NO general understanding.

Is the general understanding of 'love' and 'wisdom' the same as the general understanding of 'God'?

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 10:38 amYou are going the wrong way...
By the way, the vision you have and I have is the exact same vision. The difference is you believe you KNOW the way, which involves you BELIEVING you are better than others and that YOUR WAY is the right way.

Well yes. Because I know how to measure knowledge. Objectively. And so my way is better than your way IF I can demonstrate that your way is wrong in some way that mine isn't.

So sorry, I will have to apologize profusely. I thought it was veritas aequitas who wrote that, and my responses was for them. I will have to read it again and reply to you next time.

Sorry again.

Age wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 10:33 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 9:12 am You are going into the wrong direction.
Note this is a philosophy forum and thus we need to conform to the general understanding of what is philosophy.

I would suggest that the general understanding of what philosophy is would come from what the word 'philosophy' derived from.

I agree with this but I would prefer to dig deeper than its etymological root to its effective empirical-rational essence.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 9:12 amWhat I had presented to you as generally understood as 'epistemology' is based on the consensus of the majority of those within the philosophy community.

If the general understanding of what is philosophy, is the love-of-wisdom, then,
The majority of those within the philosophy community would obviously be that community with a love-of-wisdom, which is by all accounts the only community with that love is the community of human beings. That is, humanity or ALL human beings.
So, the consensus of the majority within the philosophy, or human, community would be the majority of human beings, and NOT as you are trying to suggest just a certain group of human beings that exist within the WHOLE group of human beings.

As can be noticed here select groups of people try and hijack words and phrases for their own underlying reasons.

I agree the ideal should be ALL human beings.
But at present we have to be pragmatic and rely on what is active at present, i.e. the conventional group of people and work from that basis towards the ideal.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 9:12 amUntil you have published your version of what is 'epistemology' and accepted by the majority of peers, then you have to start from the general understanding of what is epistemology within the common community of philosophy.

The common community of philosophy IS ALL human beings. Therefore, the peers are also ALL human beings. The ironic part here is that the younger a human being is the more truer philosopher they are.

As above.
We have to understand the current status and work towards the ideal.
Note the concept of 'epistemology' is not confined to the Greeks but exist as a subject within all philosophies around world under different names representing the generic empirical-rational essence of what is epistemology.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 9:12 amIn any case, your concept of epistemology is not likely to be accepted by the average people engaged in philosophy.

The people engaged in what you call "philosophy" are so entwined in trying to outwit each other with words, in support of their own distorted BELIEFS, that they have forgotten the actual art of forming sound, valid arguments.

A group of adults engaged in actually trying their hardest to support, and to find support for, their own distorted views is NOT philosophy. Philosophy is much different than that. Philosophy is just desiring to stay OPEN so that you can continue to learn more, and anew. Very, very few of the people engaged in what you call "philosophy" have this desire. Most of these people prefer to find and use words so that they will appear elite, individually and as a group, from the rest of that group known as humanity.

I have not yet inquired, but I think it might be hard to find just one sound, valid argument that has been formulated in the past century or two by one of these adults who like to be referred to and known as a "philosopher". Remember, a 'sound, valid argument' is one that is an unambiguous fact that can not be disputed.

If you do happen to find one, or many, then share them all here. I especially would like to see it/them. Also, it has to be a sound, valid argument that has has some real affect on the well-being of humanity or on anything else in the rest of the world. Otherwise, it is just an unambiguous fact that can not be disputed about some truly unimportant thing.

I understand there are groups battling to put their favored ideology in the forefront to dominate the narratives.
But I believe the default is to keep it open and eventually upon continual never ending questioning the truth will gravitate towards and get closer and closer to [without the expectation to achieve] the ideal [impossible] truth.

I quoted Russell's

Bertrand Russell wrote:Thus, to sum up our discussion of the value of philosophy; Philosophy is to be studied, not for the sake of any definite answers to its questions since no definite answers can, as a rule, be known to be true, but rather for the sake of the questions themselves;

because these questions enlarge our conception of what is possible, enrich our intellectual imagination and diminish the dogmatic assurance which closes the mind against speculation;

but above all because, through the greatness of the universe which philosophy contemplates, the mind also is rendered great, and becomes capable of that union with the universe which constitutes its highest good.

Russell presented his full argument in his 'Problem of Philosophy.'
Note, I believe the above was related to his pre-analytical days.

Whilst I would not accept the above on a wholesale basis, I believe there are very relevant elements within the quoted above that is very useful for the purpose.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 11:14 am

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 11:06 am It's not my dictionary; it's the dictionary.

THE dictionary? Well that is an appeal to authority

Are you talking about the Miriam-Webster, or the Oxford, or the Digital Google dictionary, or dictionary.com?

Which one is THE dictionary?

I suspect what you meant to say was 'the dictionary I PREFER"

I think you will find it's essentially the same in all of them.

Age wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 11:10 am

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 10:54 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 10:44 am

Did you not include the word 'FULL' because you now understand better incorrectness of its usage, or for some other reason?

So, we are back to my basic point, which is, there is NO consensus on the definition of or for the word God. So, again, it would be rather foolish to say something like; There is NO God, especially if and when NO consensus of what God actually IS has yet been presented. ALSO, I will reiterate, it would be rather JUST AS foolish to say something like; There IS a God, especially if and when NO consensus of what God actually IS has yet been presented.



Well then WHAT IS THAT "fundamental core definition of what is a God"?

Just write THAT definition down, so that we can have a closer look at it.

This is perfectly adequate:

''God
/ɡɒd/Submit
noun
1.
(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
2.
(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.''

You are right, it is perfectly adequate and what I have been patiently waiting for. Now, would you like to pick one?

Besides the input of just one word both are absolutely correct. But that is NOT because they are correct from your perspective and from your usage of words but because of another perspective and another way of looking at and seeing things.

If you would like we can delve into this much deeper and in much greater detail than you could even yet imagine, but if you are going to carry on sarcastically and with full skepticism like you have been, then there is NO use.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 10:54 amNow if you want to rewrite the dictionary then feel free. I think you might need to get it peer-reviewed though.

A process which is unfolding right this very minute.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 10:54 amYou can call your big toe 'god' for all I care, but you might get laughed at.

I am sure that would get laughed at more than just might.

But what you just said was a funny thing to say, considering that there was NO connection between that and what we are talking about.

I wasn't talking to you.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 11:14 am

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 11:06 am It's not my dictionary; it's the dictionary.

THE dictionary? Well that is an appeal to authority

Are you talking about the Miriam-Webster, or the Oxford, or the Digital Google dictionary, or dictionary.com?

Which one is THE dictionary?

I suspect what you meant to say was 'the dictionary I PREFER"

Great response. I have not yet notice anyone else pick up on this point previously.

I like to say, A dictionary I looked in said ...

There is no such thing as THE dictionary.

Also, besides the fact that we have to decide which dictionary is the best one, we also have to decide which definition is the best one. As has just been shown, in that dictionary, A word can have two very different definitions.