Page 1 of 1
Philosophy is Contradiction, and Contradiction is Truth Value
Posted: Mon Oct 21, 2019 4:38 am
by Eodnhoj7
No deep thought. Go to any philosophy forum, including this one, or allow any set of students to discuss a problem...and no agreement will be found.
The same applies for science.
Math, while still having a strong following, will follow suit. Under a world guided by algorithms people will begin to question its fundamental assumptions.
Religion...do not need to address it, people only agree to hate it in order to fit in.
But it is all philosophy at the end of the day....why? Because it is knowledge, even faith is just a continuum of knowledge as applied through a believer...or not, there are just so many definitions that noone can agree.
There are so many definitions to the above noone can agree either.
People agree only when trying to tear apart a third party, when the third party is gone...noome agrees. We quote people to prove other wrong, then question those we quote in our spare time.
The word "vs." and "distinct(ion)" are religious mantras. People practice philosophy, because it is the only competition where you argue that you are winning. Noone ever goes away feeling wrong, "wronged", but never wrong.
Opinions are the new facts, facts are just group agreed upon opinions...if it exists it is right and what exists is discension...or not.
There are so many ways to define the above.
There are so many ways to define the statement above this one.
The new form of reasoning is destruction. Dissect each little word. Each little sentence. Each little mannerism of how something is expressed.
Define it to kill it, leave it undefined and you threw away your sword of linear reasoning.
We define things not to understand it, we define it to pull it apart.
It is a respective spiral meant to take one point of view, one state of existence, and break it down to point zero.
Take an atom for example, or an atomic fact. It is observed as a tiny little point (of an argument). We magnified it then break it to pieces. Then we look at the little pieces again...and again they are tiny little point. So we magnify and dissect again...and we are left with a point...and again and again.
People intuitively are not looking for answers, hell if they had the answer they would not know what to do with it.
What would you do if you had the answer?
No, they gravitate to a little point and break it to many points and repeat the process. Knowledge is about reaching point 0.
It is not about solving contradictions but making them.
No different than the scientific method, except the hypothesis is the proposition and the experiment the definition that occurs through dialectic.
No different than math, where in trying to find the myriad of ways the numbers relate, we are just taking the number line and folding it again and again and again into different little shapes.
Religion is the new "or" function...say it and everything divides.
"Or" is the new God, hidden within a Cathedral of facts and opinions, and this cathedral is a fortress against the unknown.
People do not want unity, they do not want peace, they do not want morality...they throw these words around because they are religious words and the word "religion" equals "vs."
Re: Philosophy is Contradiction, and Contradiction is Truth Value
Posted: Mon Oct 21, 2019 5:11 am
by Veritas Aequitas
I find early-Russell's definition of 'what is Philosophy' very appropriate.
- Among these surprising possibilities, doubt suggests that perhaps there is no table at all.
Philosophy, if it cannot answer so many questions as we could wish, has at least the power of asking questions which increase the interest of the world, and show the strangeness and wonder lying just below the surface even in the commonest things of daily life.
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.
- Bertrand Russell in Problems of Philosophy.
As usual, your view of 'Philosophy' is from a very shallow and narrow mind, thus easily get stuck in the intellectual quagmire.
'Philosophy' is literally the love of wisdom and there is no reason to deviate from this essence to other fancy definitions as its essence. This point is reflected in Russell's definition above.
Like the faculty of reasoning within the human brain, there is an algorithm within the human brain that fit with the basic definition of the 'faculty of philosophy' i.e. the love of wisdom to facilitate the optimal well being of the individual[s] and therefrom humanity.
It is said that there are as many definitions of Philosophy as the number of people who attempted to define 'philosophy'.
What I have done is to collect 500++ up to 1000 definitions from all over the world, West, East, Middle-East and wherever, then abstract whatever is the essence that is common to all the definitions.
I note the essence of 'philosophy' the love of wisdom [using all appropriate tools] to facilitate the optimal well being of the individual[s] and therefrom humanity.
Re: Philosophy is Contradiction, and Contradiction is Truth Value
Posted: Mon Oct 21, 2019 5:32 am
by Eodnhoj7
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2019 5:11 am
I find early-Russell's definition of 'what is Philosophy' very appropriate.
- Among these surprising possibilities, doubt suggests that perhaps there is no table at all.
Philosophy, if it cannot answer so many questions as we could wish, has at least the power of asking questions which increase the interest of the world, and show the strangeness and wonder lying just below the surface even in the commonest things of daily life.
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.
- Bertrand Russell in Problems of Philosophy.
As usual, your view of 'Philosophy' is from a very shallow and narrow mind, thus easily get stuck in the intellectual quagmire.
'Philosophy' is literally the love of wisdom and there is no reason to deviate from this essence to other fancy definitions as its essence. This point is reflected in Russell's definition above.
Like the faculty of reasoning within the human brain, there is an algorithm within the human brain that fit with the basic definition of the 'faculty of philosophy' i.e. the love of wisdom to facilitate the optimal well being of the individual[s] and therefrom humanity.
It is said that there are as many definitions of Philosophy as the number of people who attempted to define 'philosophy'.
What I have done is to collect 500++ up to 1000 definitions from all over the world, West, East, Middle-East and wherever, then abstract whatever is the essence that is common to all the definitions.
I note the essence of 'philosophy' the love of wisdom [using all appropriate tools] to facilitate the optimal well being of the individual[s] and therefrom humanity.
Math is knowledge, thus math is philosophy...Russell was an expert in his field, he is negating it, thus he is no expert.
And there you go, quoting another person, in an attempt to prove the above wrong....which is what I said in the above article....
Re: Philosophy is Contradiction, and Contradiction is Truth Value
Posted: Mon Oct 21, 2019 5:37 am
by Veritas Aequitas
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2019 5:32 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2019 5:11 am
I find early-Russell's definition of 'what is Philosophy' very appropriate.
- Among these surprising possibilities, doubt suggests that perhaps there is no table at all.
Philosophy, if it cannot answer so many questions as we could wish, has at least the power of asking questions which increase the interest of the world, and show the strangeness and wonder lying just below the surface even in the commonest things of daily life.
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.
- Bertrand Russell in Problems of Philosophy.
As usual, your view of 'Philosophy' is from a very shallow and narrow mind, thus easily get stuck in the intellectual quagmire.
'Philosophy' is literally the love of wisdom and there is no reason to deviate from this essence to other fancy definitions as its essence. This point is reflected in Russell's definition above.
Like the faculty of reasoning within the human brain, there is an algorithm within the human brain that fit with the basic definition of the 'faculty of philosophy' i.e. the love of wisdom to facilitate the optimal well being of the individual[s] and therefrom humanity.
It is said that there are as many definitions of Philosophy as the number of people who attempted to define 'philosophy'.
What I have done is to collect 500++ up to 1000 definitions from all over the world, West, East, Middle-East and wherever, then abstract whatever is the essence that is common to all the definitions.
I note the essence of 'philosophy' the love of wisdom [using all appropriate tools] to facilitate the optimal well being of the individual[s] and therefrom humanity.
Math is knowledge, thus math is philosophy...Russell was an expert in his field, he is negating it, thus he is no expert.
What is that?
Philosophy is the love of wisdom, i.e. applying knowledge, not knowledge itself.
Mathematics as a field of knowledge is merely a tool used in the love and search of wisdom.
That Russell is an expert in Mathematics means he had the higher competency to use Mathematics as a tool in his search and application of wisdom, i.e. philosophizing.
And there you go, quoting another person, in an attempt to prove the above wrong....which is what I said in the above article....
You are crazy to denounce referencing others.
To achieve the highest level of wisdom one has to rely on the shoulders of giants of knowledge and wisdom, thus the imperative to quote and adopt whatever that is positive.
Re: Philosophy is Contradiction, and Contradiction is Truth Value
Posted: Mon Oct 21, 2019 5:52 am
by Eodnhoj7
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2019 5:37 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2019 5:32 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2019 5:11 am
I find early-Russell's definition of 'what is Philosophy' very appropriate.
- Among these surprising possibilities, doubt suggests that perhaps there is no table at all.
Philosophy, if it cannot answer so many questions as we could wish, has at least the power of asking questions which increase the interest of the world, and show the strangeness and wonder lying just below the surface even in the commonest things of daily life.
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.
- Bertrand Russell in Problems of Philosophy.
As usual, your view of 'Philosophy' is from a very shallow and narrow mind, thus easily get stuck in the intellectual quagmire.
'Philosophy' is literally the love of wisdom and there is no reason to deviate from this essence to other fancy definitions as its essence. This point is reflected in Russell's definition above.
Like the faculty of reasoning within the human brain, there is an algorithm within the human brain that fit with the basic definition of the 'faculty of philosophy' i.e. the love of wisdom to facilitate the optimal well being of the individual[s] and therefrom humanity.
It is said that there are as many definitions of Philosophy as the number of people who attempted to define 'philosophy'.
What I have done is to collect 500++ up to 1000 definitions from all over the world, West, East, Middle-East and wherever, then abstract whatever is the essence that is common to all the definitions.
I note the essence of 'philosophy' the love of wisdom [using all appropriate tools] to facilitate the optimal well being of the individual[s] and therefrom humanity.
Math is knowledge, thus math is philosophy...Russell was an expert in his field, he is negating it, thus he is no expert.
What is that?
Philosophy is the love of wisdom, i.e. applying knowledge, not knowledge itself.
Mathematics as a field of knowledge is merely a tool used in the love and search of wisdom.
And tools are forms mirroring knowledge. One does not create a blade without knowledge of what a blade is. Applying knowledge requires knowledge and this recurssion necessitates divergence which is subject to an innumerable means of application.
That Russell is an expert in Mathematics means he had the higher competency to use Mathematics as a tool in his search and application of wisdom, i.e. philosophizing.
This cannot be quantified without referencing sources outside of mathematics.
Competency is not quantifiable without reverting to non mathematical qualities.
Competency is just another word for "we appreciate his art".
And there you go, quoting another person, in an attempt to prove the above wrong....which is what I said in the above article....
You are crazy to denounce referencing others.
So what...
We reference others to reinterpreting what they are saying in light of our own interpretations.
We reference them to negate them. Referencing is recursive and recursion is irrational as it is a continuum.
To achieve the highest level of wisdom one has to rely on the shoulders of giants of knowledge and wisdom, thus the imperative to quote and adopt whatever that is positive.
And none of them agreed. People stand on the shoulders of giants only after the giant is killed and the smaller man stands on top.
Genius stands on genius because the other genius is dead. Knowledge is funeral procession mixed with a victory stance.
Re: Philosophy is Contradiction, and Contradiction is Truth Value
Posted: Mon Oct 21, 2019 6:05 am
by Veritas Aequitas
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2019 5:52 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2019 5:37 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2019 5:32 am
Math is knowledge, thus math is philosophy...Russell was an expert in his field, he is negating it, thus he is no expert.
What is that?
Philosophy is the love of wisdom, i.e. applying knowledge, not knowledge itself.
Mathematics as a field of knowledge is merely a tool used in the love and search of wisdom.
And tools are forms mirroring knowledge. One does not create a blade without knowledge of what a blade is. Applying knowledge requires knowledge and this recurssion necessitates divergence which is subject to an innumerable means of application.
That Russell is an expert in Mathematics means he had the higher competency to use Mathematics as a tool in his search and application of wisdom, i.e. philosophizing.
This cannot be quantified without referencing sources outside of mathematics.
Competency is not quantifiable without reverting to non mathematical qualities.
Competency is just another word for "we appreciate his art".
And there you go, quoting another person, in an attempt to prove the above wrong....which is what I said in the above article....
You are crazy to denounce referencing others.
So what...
We reference others to reinterpreting what they are saying in light of our own interpretations.
We reference them to negate them. Referencing is recursive and recursion is irrational as it is a continuum.
To achieve the highest level of wisdom one has to rely on the shoulders of giants of knowledge and wisdom, thus the imperative to quote and adopt whatever that is positive.
And none of them agreed. People stand on the shoulders of giants only after the giant is killed and the smaller man stands on top.
Genius stands on genius because the other genius is dead. Knowledge is funeral procession mixed with a victory stance.
You are lost in the above.
A tool is a practical thing that will facilitate survival or otherwise.
A blade can cut your neck.
Re: Philosophy is Contradiction, and Contradiction is Truth Value
Posted: Mon Oct 21, 2019 6:09 am
by Eodnhoj7
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2019 6:05 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2019 5:52 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2019 5:37 am
What is that?
Philosophy is the love of wisdom, i.e. applying knowledge, not knowledge itself.
Mathematics as a field of knowledge is merely a tool used in the love and search of wisdom.
And tools are forms mirroring knowledge. One does not create a blade without knowledge of what a blade is. Applying knowledge requires knowledge and this recurssion necessitates divergence which is subject to an innumerable means of application.
That Russell is an expert in Mathematics means he had the higher competency to use Mathematics as a tool in his search and application of wisdom, i.e. philosophizing.
This cannot be quantified without referencing sources outside of mathematics.
Competency is not quantifiable without reverting to non mathematical qualities.
Competency is just another word for "we appreciate his art".
You are crazy to denounce referencing others.
So what...
We reference others to reinterpreting what they are saying in light of our own interpretations.
We reference them to negate them. Referencing is recursive and recursion is irrational as it is a continuum.
To achieve the highest level of wisdom one has to rely on the shoulders of giants of knowledge and wisdom, thus the imperative to quote and adopt whatever that is positive.
And none of them agreed. People stand on the shoulders of giants only after the giant is killed and the smaller man stands on top.
Genius stands on genius because the other genius is dead. Knowledge is funeral procession mixed with a victory stance.
You are lost in the above.
A tool is a practical thing that will facilitate survival or otherwise.
A blade can cut your neck.
And blades are formed from abstractions. Mathematical tools have not been proven to disproven to facilitate survival. The industrial revolution caused a population increase that many claim is destroy the ability to live.
Again, you are just going in circles and justifying my argument by disagreeing with it and pushing your own views.
Re: Philosophy is Contradiction, and Contradiction is Truth Value
Posted: Mon Oct 21, 2019 7:07 am
by Veritas Aequitas
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2019 6:09 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2019 6:05 am
You are lost in the above.
A tool is a practical thing that will facilitate survival or otherwise.
A blade can cut your neck.
And blades are formed from abstractions. Mathematical tools have not been proven to disproven to facilitate survival. The industrial revolution caused a population increase that many claim is destroy the ability to live.
Again, you are just going in circles and justifying my argument by disagreeing with it and pushing your own views.
Nah!
It is a bad statement. Blades are not formed from abstractions.
Real blades are
realized as real from abstractions that are empirical-based concepts. This realization of a real blade emerge out a complex set if processes.
Your problem is you do not differentiate empirical-based abstractions and non-empirical abstractions, thus conflate them often that end up with contradictions.
Re: Philosophy is Contradiction, and Contradiction is Truth Value
Posted: Mon Oct 21, 2019 7:16 am
by Eodnhoj7
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2019 7:07 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2019 6:09 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2019 6:05 am
You are lost in the above.
A tool is a practical thing that will facilitate survival or otherwise.
A blade can cut your neck.
And blades are formed from abstractions. Mathematical tools have not been proven to disproven to facilitate survival. The industrial revolution caused a population increase that many claim is destroy the ability to live.
Again, you are just going in circles and justifying my argument by disagreeing with it and pushing your own views.
Nah!
It is a bad statement. Blades are not formed from abstractions.
Actually they are formed from schematics and blueprints all the time. Even the concept of the blade, as a replication of natural qualities (it is basically a metal leaf), still requires memory.
Real blades are
realized as real from abstractions that are empirical-based concepts. This realization of a real blade emerge out a complex set if processes.
And these processes are subject to forms and forms are both abstract and empirical.
Your problem is you do not differentiate empirical-based abstractions and non-empirical abstractions, thus conflate them often that end up with contradictions.
They synthesize: they diverge, converge, diverge and converge.
The action of abstraction and empirical reality is subject to the alternation between the two and we are left with a wavelength form that is both. Form and formlessness are universal.
And you are just proving my point further.