Philosophy Now Forum

First, you've got to get to the point. Discussing the details of how something works (ie consciousness, god) without defining it adequately is spinning your wheels.

Second, you have to admit answers are possible. We can talk about the details of what is and is not conscious experience all day long and end up with nothing but a day less in our lives if the aim isn't toward the purpose of all knowledge, understanding, and wisdom - actionable certainty.

Third, you have to get your ego out of the equation. So long as you want to believe something for any reason other than unvarnished truth as a generalized prerequisite for all positive aims, you're going to find road-blocks of your own making, many of which may be irrelevant questions. (Is there a god? is only meaningful if you need a god for something.)

Fourth, understand critical thinking. Anyone who doesn't have at least a passing familiarity with logical fallacies and cognitive biases isn't going to be a good thinker because they won't even recognize or be able to acknowledge when they're thinking in logically irrelevant or counter-productive ways. Understanding technical formalities like professional/academic terms or symbolic logic can be either helpful or not depending on the type and depth of your dialectic.

Fifth, give your opponent the benefit of the doubt. Often when you're talking to someone you agree with, it may not be apparent even that you agree at first. I believe most philosophers have had this experience for themselves. Assume that intelligent people agree so long as they have the same information, definitions, etc. and you'll go a lot further to sussing out the differences. Assume that everyone intends to be right and speaks the truth as they see it and you'll go a lot further to figuring out where/how/why they're wrong and how to convince them to be actually right.

Of course there are other necessary constraints, depending on what your purpose for philosophizing is, but this should get you started in the right direction, or at least show you where the path to success/solutions lies.

Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Dec 01, 2020 4:05 pm First, you've got to get to the point. Discussing the details of how something works (ie consciousness, god) without defining it adequately is spinning your wheels.

In the spirit of avoiding wheel-spinning... could you define that without using other undefined adjectives?

Or shall I simply interject with "All definitions are inadequate."?

[quote=Skepdick post_id=482662 time=1606845593 user_id=17350]
[quote=Advocate post_id=482652 time=1606835139 user_id=15238]
First, you've got to get to the point. Discussing the details of how something works (ie consciousness, god) without defining it [size=200][color=#FF0000]adequately[/color][/size] is spinning your wheels.
[/quote]
In the spirit of avoiding wheel-spinning... could you define that without using other undefined adjectives?

Or shall I simply interject with "All definitions are inadequate."?
[/quote]

"sufficient for a given purpose"

If you want to go any further, i know a finite place where you can stick your infinite regress.

Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Dec 01, 2020 7:25 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Dec 01, 2020 6:59 pm

Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Dec 01, 2020 4:05 pm First, you've got to get to the point. Discussing the details of how something works (ie consciousness, god) without defining it adequately is spinning your wheels.

In the spirit of avoiding wheel-spinning... could you define that without using other undefined adjectives?

"sufficient for a given purpose"

For the given purpose of solving philosophy, could you define this?

And this time please, avoid the adjectives.

Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Dec 01, 2020 7:25 pm If you want to go any further, i know a finite place where you can stick your infinite regress.

You are just spinning your wheels.

[quote=Skepdick post_id=482669 time=1606848259 user_id=17350]
[quote=Advocate post_id=482666 time=1606847116 user_id=15238]
[quote=Skepdick post_id=482662 time=1606845593 user_id=17350]

In the spirit of avoiding wheel-spinning... could you define that without using other undefined adjectives?
"[size=200][color=#FF0000]sufficient[/color][/size] for a given purpose"
[/quote]
For the given purpose of solving philosophy, could you define this?

And this time [b]please[/b], avoid the adjectives.


[quote=Advocate post_id=482666 time=1606847116 user_id=15238]
If you want to go any further, i know a finite place where you can stick your infinite regress.
[/quote]
You are just spinning your wheels.
[/quote]

I have a separate post about that somewhere: 'What are the attributes of the best philosophy/world view?'

Simple enough to grasp by common people for common purposes.
Elegant.
Compatible with the best understandings of science.
No loopholes.
Necessary and sufficient for all philosophical tasks.
etc...

Adjectives are necessary to define the parameters of what subset of the whole category the word represents is the one adequate to the task we're setting for it.

Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Dec 01, 2020 7:48 pm Simple enough to grasp by common people for common purposes.
Elegant.
Compatible with the best understandings of science.
No loopholes.
Necessary and sufficient for all philosophical tasks.
etc...

So many adjectives that you can't define!

Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Dec 01, 2020 7:48 pm No loopholes.

Ooops...

Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Dec 01, 2020 7:48 pm Adjectives are necessary to define the parameters of what subset of the whole category the word represents is the one adequate to the task we're setting for it.

So you've set the task: solving philosophy.
And you've outlined the first step: defining your terms.

So I am waiting for you to accomplish the task: Define "adequate" and "sufficient"

[quote=Skepdick post_id=482674 time=1606848765 user_id=17350]
[quote=Advocate post_id=482670 time=1606848524 user_id=15238]
Adjectives are necessary to define the parameters of what subset of the whole category the word represents is the one adequate to the task we're setting for it.
[/quote]
So you've set the task: solving philosophy.
And you've outlined the first step: defining your terms.

So I am waiting for you to accomplish the task: Define "adequate" and "sufficient"
[/quote]

It is adequate not to define most words explicitly because no question swings upon that peculiarity.

Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Dec 01, 2020 4:05 pm Discussing the details of how something works without defining it adequately is spinning your wheels.

Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Dec 01, 2020 11:32 pm It is adequate not to define most words explicitly because no question swings upon that peculiarity.

[quote=Skepdick post_id=482714 time=1606869262 user_id=17350]
[quote=Advocate post_id=482652 time=1606835139 user_id=15238]
Discussing the details of how something works without defining it adequately is spinning your wheels.
[/quote]
[quote=Advocate post_id=482695 time=1606861927 user_id=15238]
It is adequate not to define most words explicitly because no question swings upon that peculiarity.
[/quote]

:?
[/quote]

Do you see how they're not incompatible? Adequate isn't infinite.

Anyhow, you're not asking the right questions. An answer is a framework for understanding and regular language is adequate for most answers. A solution requires specifics because it's in light of specific circumstances. There are many possible answers to a given question, depending on what you want it for.

[quote=Advocate post_id=482717 time=1606869727 user_id=15238]
[quote=Skepdick post_id=482714 time=1606869262 user_id=17350]
[quote=Advocate post_id=482652 time=1606835139 user_id=15238]
Discussing the details of how something works without defining it adequately is spinning your wheels.
[/quote]
[quote=Advocate post_id=482695 time=1606861927 user_id=15238]
It is adequate not to define most words explicitly because no question swings upon that peculiarity.
[/quote]

:?
[/quote]

Do you see how they're not incompatible? Adequate isn't infinite.

Anyhow, you're not asking the right questions. An answer is a framework for understanding and regular language is adequate for most answers. A solution requires specifics because it's in light of specific circumstances. There are many possible answers to a given question, depending on what you want it for. What you're trying to do determines what level of understanding is sufficient.
[/quote]