Are Philosophers lost in the clouds?

Pepijn Sweep wrote:

Dear Jeeprs, can u tell kenneth we are not all using just a dictionary. Some people actually make definitions.

What makes anyone think that if someone invents a meaning for a word, it has any importance? Children invent meanings all the time, and then they are corrected, and shown that the meaning they think the word has is not its actual meaning. If people were the sole authorities on the meanings of the words they use, how could they use words wrongly, and how could they be corrected. Answer, they cannot. It is not up to any individual what the meaning of a word is. Why should it be. What authority would he have in that regard? And why, when there is a dispute about the meaning of a word, do we settle the dispute by consulting a dictionary? Why don't we simply argue that since I have decided to use the word in that way, that is the meaning of the word. Compare it with spelling. There is a right and a wrong way to spell a word, and to settle disputes about whether, for instance, the word "weird" should be spelled that way, or whether it should be spelled "wierd", we consult the dictionary. Wherever, I wonder, did you get the idea that it is you (individually) who can decide what a word means?

Guigus;
I got your superficial hanging... You clearly do not understand the business of philosophy to describe it as you have.... Their point is to simplify problems that seem on the surface to be complex... It is a job that often demands great care, ability, and process.... Some people, and in this I would include you, simplify because they are simple... Some people simplify life to make clear what is obscure, to find the fractures in the impediments that limit humanity's progress, and it is not easy work, and it does require an almost religious devotion that few possess the ability or desire for...

Yes, of course. Philosophers want to go beyond the meaning of a term to its analysis, which, for instance, probes the implications of the meaning of the term, and how it fits in with other terms of the same kind. For example, when the philosopher inquires into knowledge, his inquiry extends into the implications of knowledge for belief, and truth, and justification. As it should. And this inquiry is the analysis of the concept of knowledge. But, of course, this is, as I said, inquiry. It is not invention.

kennethamy wrote:

Yes, of course. Philosophers want to go beyond the meaning of a term to its analysis, which, for instance, probes the implications of the meaning of the term, and how it fits in with other terms of the same kind. For example, when the philosopher inquires into knowledge, his inquiry extends into the implications of knowledge for belief, and truth, and justification. As it should. And this inquiry is the analysis of the concept of knowledge. But, of course, this is, as I said, inquiry. It is not invention.

I disagree. Inquiry and invention have a lot in common: and each one has a lot of the other. For example, Newton invented gravity at least as much as he "discovered" it, although he believed he had only discovered it. Likewise, Einstein reinvented gravity at least as much he "rediscovered" it. And we still ignore what gravity really is even today. And when we finally discover exactly what it is, this will be also a total invention. Regarding truth, invention and discovery are the same: what really matters is that whatever we discover/invent is flawless and works perfectly well in all circumstances. Although pragmatism is a shame, we sill must be practical.

guigus wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

Yes, of course. Philosophers want to go beyond the meaning of a term to its analysis, which, for instance, probes the implications of the meaning of the term, and how it fits in with other terms of the same kind. For example, when the philosopher inquires into knowledge, his inquiry extends into the implications of knowledge for belief, and truth, and justification. As it should. And this inquiry is the analysis of the concept of knowledge. But, of course, this is, as I said, inquiry. It is not invention.

I disagree. Inquiry and invention have a lot in common: and each one has a lot of the other. For example, Newton invented gravity at least as much as he "discovered" it, although he believed he had only discovered it. Likewise, Einstein reinvented gravity at least as much he "rediscovered" it. And we still ignore what gravity really is even today. And when we finally discover exactly what it is, this will be also a total invention. Regarding truth, invention and discovery are the same: what really matters is that whatever we discover/invent is flawless and works perfectly well in all circumstances. Although pragmatism is a shame, we sill must be practical.

And, I suppose that Cook invented Australia as much as he discovered it too. You cannot discover what does not already exist, so how is it possible to invent what you discover? It isn't. Newton and Einstein first (partly) thought up new concepts, and then discovered what conformed to those concepts. You are confused.

And, I suppose that Cook invented Australia as much as he discovered it too. You cannot discover what does not already exist, so how is it possible to invent what you discover? It isn't. Newton and Einstein first (partly) thought up new concepts, and then discovered what conformed to those concepts. You are confused.

Newton and Einstein first (partly) thought up new concepts, and then discovered what conformed to those concepts. You are confused.

kennethamy wrote:

Yes, of course. Philosophers want to go beyond the meaning of a term to its analysis, which, for instance, probes the implications of the meaning of the term, and how it fits in with other terms of the same kind. For example, when the philosopher inquires into knowledge, his inquiry extends into the implications of knowledge for belief, and truth, and justification. As it should. And this inquiry is the analysis of the concept of knowledge. But, of course, this is, as I said, inquiry. It is not invention.

I disagree. Inquiry and invention have a lot in common: and each one has a lot of the other. For example, Newton invented gravity at least as much as he "discovered" it, although he believed he had only discovered it. Likewise, Einstein reinvented gravity at least as much he "rediscovered" it. And we still ignore what gravity really is even today. And when we finally discover exactly what it is, this will be also a total invention. Regarding truth, invention and discovery are the same: what really matters is that whatever we discover/invent is flawless and works perfectly well in all circumstances. Although pragmatism is a shame, we sill must be practical.

kennethamy wrote:

guigus wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

Yes, of course. Philosophers want to go beyond the meaning of a term to its analysis, which, for instance, probes the implications of the meaning of the term, and how it fits in with other terms of the same kind. For example, when the philosopher inquires into knowledge, his inquiry extends into the implications of knowledge for belief, and truth, and justification. As it should. And this inquiry is the analysis of the concept of knowledge. But, of course, this is, as I said, inquiry. It is not invention.

I disagree. Inquiry and invention have a lot in common: and each one has a lot of the other. For example, Newton invented gravity at least as much as he "discovered" it, although he believed he had only discovered it. Likewise, Einstein reinvented gravity at least as much he "rediscovered" it. And we still ignore what gravity really is even today. And when we finally discover exactly what it is, this will be also a total invention. Regarding truth, invention and discovery are the same: what really matters is that whatever we discover/invent is flawless and works perfectly well in all circumstances. Although pragmatism is a shame, we sill must be practical.

And, I suppose that Cook invented Australia as much as he discovered it too. You cannot discover what does not already exist, so how is it possible to invent what you discover? It isn't. Newton and Einstein first (partly) thought up new concepts, and then discovered what conformed to those concepts. You are confused.

I already knew you thought that way: that is how you understand truth, that is, as something that is already there, waiting to be discovered. It is precisely that naive metaphysics of a wold that is true in itself that we must overcome (which makes Fido partially correct). Thinking like this is just assuming that we know all there is to know about the objective world, which is always false. Our understanding of gravity, for example: we have today two different concepts of gravity, none of which is satisfactory, and various other concepts being proposed, which not even resemble those two (Newtonian and Einsteinian) old concepts of gravity. What gravity was "before" we discovered/invented it, nobody knows, including you. Truth is neither a simple discovery nor a total invention: it is both.

kennethamy wrote:

Newton and Einstein first (partly) thought up new concepts, and then discovered what conformed to those concepts. You are confused.

They could not "think up" the concept of gravity out of nothing: there was something already there for them to think up, which they could only know as gravity by thinking it up. Consider this:

Whenever you believe something to exist without you, you must forget you believe that, otherwise your belief becomes doubtful. So, although your belief may be true, your certainty of its truth may not.

kennethamy wrote:

Newton and Einstein first (partly) thought up new concepts, and then discovered what conformed to those concepts. You are confused.

They could not "think up" the concept of gravity out of nothing: there was something already there for them to think up, which they could only know as gravity by thinking it up. Consider this:

Whenever you believe something to exist without you, you must forget you believe that, otherwise your belief becomes doubtful. So, although your belief may be true, your certainty of its truth may not.

guigus wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

Newton and Einstein first (partly) thought up new concepts, and then discovered what conformed to those concepts. You are confused.

They could not "think up" the concept of gravity out of nothing: there was something already there for them to think up, which they could only know as gravity by thinking it up. Consider this:

Whenever you believe something to exist without you, you must forget you believe that, otherwise your belief becomes doubtful. So, although your belief may be true, your certainty of its truth may not.

No one thought up gravity... Galaleo, Newton, and Einstein correctly applied mathhematics, as a true concept of reality, to the phenomena of gravity... Everyone knew what gravity was, and not before those three was the relationship between mass and energy, speed and time, moment and motion; (did I leave anything out???) - made clear... One generation builds on another... The middle ages struggled to build a mechanical clock and in time began to conceive of the universe as a clock... With out the instraments to turn movement and time into numbers, number would only with futility be applied to physics.. So you cannot bleme single individuals for the advances of a whole humanity...

Fido wrote:

guigus wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

Newton and Einstein first (partly) thought up new concepts, and then discovered what conformed to those concepts. You are confused.

They could not "think up" the concept of gravity out of nothing: there was something already there for them to think up, which they could only know as gravity by thinking it up. Consider this:

Whenever you believe something to exist without you, you must forget you believe that, otherwise your belief becomes doubtful. So, although your belief may be true, your certainty of its truth may not.

No one thought up gravity... Galaleo, Newton, and Einstein correctly applied mathhematics, as a true concept of reality, to the phenomena of gravity... Everyone knew what gravity was, and not before those three was the relationship between mass and energy, speed and time, moment and motion; (did I leave anything out???) - made clear... One generation builds on another... The middle ages struggled to build a mechanical clock and in time began to conceive of the universe as a clock... With out the instraments to turn movement and time into numbers, number would only with futility be applied to physics.. So you cannot bleme single individuals for the advances of a whole humanity...

That is exactly what I said. No one thought up gravity. Gravity was always there. What was thought up was the concept of gravity. And before anyone thought up the concept of gravity, although there was (of course) gravity, since there was no concept of gravity (before the concept of gravity was thought up) no one could have known what gravity was, for how can anyone have any knowledge of something before he has the concept of that something?

1. You really ought to try reading what I wrote, instead of making it up. For example you implied that I said that gravity had been thought up (invented). Of course, I never said that. In fact, I denied it! What I said what that the concept of gravity had been thought up. That is not saying that gravity itself had been thought up, which is, of course, ridiculously false.

2. You really ought to distinguish between the concept of X (say gravity) and X itself, namely gravity. Then you will not confuse them, and even if you prefer confusion to clarity, you will be better off for not confusing them.

One thing is to say that we cannot know it, and quite another, that it does n´t exist...(and I am not addressing you Fido) (its an inter-thread post)

Insight, and invention, or perhaps, creativity are much the same quality... Honest to God; you need a good history of ancient philosophy to get a sense of what people were deciding without the least ability to prove or disprove their thoughts.... Even Aristotle in his physics is intelligent if not fully accurate.... You must understand that the advance of science has been a step by step process in which the play of insight outran the senses, and then, where the power of the senses was multiplied to test the insight, and where upon new certainty the insight played once more.... A physicist like Galaleo was great for his insights, his mathematical proofs, and by the invention of experiments that creatively demonstrated both insight and proof... He died in the same year Newton was born, and Newton correctly refered to him as a Giant... But, apart from inate ability with math, and a natural curiosity, Galaleo was creative, not only in regard to physical proofs, but in the insight that suggested the correct conception of reality... Most of us suffer from too much insight and too little of physical ability... You can see on these forums how much fantasy, speculation, or beliefs once dominant in the minds of all people still run riot over reason... But reality is not created out of the force of will... Reality is not invented, but found when it is correctly conceived... But this is true also of all reality, even moral reality, that until any thing can be conceived of it blends into a background of phenomena without explanation, definition, or distinction...

Fido wrote:

Insight, and invention, or perhaps, creativity are much the same quality... Honest to God; you need a good history of ancient philosophy to get a sense of what people were deciding without the least ability to prove or disprove their thoughts.... Even Aristotle in his physics is intelligent if not fully accurate.... You must understand that the advance of science has been a step by step process in which the play of insight outran the senses, and then, where the power of the senses was multiplied to test the insight, and where upon new certainty the insight played once more.... A physicist like Galaleo was great for his insights, his mathematical proofs, and by the invention of experiments that creatively demonstrated both insight and proof... He died in the same year Newton was born, and Newton correctly refered to him as a Giant... But, apart from inate ability with math, and a natural curiosity, Galaleo was creative, not only in regard to physical proofs, but in the insight that suggested the correct conception of reality... Most of us suffer from too much insight and too little of physical ability... You can see on these forums how much fantasy, speculation, or beliefs once dominant in the minds of all people still run riot over reason... But reality is not created out of the force of will... Reality is not invented, but found when it is correctly conceived... But this is true also of all reality, even moral reality, that until any thing can be conceived of it blends into a background of phenomena without explanation, definition, or distinction...

You are saying the same as I said, didn't you notice? Take this: "reality is not invented, but found when it is correctly conceived." This just means that we discover reality by conceiving it, so discovery and conceptual invention, whenever objectivity grounds our concepts, are the same.