34
   

Are Philosophers lost in the clouds?

 
 
de Silentio
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2010 07:44 pm
@kennethamy,
Sorry: http://able2know.org/topic/153947-1#post-4196413
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2010 09:49 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:

de Silentio wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

de Silentio wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

We can draw further conclusions from predicate logic because predicate logic goes further into detail. (But Aristotelian logic is just an elemantary version of predicate logic). But it is not that we can draw different conclusions from predicate logic, only further conclusions. There is a difference.


What is the difference?


We can draw the same conclusions from predicate logic as we can from classical logic. And, in addition, we can draw further conclusions.


I meant what is the difference between "further conclusions" and "different conclusions". It seems to me that when there is further information in the conclusion, the conclusion is different.

For example, the conclusions: (C1) "The dog is going to bite" and (C2) "The dog with red hair is going to bite" seem like different conclusions to me, even though (C2) merely has further information. ( (C1) would represent Propositional Logic while (C2) would represent Predicate Logic)


No, two people can draw the same conclusion, and then one of them can draw a further conclusion different from the conclusion they both drew before. But this is really trivial stuff, and has nothing whatever to do with the main topic. There are digressions, and then there are digression. This is the latter.


And a digression would differ from a digression is what sense that the former would differ from the later???
0 Replies
 
unitedminds
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2010 10:02 pm
I will respond on what is philosophy and you decide if Philosophers are lost. two directions of philosophy, 1. philosophy majors that leads to intellectual prostitution. (sorry I didn't mean to offend anyone), 2. every human is a philosopher in a different level of curiosity. =)
Pepijn Sweep
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jul, 2010 03:17 am
@unitedminds,
I am probably in the second category, but I am extremly curious about the world around me. Like many people. I think I would like to pimp these intellects and make them work the ground instead of the clouds. People are discontent in ever larger numbers and turn away from the society. Can we not think of ways to keep together the social fabric ?
guigus
 
  0  
Reply Fri 2 Jul, 2010 05:26 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:

guigus wrote:

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
To some, philosophy is too esoteric to be useful. To others, it’s the basis of a good drinking party.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/27/lost-in-the-clouds/?hp

Two interesting opinions at the link above. My own opinion is that almost all modern Philosophy is useless, because it does not address the human condition. It is kinda like the sport of rhythmic gymnastics, to some interesting to watch for a few minutes every four years at the Olympics, otherwise it never has cause to cross our minds. The problem is not hopeless, but to solve it we need a new vision of what Philosophy is, and a whole boat load of new people to do it.

Opinions?


It is amazing that the text you refer to begins talking about symbolic logic. I started a post in this forum regarding a reasoning of mine that begins with the assertion that "every truth must be true." There were two kinds of reaction to this: one telling me that my statement was a tautology; the other telling me it was false for being an instance of the "modal fallacy." This is the legacy of symbolic logic: taking whatever is true for truth itself. The new philosophy we need reads "truth" as "truthness." Traditional philosophy reads "truth" as "true things." When we read "truth" as if it were in the world, waiting for us to find it, we are locked into natural necessity. When we read "truth" as the truth itself of whatever is true, then we free ourselves by means of a necessity that is rather the need that a true statement, or true idea, or true memory, or whatever "truth" has of a state of affairs out there in the world to make it a truth. For the new philosophy we need, necessity itself is a relation, instead of a property. This is the only way to address the "human condition," since it resides precisely in the true statement side of the correspondence between a statement and a state of affairs.


I think someone should tell you that symbolic logic is merely an extension and elaboration of classical logic. It is not different from classical logic except for that, and it incorporates classical logic. You seem to believe that classical logic and symbolic logic are in conflict. But the truth is that symbolic logic is classical logic put more precisely, and further extended and elaborated on. There is no conflict. And everything that can be said in classical logic can also be said in symbolic logic, only more precisely. I thought you ought to know.


I was trying to find out from where did you get the idea that I think that classical logic and symbolic logic are "in conflict," but I simply couldn't. For me they are the same. Could you explain to me from where did you get that idea?
0 Replies
 
guigus
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jul, 2010 05:39 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:
The uses of symbolic logic have added a completely new dimension to old philosophical discussions, and have made them both, easier to understand, and also, easier to deak with. Trying to philosophize without logic is like trying to row a boat without oars.


Have you ever considered that that use could have made things worse? What symbolic logic has in common with classical logic (despite the recent explosion of symbolic logic in almost all directions), is that both take a truth as either an empty statement (what they call a "proposition") or as the referenced state of affairs as if it were itself a statement (again, a "proposition"). This is the fundamental mistake made by logicians of all time, since there is a duality here, between a statement in our heads and a state of affairs in the world, which keeps being ignored even by the most exotic branches of paraconsistent logic.
guigus
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jul, 2010 05:54 am
@Pepijn Sweep,
Pepijn Sweep wrote:

I am probably in the second category, but I am extremly curious about the world around me. Like many people. I think I would like to pimp these intellects and make them work the ground instead of the clouds. People are discontent in ever larger numbers and turn away from the society. Can we not think of ways to keep together the social fabric ?


I agree. I am trying to show that all this mathematical formalism is very beautiful, but unfortunately misses the point. The world is there, but we are also here. So the truth is also about us. Mathematics has infected everything, and nowhere else it has made more damage than in philosophy. And if philosophers are intimidated by science and mathematics, it is just because they unwillingly share their premise: that we are an illusion. Quantum physics is the first form of science to go beyond mathematical formalism, treating it as only a tool, but this had the price of splitting its theory in two: a wave form describing probabilities and particles describing observed events. The only way of dealing with this contradiction is going beyond mathematics. It is not that we must throw mathematics away, which would be absurd. It is that we must stop thinking mathematics is the only and ultimate path to the truth.
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jul, 2010 06:02 am
@unitedminds,
unitedminds wrote:

I will respond on what is philosophy and you decide if Philosophers are lost. two directions of philosophy, 1. philosophy majors that leads to intellectual prostitution. (sorry I didn't mean to offend anyone), 2. every human is a philosopher in a different level of curiosity. =)

I have read more now about Heidegger than I have read of him, and I find it amazing that I with so little knowledge and formal education reached many of the same conclusions he reached with much study and education way back in the late nineteen thirties... It does not matter where people pick up the threads they follow to their natural conclusions... A scholar may well have a more regular approach and have better supported conclusions than myself... I am not going to consider myself elite for having little formal eduction...

The problem is that all forms teach the form... It is possible for me without the form to respect the formal... It is much more difficult for those within the form to respect the informal... As with everything else, the form often gets in the way of the relationship... Well, it is true of education generally, that a certain contempt of the unwashed and uneducated is taught with the lessons, and to me, that makes the institutions of learning like the medieval church as an institution, and that is to say: self serving...

Law, for example, as a branch of philosophy has become divorced from questions of ethics and justice... The congress writes the law and the law is judged according to the constitution, and justice and ethics never enters the room... But justice and ethics do concern the citizens who see that they cannot live without these qualities in their lives... As an institution, the schools of law of the old East dominate the national legal system, and the Supreme Court... But ultimately, the people of the old South, who see their morals trampled on daily will wipe away the court, and the good and bad of the institution of law with it...

Law is not so many words in so many dusty books in so many institutions... The people are the law, and for the people to abide by the law, the law must be seen as delivering justice, and if it does not always seem to do so, then it must educate people to why the good is the good, and this the law has not done, so the gulf grows wide between the law the people will accept and the law that is forced upon them... Were it not for a formal contempt law has of the people, of their needs, and of their methods that has in time become mutual, there would be no problem... The form inteferes with what should be an easy going and immediate relatonship..
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jul, 2010 06:10 am
@Pepijn Sweep,
Pepijn Sweep wrote:

I am probably in the second category, but I am extremly curious about the world around me. Like many people. I think I would like to pimp these intellects and make them work the ground instead of the clouds. People are discontent in ever larger numbers and turn away from the society. Can we not think of ways to keep together the social fabric ?


Justice is social glue... If people are denied justice in their society they become resentful... The unjust, for their part, see themselves apart, as wolves among sheep, which they are, and this fact they conceal; but while they are abroad the society is injured, and justice is denied, until the people long denied justice will revolt or stand by to see their land invaded and destroyed... Toward the end, the citizens of Rome cut off their thumbs rather than serve in the military... What did they have to fight for??? They were slaves in any event, in every event...
Fido
 
  0  
Reply Fri 2 Jul, 2010 06:19 am
@guigus,
guigus wrote:

kennethamy wrote:
The uses of symbolic logic have added a completely new dimension to old philosophical discussions, and have made them both, easier to understand, and also, easier to deak with. Trying to philosophize without logic is like trying to row a boat without oars.


Have you ever considered that that use could have made things worse? What symbolic logic has in common with classical logic (despite the recent explosion of symbolic logic in almost all directions), is that both take a truth as either an empty statement (what they call a "proposition") or as the referenced state of affairs as if it were itself a statement (again, a "proposition"). This is the fundamental mistake made by logicians of all time, since there is a duality here, between a statement in our heads and a state of affairs in the world, which keeps being ignored even by the most exotic branches of paraconsistent logic.

Only in physics can truth be occasionally considered as truth... In moral reality, truth is a moral form, and like all forms -is a form of relationship... If we say: What is Justice, or: What is Love, we are refering to infinites and we are doing so as infinites... I am not saying truth does not matter... We have the word and use the word because it matters.... But as in all relationships there is a lot of give and take, and in the end everyone must have enough, of truth, or love, or justice, or of any number of moral forms we find essential... It cannot be measured out by the tea spoon or cup... It is not precision one needs, but the desire for the relationship within all of these forms that is needed... The logic of physics and of morality are different, and require different methods...
kennethamy
 
  2  
Reply Fri 2 Jul, 2010 08:44 am
@Fido,
Fido wrote:

guigus wrote:

kennethamy wrote:
The uses of symbolic logic have added a completely new dimension to old philosophical discussions, and have made them both, easier to understand, and also, easier to deak with. Trying to philosophize without logic is like trying to row a boat without oars.


Have you ever considered that that use could have made things worse? What symbolic logic has in common with classical logic (despite the recent explosion of symbolic logic in almost all directions), is that both take a truth as either an empty statement (what they call a "proposition") or as the referenced state of affairs as if it were itself a statement (again, a "proposition"). This is the fundamental mistake made by logicians of all time, since there is a duality here, between a statement in our heads and a state of affairs in the world, which keeps being ignored even by the most exotic branches of paraconsistent logic.

Only in physics can truth be occasionally considered as truth... In moral reality, truth is a moral form, and like all forms -is a form of relationship... If we say: What is Justice, or: What is Love, we are refering to infinites and we are doing so as infinites... I am not saying truth does not matter... We have the word and use the word because it matters.... But as in all relationships there is a lot of give and take, and in the end everyone must have enough, of truth, or love, or justice, or of any number of moral forms we find essential... It cannot be measured out by the tea spoon or cup... It is not precision one needs, but the desire for the relationship within all of these forms that is needed... The logic of physics and of morality are different, and require different methods...


If you say so. But one day, you really ought to consider what you are talking about, since I haven't any idea what it is. It may be what you consider philosophy, but trust me, it isn't.
0 Replies
 
guigus
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jul, 2010 12:07 pm
@Fido,
Fido wrote:
Only in physics can truth be occasionally considered as truth... In moral reality, truth is a moral form, and like all forms -is a form of relationship... If we say: What is Justice, or: What is Love, we are refering to infinites and we are doing so as infinites... I am not saying truth does not matter... We have the word and use the word because it matters.... But as in all relationships there is a lot of give and take, and in the end everyone must have enough, of truth, or love, or justice, or of any number of moral forms we find essential... It cannot be measured out by the tea spoon or cup... It is not precision one needs, but the desire for the relationship within all of these forms that is needed... The logic of physics and of morality are different, and require different methods...


What if I said to you that what you are saying isn't true? Or you think it doesn't matter if what you are saying is true or false? Perhaps you will say now precisely the opposite of what you just said, just for fun... Usually when people say to you that "truth" is just a word, they do not mean it about their own words.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jul, 2010 01:51 pm
@guigus,
guigus wrote:

Fido wrote:
Only in physics can truth be occasionally considered as truth... In moral reality, truth is a moral form, and like all forms -is a form of relationship... If we say: What is Justice, or: What is Love, we are refering to infinites and we are doing so as infinites... I am not saying truth does not matter... We have the word and use the word because it matters.... But as in all relationships there is a lot of give and take, and in the end everyone must have enough, of truth, or love, or justice, or of any number of moral forms we find essential... It cannot be measured out by the tea spoon or cup... It is not precision one needs, but the desire for the relationship within all of these forms that is needed... The logic of physics and of morality are different, and require different methods...


Well, "truth" is just a word, of course. What else would it be. But truth is not a word, it is what the word "truth" designates. So: 1. "truth" is just a word, but truth is not a word at all, and so could not be just a word.

What if I said to you that what you are saying isn't true? Or you think it doesn't matter if what you are saying is true or false? Perhaps you will say now precisely the opposite of what you just said, just for fun... Usually when people say to you that "truth" is just a word, they do not mean it about their own words.
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jul, 2010 08:17 pm
People who did not excel in their day jobs became famous in their hobbies or fun activities. J.K. Rowling was a school teacher and a single mom on welfare when she started writing the Hogswart sensation Harry Potter.
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jul, 2010 11:07 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:

guigus wrote:

Fido wrote:
Only in physics can truth be occasionally considered as truth... In moral reality, truth is a moral form, and like all forms -is a form of relationship... If we say: What is Justice, or: What is Love, we are refering to infinites and we are doing so as infinites... I am not saying truth does not matter... We have the word and use the word because it matters.... But as in all relationships there is a lot of give and take, and in the end everyone must have enough, of truth, or love, or justice, or of any number of moral forms we find essential... It cannot be measured out by the tea spoon or cup... It is not precision one needs, but the desire for the relationship within all of these forms that is needed... The logic of physics and of morality are different, and require different methods...


Well, "truth" is just a word, of course. What else would it be. But truth is not a word, it is what the word "truth" designates. So: 1. "truth" is just a word, but truth is not a word at all, and so could not be just a word.

What if I said to you that what you are saying isn't true? Or you think it doesn't matter if what you are saying is true or false? Perhaps you will say now precisely the opposite of what you just said, just for fun... Usually when people say to you that "truth" is just a word, they do not mean it about their own words.



I think that what they intend to say is that there is no truth, but there is only the word, "truth". Why they would say such a thing is something else again.
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jul, 2010 11:12 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:

guigus wrote:

Fido wrote:
Only in physics can truth be occasionally considered as truth... In moral reality, truth is a moral form, and like all forms -is a form of relationship... If we say: What is Justice, or: What is Love, we are refering to infinites and we are doing so as infinites... I am not saying truth does not matter... We have the word and use the word because it matters.... But as in all relationships there is a lot of give and take, and in the end everyone must have enough, of truth, or love, or justice, or of any number of moral forms we find essential... It cannot be measured out by the tea spoon or cup... It is not precision one needs, but the desire for the relationship within all of these forms that is needed... The logic of physics and of morality are different, and require different methods...


Well, "truth" is just a word, of course. What else would it be. But truth is not a word, it is what the word "truth" designates. So: 1. "truth" is just a word, but truth is not a word at all, and so could not be just a word.

What if I said to you that what you are saying isn't true? Or you think it doesn't matter if what you are saying is true or false? Perhaps you will say now precisely the opposite of what you just said, just for fun... Usually when people say to you that "truth" is just a word, they do not mean it about their own words.



When anyone talks about moral reality proof is sort of hard to come by, but most people seem to have some reason to believe as they do... And so do I, so I would try to be nice to you if you say what I say isn't true... I havin't got any money on it, and I would still consider you a fool... Because even though truth is a form of relationship, and in moral reality is an infinite, still, in physical reality it is a meaning with being, and the meaning of truth is life... If people do not have enough truth they do not have enough life, and if they have no truth, they are dead... But, this is a terrible way to decide what truth is, by who the want of truth kills... It is like asking what two is, hoping to come up with 1+1... In moral reality we must reason backwards from the consequences to suggest there is such a thing as moral truth... So we can never say truth is only a word, and I do not do so... If you are saying such nonsense, then you are wrong...
0 Replies
 
Pepijn Sweep
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jul, 2010 11:36 pm
@Fido,
I am lucky to be considered not normal enough to serve in Her Majesty's Army (we have a Majesty to, not a major one like the British Queen but a Queen of The Netherlands). I wish they would exempt me from paying taxes, but alas...

I did observe the sheep and the wolves and got bitten by both. In life there's little Justice and expensive to get respecting the social (dis)order we live in. Honor was the one thing Roman citizens had left at the end, not militairy strenght. Did they not cut their thumbs to avoid being asoldier when they couldn't aford a horse and a manservant anymore ?
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Jul, 2010 12:45 am
@Pepijn Sweep,
Quote:
I am lucky to be considered not normal enough to serve in Her Majesty's Army
what does that mean exactly...that you have done time in the psych ward maybe??

Not that I would look down on you if you have, some of the most interesting people that I have met in this life have done some time....
Pepijn Sweep
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Jul, 2010 12:54 am
@hawkeye10,
Ahh ! No the first testing was done before I visited the hospital. Then there was not a medical history but I was very, very self-confinced. No respect for authority. Only brute force and lack of finance could stop me.

Mellowed out by know and live a decent life. No more ward, but a monkey existence in a monkey world. Glad I started internet again. I think it's a good thing my environment has finally respected my norm, including my extatic hapiness or intens sadness. I am a very, very sensitive person...

Not Equal Drunk
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Sat 3 Jul, 2010 01:02 am
@Pepijn Sweep,
Hmmm,, I must be drunk because I can make no sense of your response....
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 07/25/2021 at 03:03:15