"Project Logic" #1

[Arising_uk]

Given that you've been using two personas to talk to yourself has this thread not already been a Socratic dialogue? Albeit a schizophrenic one.

[wleg]

uk,

Given the purpose of Project Logic is to buy propositional sentences that enhance philosophical knowledge, what is the purpose of your post?

[Arising_uk]

To question the philosophical point of the reason given for starting yet another thread with this title and topic.

[wleg]

uk,

Chuckle, you definitely have difficulty expressing yourself, if that was the reason for your previous post. I am curious though, why does it concern you there might be three threads Project Logic 1-2-3? Obviously you have no interest in advancing philosophical knowledge and arguably your trollish nature is the reason for your last two posts. While it goes against my nature to appease trolls, let me say that Project Logic #1-2 will probably be deleted not too long after #3 is created.

[Arising_uk]

uk,

Chuckle, you definitely have difficulty expressing yourself, if that was the reason for your previous post.

Not sure why you are gently laughing? As I was not trying to express why I asked the question but asking you why you thought a new thread was needed to support some form of Socratic dialogue when in this thread you display exactly Platos version of such a thing, i.e. you talk to yourself via two personas to make a point that you already agree with. That and promising money to yourself.

I am curious though, why does it concern you there might be three threads Project Logic 1-2-3?

Aesthetics and clarity mainly.

Obviously you have no interest in advancing philosophical knowledge and arguably your trollish nature is the reason for your last two posts. While it goes against my nature to appease trolls, let me say that Project Logic #1-2 will probably be deleted not too long after #3 is created.

Will you be deleting them?

I give two fucks about your 'nature', my take is that you call "troll" to avoid the question.

I do wonder why you didn't or don't just ask the Mods to move your thread back? Instead you appear to want to play politics.

What do you mean by "philosophical knowledge"?

[wleg]

Uk, as one who is active on a philosophy forum, identifies himself with Philosophy, and ask; “What do you mean by philosophical knowledge?”, demonstrates the reason for Project Logic. I assume you are asking; what I mean by philosophical knowledge as opposed to philosophical gibberish. Philosophical gibberish is propositional statements that cannot be supported by logical argument. Any philosophical propositional statement by any philosopher not supported by logical argument is gibberish and cannot be philosophical knowledge. Realistic philosophical knowledge is illustrated by a propositional sentence that identifies a philosophical concept and other concepts that relate to the existence of each other.

Not to purposely antagonize you, but I suspect you don’t have an interest in advancing philosophical knowledge and feel compelled by your trollish nature to disrupt any effort that does. I’ve had fifteen years experience with trolls on philosophy forums and it is obvious by their post who has a desire to advance philosophical knowledge and who doesn’t. Always the trolls are those who identify themselves with Philosophy and feel threatened by those with a desire to advance the knowledge. If I thought it possible to instill in you a desire to advance philosophical knowledge I would try, but I don’t think I am capable of doing so and certainly not capable or have the time to persuade all the other trolls. I ask you then to save yourself from your trollish nature simply by attempting to understand how realistic knowledge is grounded on understanding the nature of the existence of the things and conditions we need to construct knowledge of. I will guarantee that once you understand your only philosophical interest will be to advance the knowledge.

Wayne Leggette Sr.

[Arising_uk]

Knew I shouldn't have got out of sequence. So I'll get back to this after I attend an earlier request by you.

[Arising_uk]

Arising_uk,

I will send you $600 if you will support each of your six propositional sentences with logical arguments.

Wayne Leggette Sr.

Hmm... you'd have to say what you think Logic and a logical argument is? Still.

The sentences 1-3 below come from the subject of Logic, specifically Propositional Logic which is the study of propositions and their interaction with the logical constants and how this relates to their truth or not.

1. "Something can be or not be."

2. "Nothing can be and not be."

3. "If something then something else, and that something is, that something else is."

In symbols where P, Q represent any proposition, "or" by v, "and" by ^ , "not" by ¬ , "If ... then ..." by -> and "therefore" by |- .

1. P v ¬P

2. ¬(P ^ ¬P)

3. P -> Q, P |- (therefore) Q.

1. and 2. show the rules of thought with respect to the logical constants "and" and "or" and a proposition and its truth,(Truth is not decided in Logic but Logic sets the boundaries of what can be said truthfully with propositions), so 1. and 2. are called Tautologies and are always true no matter if the propostion is the case or not. 2. also shows a Contradiction, P ^ ¬P which is always false hence if you then negate it becomes a tautology. 3. Shows one of the forms of logical propositional deduction or inference, modus ponens. Knowing these things increases philosophical knowledge as it allows one to understand how reason and logical deduction works when expressed in declarative language.

4. "If something is necessary then that something is."

Hmm... have to think on why "necessity" invoves existence.

5. "I am."

This is from Descartes Method of Doubt and its a practice. Go ahead, see what you can doubt about the world and then see if you can doubt this in propostion, as you defeat yourself when you open your mouth. A useful advance in philosophical knowledge. Try and reconnect it to the world is another useful exercise.

6. "I can speak and think in a language therefore at least one other exists besides myself."

This was my answer to the above when I found Descartes's 'God' to be doubtable. It assumes the premise that one can't have a single language user as true but then I think that undoubtable as well.

[wleg]

uk,

1. "Something can be or not be." Descartes

My reply: A thing cannot both exist and not exist at the same moment in time.

I don’t think it necessary to concern ourselves with Descartes, considering the nature of his thinking. Why in the world could we think there is any profit in concerning ourselves with people who never understood how knowledge is constructed?

When we understand the nature of any thing is a construct of its’ attributes and knowledge of a thing is a construct of recognizing its’ attributes, why confuse our thinking with what philosophers say who never understood.

Wayne Leggette Sr.

[Felasco]

I suggest we not hijack this fellow's threads with discussion of the threads themselves, and either play the game he has offered, or don't play.

That is, if we think the thread is silly, we most convincingly vote with our feet.

[Arising_uk]

uk,

1. "Something can be or not be." Descartes

My reply: A thing cannot both exist and not exist at the same moment in time.

No idea why you are just restating 2.?

I don’t think it necessary to concern ourselves with Descartes, considering the nature of his thinking. Why in the world could we think there is any profit in concerning ourselves with people who never understood how knowledge is constructed?

Pardon!? You think a man who invented the co-ordinate system for geometry, algebratized geometry and was pretty much a founding-father to Newton, Leibniz and Natural Philosophy never understood how knowledge was constructed?

When we understand the nature of any thing is a construct of its’ attributes and knowledge of a thing is a construct of recognizing its’ attributes, why confuse our thinking with what philosophers say who never understood.

What do you mean by "construct"?

You have not said which of my propositions meet the requirement of being logically supported? Given that some of them come from the subject Logic I'd say you should be depositing my fees to the charity I mentioned in the near future but I'll be interested to hear why not.

[Arising_uk]

Uk, as one who is active on a philosophy forum, identifies himself with Philosophy, and ask; “What do you mean by philosophical knowledge?”, demonstrates the reason for Project Logic. I assume you are asking; what I mean by philosophical knowledge as opposed to philosophical gibberish. Philosophical gibberish is propositional statements that cannot be supported by logical argument. Any philosophical propositional statement by any philosopher not supported by logical argument is gibberish and cannot be philosophical knowledge. Realistic philosophical knowledge is illustrated by a propositional sentence that identifies a philosophical concept and other concepts that relate to the existence of each other.

Give me an example?

Not to purposely antagonize you, but I suspect you don’t have an interest in advancing philosophical knowledge and feel compelled by your trollish nature to disrupt any effort that does. I’ve had fifteen years experience with trolls on philosophy forums and it is obvious by their post who has a desire to advance philosophical knowledge and who doesn’t. Always the trolls are those who identify themselves with Philosophy and feel threatened by those with a desire to advance the knowledge. If I thought it possible to instill in you a desire to advance philosophical knowledge I would try, but I don’t think I am capable of doing so and certainly not capable or have the time to persuade all the other trolls. I ask you then to save yourself from your trollish nature simply by attempting to understand how realistic knowledge is grounded on understanding the nature of the existence of the things and conditions we need to construct knowledge of. I will guarantee that once you understand your only philosophical interest will be to advance the knowledge.

I find your suspicion baseless as I have attempted to meet the terms of your 'project' and my latest posts were in response to your claim to Socratic methods as the reason for posting yet another 'project'(fair enough, its a free forum). Having been on this forum for a similar amount of time and having read philosophy for much longer I find myself suspicious of those who use sock-puppets and more so when they do not demonstrate the aims they ask others to aspire to.

[wleg]

uk,

Pardon!? You think a man who invented the co-ordinate system for geometry, algebratized geometry and was pretty much a founding-father to Newton, Leibniz and Natural Philosophy never understood how knowledge was constructed?

I don’t doubt the mathematical genius of Descartes but I do doubt the value of math to doing philosophy. If doing philosophy could be mathematically done, it wouldn't be in the senseless state it is in.

The Project will buy propositional sentences supported by logical argument that enhance philosophical knowledge. Quoting the writings of philosophers does not enhance knowledge that already exists. If you will construct propositional sentences supported by logical argument that define the philosophical concepts, that is what The Project is wanting to buy.

Wayne Leggette Sr.

[Piltdownbrain]

You set the "axioms", if Project Logic believes your propositional sentence enhances philosophical knowledge it will buy your sentence.

Wayne Leggette Sr.

I'm a bit confused about how knowledge can be mathematical, after all, maths is facts and more about rigid formuli and numerical technique, while knowledge is a fluid and nuanced perception of random fluctuating relationships of organic realities. Maybe I'm being too poetic, for instance, would the sentence --

'Without language, time and space do not exist' be a semantic copout or a serious attempt at understanding the foundations of cognitive relativity?
Damn, why does philosophy make my head hurt, yet I keep going back to it

[wleg]

Piltdownbrain,

"Without language, time and space do not exist' be a semantic copout or a serious attempt at understanding the foundations of cognitive relativity?"

Would time and space not exist without language or would the condition of time and space still exist, we just would not have words that symbolize the two conditions?