Is philosophy only as good as the Information ?

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
User avatar
Kunt
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2017 2:24 pm

Is philosophy only as good as the Information ?

Post by Kunt »

What if an intellectual is wrong in terms of the information that is used to form the idea?
If the idea derives from the mouse eating the cheese but in truth, the cheese was eaten by a bird
then we must see that the figments of the truth ie the information is key to the philosophy.
Therefore is philosophy only as good as the information?
Celebritydiscodave2
Posts: 200
Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2017 6:52 pm

Re: Is philosophy only as good as the Information ?

Post by Celebritydiscodave2 »

Philosophy has nothing whatsoever to do with any at all information, that`s the product of philosophy only, and of philosophy past, it has no time for ego, for gods, it is itself strictly no more than than the process. As for usefulness, it is only as useful as the instinct for that which is once that which is has been uncovered, and it may be uncovered by anyone and at any time.
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2888
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Is philosophy only as good as the Information ?

Post by -1- »

Kunt, it's worse. Bad information can cause bad philosophy, but good information can cause bad philosophy, too, because of faulty application of logic.

In fact, if you are willing to draw a parallel between arguments (claims supported by reason) and philosophy then please consider:

An argument consists of assumptions (sometimes called premises) and logic that ties the premises together to draw a conclusion.

If the assumption is false, but the logic is good, the argument must be discarded.
If the assumption is good, but the logic is false, the argument must be discarded.
If both the assumption and the logic are false, the argument must be discarded.
If the assumption and the logic are both sound, the argument must be accepted.

Thus:

All men are animals that die.
Hugo is a man.
Therefore Hugo will die.

here, the assumptions are that men die, hugo is a man.

The logic states that all in a set die, and hugo is part of that set.

Therefore hugo will die is a valid argument.

-------------------

All men can fly. Hugo is a man. Hugo can fly.

Logic good, assumption false: therefore conclusion is false.

-------------------------------------

All men eat to survive. A house is red. Therefore hugo is seventy-five years of age.

Assumptions are good; logic is faulty; argument must be rejected.

----------------------------

All men are green in the inside. Hugo is a moth's balls with a desire to reach nirvana with his bare hands. Therefore the captain must keep the course to due south.

Both logic and assumptions are false. Argument must be rejected.
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2888
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Is philosophy only as good as the Information ?

Post by -1- »

Celebritydiscodave2 wrote: Tue Nov 14, 2017 9:08 am Philosophy has nothing whatsoever to do with any at all information, that`s the product of philosophy only, and of philosophy past, it has no time for ego, for gods, it is itself strictly no more than than the process. As for usefulness, it is only as useful as the instinct for that which is once that which is has been uncovered, and it may be uncovered by anyone and at any time.
So a process has nothing to do with its own product...????

Does a process have time for anything? It has no mind of its own. So it can't appreciate what ego is, or gods; it can deal with those things, by way of arguments of the philosophers, but philosophy itself is impartial: it neither tolerates, nor rejects egos or gods.

A lot of your claims, Celebritydiscodave2, anthropomorphizes philosophy, while you yourself declare that it's a process. A process is not a physical being, much less one with a mind. You can't attribute preferences to such a process.
Celebritydiscodave2
Posts: 200
Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2017 6:52 pm

Re: Is philosophy only as good as the Information ?

Post by Celebritydiscodave2 »

Philosophy, that is to say as opposed to assumption/assumed information, assumption only ever being static, static assumption, is nothing if it is not a process. and a process founded in raw insight. Philosophy denotes reasoning, reasoning cannot be borrowed as though it were mere information, no, it must have been arrived at for oneself, or otherwise not considered reasoned in production. This process of one`s reasoning/philosophizing is extended under circumstances of philosophical progression. The alternative is not to be engaged in actual philosophy, but rather, merely the history of philosophy, come process, perhaps recent, but still history. That which has been compiled during philosophical process exists now as assumption, and that which is actually happening now as of current mental process, as process, thus philosophy. Hopefully I am deferring a little power away from the gods and those ivory towers? Genuine philosophy is not concerned for the borrowing come stealing of assumed information from others, it is concerned only with insight, and real world insight can exist only where one possess one`s own, not just for half of a process, but for the entirety of it. To take half the information of how to love a person from a second party and then to add the rest yourself is neither philosophy nor the process of it, an entire process must be understood by at least one individual. This is not however true of philosophy in science, and scientific philosophy can be a singular process.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Is philosophy only as good as the Information ?

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Philosophy is a synthesis of measurement systems through the observation of definition. In these respects it provides the boundaries for information, with information being the approximate nature of philosophy as a structural extension of the measurement systems it observes.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Is philosophy only as good as the Information ?

Post by bahman »

Kunt wrote: Sun Nov 12, 2017 2:52 pm What if an intellectual is wrong in terms of the information that is used to form the idea?
If the idea derives from the mouse eating the cheese but in truth, the cheese was eaten by a bird
then we must see that the figments of the truth ie the information is key to the philosophy.
Therefore is philosophy only as good as the information?
Philosophy is an attempt to construct knowledge based on information. What is information? Information is a form in a substance which can be perceived by an agent. What is knowledge? A structure in information which can be comprehended by an agent.
Celebritydiscodave2
Posts: 200
Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2017 6:52 pm

Re: Is philosophy only as good as the Information ?

Post by Celebritydiscodave2 »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Nov 24, 2017 12:32 am Philosophy is a synthesis of measurement systems through the observation of definition. In these respects it provides the boundaries for information, with information being the approximate nature of philosophy as a structural extension of the measurement systems it observes.
That is no different to saying that in forming my opinion I thought long and hard, it`s not incorrect, and nor are at least another 1000 combinations of term approximating the same. My contention is a novel one however, and it is to add something that we are here, it is not merely the opinion of the masses, I contend that this term philosophy would to advantage be serviced if applied only to the actual process in progression. The alternative, the current one, a poor one, is that any and all insight that one wishes to promote is labelled philosophy. There are ample terms that would better highlight the product of philosophical application. Philosophy should not be considered information, there are enough snobs in the world without thee presence here, so philosophy should not be considered only as good as the information, but rather, philosophy is as good as the process. The product of the process, of philosophy, are affirmations, sentiments, visions, clarifications, statements of truth, insights, etc.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Is philosophy only as good as the Information ?

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Celebritydiscodave2 wrote: Mon Nov 27, 2017 10:56 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Nov 24, 2017 12:32 am Philosophy is a synthesis of measurement systems through the observation of definition. In these respects it provides the boundaries for information, with information being the approximate nature of philosophy as a structural extension of the measurement systems it observes.
That is no different to saying that in forming my opinion I thought long and hard, it`s not incorrect, and nor are at least another 1000 combinations of term approximating the same. My contention is a novel one however, and it is to add something that we are here, it is not merely the opinion of the masses, I contend that this term philosophy would to advantage be serviced if applied only to the actual process in progression. The alternative, the current one, a poor one, is that any and all insight that one wishes to promote is labelled philosophy. There are ample terms that would better highlight the product of philosophical application. Philosophy should not be considered information, there are enough snobs in the world without thee presence here, so philosophy should not be considered only as good as the information, but rather, philosophy is as good as the process. The product of the process, of philosophy, are affirmations, sentiments, visions, clarifications, statements of truth, insights, etc.
The information, that modern philosophy uses to expand upon, is still formed from specific axioms that define the same information. This applies to physics, mathematics, psychology, etc. where each of the sciences, and their corresponding sub-sciences, are molded through specific axioms that mold the sciences themselves.

In these respects, and according to your standard of "opinion", these vary same sciences would follow the same form and function of opinions themselves as the axioms that defined them are formed through philosophical inquiry.

Philosophy and information manifest a dualism where one inherently forms the other and they seem to circulate around the "axiom" as the "axis". I would argue that philosophy is only as good as its axioms as information is both formed from axioms and are axioms within themselves (after enough structure is given to them).

The question occurs, and this is a serious one, "Does philosophy have to redevelop or re-observed the nature of the axiom"?
Celebritydiscodave2
Posts: 200
Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2017 6:52 pm

Re: Is philosophy only as good as the Information ?

Post by Celebritydiscodave2 »

Yes it is, and the expansion/attempt upon expansion is process/philosophy. That which has gone would to advantage, for reasons of rational levelling be better considered sentiment. Axions are the smoke screen, they warp/steer, even channel perception, in my opinion they too readily assume to create fact from out of what should still be considered conjecture. They are the product of the institutional elite, a bias, and the best process is devoid of such. True philosophers, of which there are few, do their thinking uncontained, and among their number there may even exist those without a solitary qualification to their name. That which in reality is, need not be owned by the gods. The arguments which are already out there may be borrowed at best, they add nothing of our own. Learning them, and repeatably hearing only them, more especially when by way every single last word combination available, creates bias, it can even brain wash, it forms absolute and totally unshakable perception. There exists no genuine philosophical process in an environment of bias, only perhaps an absolute and even universal perception of it.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Is philosophy only as good as the Information ?

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Celebritydiscodave2 wrote: Tue Nov 28, 2017 12:54 am Yes it is, and the expansion/attempt upon expansion is process/philosophy.
That is an interesting point...the continual expansion and re-expansion of philosophy. Would it be better if philosophy condensed itself further? Yes? No? Maybe?

Does it need to address further the nature of the "axiom" as both the beginning, middle and end of the philosophical process?


That which has gone would to advantage, for reasons of rational levelling be better considered sentiment. Axions are the smoke screen, they warp/steer, even channel perception, in my opinion they too readily assume to create fact from out of what should still be considered conjecture. They are the product of the institutional elite, a bias, and the best process is devoid of such.
Knowledge, much like institutions, ebb and flows and resynthesizes into further form yet the constants of "being" and "non-being" maintain themselves as the same. Could institutions be blame for what they are, considering they are merely extensions of society itself. Should we blame ourselves just as much?


True philosophers, of which there are few, do their thinking uncontained, and among their number there may even exist those without a solitary qualification to their name.

No-one agrees as to what a true philosopher is, and those that do form institutions around them.

That which in reality is, need not be owned by the gods.
The gods are merely extensions of ourselves, to blame to gods is to blame ourselves.
The arguments which are already out there may be borrowed at best, they add nothing of our own. Learning them, and repeatably hearing only them, more especially when by way every single last word combination available, creates bias, it can even brain wash, it forms absolute and totally unshakable perception. There exists no genuine philosophical process in an environment of bias, only perhaps an absolute and even universal perception of it.

Knowledge, at its vary foundations, maintains itself against the void. Knowledge is warfare.
Celebritydiscodave2
Posts: 200
Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2017 6:52 pm

Re: Is philosophy only as good as the Information ?

Post by Celebritydiscodave2 »

The thing is, does/should it matter, surely, all that should actually matter is that there is this continual search for that which actually is. Our time might well be best spent, for at least it is pure unadulterated philosophical process, simply in the creation of our own flawless sentiment. One creates, and this includes us all, whilst the masses suggest to flaws. However, with respect to the finding of flaws, do n`t lets be over hasty, so sleep on it first for at least a single night, for the next philosophical sentiment to be scrutinised may be your own. Even when to be discovered outside the range of our current perception our purpose should be not the reflex fault finding mission, but rather, the discovery of truth. I frequently adjust my thinking when focused for adequate time to complete the process of thought. We are only supposed to be capable of talking around the subject of philosophy, not of actually creating any of our own. Do this to awaken the gods.
EchoesOfTheHorizon
Posts: 356
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2017 6:08 am

Re: Is philosophy only as good as the Information ?

Post by EchoesOfTheHorizon »

Kunt wrote: Sun Nov 12, 2017 2:52 pm What if an intellectual is wrong in terms of the information that is used to form the idea?
If the idea derives from the mouse eating the cheese but in truth, the cheese was eaten by a bird
then we must see that the figments of the truth ie the information is key to the philosophy.
Therefore is philosophy only as good as the information?
If a mouse eating cheese was proven wrong, the philosophical belief that a mouse ate cheese is still valid, given that the mouse ate cheese in someone's imagination, that can be a historical artifact important to referring back to.

I've had a problem with the Golden Fleece story, for example. Every few months, a new little factoid pops up about the location of the Golden Fleece in antiquity. I know the historic terrain around Georgia to Cappadocia, well enough, some of the religions we've archaeologically excavated, and some of the cults from Iraq that had similar beliefs with the region. Yet every once in a while, something will throw me off. It used to be the idea that Egyptians inhabited Colchis. This was resolved eventually with theories that they we one of the 12th century BC Sea People's that ransacked the ancient world, it appears a great many mercenaries from the ancient world lost employment, and set up shop for themselves. It is hard to imagine a force going that far from Egypt for any other reason, but the basic idea of Egypt going around Asia Minor, into "India" is attested is many histories otherwise absurd. Now, knowing the area on the way to the location via land, such as the Harrians, had Indic roots, really does help explain the Egyptian claim that they invaded India... but one absurd little claim doesn't really help me much at all currently, and that was the belief that the Goths, based out of Scandinavia, also maintained in ancient times they fought the Egyptians here too.....

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_ ... d_Tanausis

The Goths in Roman times had this tradition, that they fought Egypt in what is today the Republic of Georgia. This would be like, China and Finland fighting a war in Brazil. Both people have it in their historical record it was fought. How exactly, under what circumstance if ever, I don't know. Problem is, every time I research one of these facts, they start getting supporting evidence.

Can I say Egypt even conquered India, or sent it's armies up the backside of the Black Sea through Russia/Phanagoria? No. That is absurd. However, it may very well be possible Egypt had a long term mercenary group here, who often sent ships off to Egypt, because of a mutual enemy (The Hittite Empire between) and when the Sea People's collapsed, this group deeply influenced by Egyptian culture became a isolate, or was released from Egypt when the demand for gold internationally collapsed (hard to pay them then).... they returned home, and campaigned the ruins of the old trade routes of the Black Sea, and perhaps came into contact with the Goths, or Proto-Goths. That's my working theory for the time being. It would be akin to Xenophon's troops battling around in Persian Asia Minor trying to get home, but in the case of the Hittite collapse, moving through reminent states.

So I have a few theories floating around a highly suspect theory, that may or may not be based off a lie for all I know. Herodotus himself didn't know how certain the stories were, getting them second hand from a priest, but if indeed made up, it means the goths adopted this as a history for their own people.... meaning a ancient tradition existed as if it was the truth. If I fail on all fronts to someday establish Egyptians in Georgia, in some form, it would suggest that latter.

Since history is a subset of philosophy, the maneuvering around examining possibilities is of philosophical interest, as it derives from considerations of the philosophy of history. I have to accept multiple stories, some must be lies or innocent mistakes, left over from antiquity and work out a explanation. May damn well be true some battle happened between forces who really shouldn't of had contact for a good 1000 years. We know the Goths would eventually live in that area, and may of absorbed a population with that memory, of that war. The Crimea is full of evidence of a gothic occupation in later years.

So I gotta keep the real possibility that a seeming lie can be true, given it seems increasingly to have collaboration. And if it is a proven lie, then I gotta accept historians and philosophers of later eras accepted it as the truth, and proceed off of that.
Celebritydiscodave2
Posts: 200
Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2017 6:52 pm

Re: Is philosophy only as good as the Information ?

Post by Celebritydiscodave2 »

If a mouse eating cheese was proven wrong, the philosophical belief that a mouse ate cheese is still valid, given that the mouse ate cheese in someone's imagination, that can be a historical artifact important to referring back to.

The belief is valid if that was what was believed, but nothing is added to the philosophical process if the belief is subsequently shown to be entirely flawed in terms of that which actually is. The search is only ever for that which actually is, not for truth, it`s perceptual, not for one`s reality, the same, and certainly not for that which an individual, any and all individuals, the gods included in, may merely believe. Genuine philosophical process is concerned with informational insight, not with fairy tale imagination. Here it could just be that those supposed gods require to get up to speed a bit, for their imagination is still only imagination, the same product as our own, this whatever they may try and brain wash you into believing. There is never more snobbery than in this world of philosophy, intellectual snobbery, it impedes process. They are not a different race, they are merely published.

puSo I gotta keep the real possibility that a seeming lie can be true, given it seems increasingly to have collaboration. And if it is a proven lie, then I gotta accept historians and philosophers of later eras accepted it as the truth, and proceed off of that.blished.

Do you mean "seeming false information" and "seeming accurate information" ? One`s imagination never lies, for this is only ever a witting circumstance, but it is too often off course.
Post Reply