The ontological error of Philosophy

[Logik]

So I pose a question to all which deem themselves wise philosophers: Do you recognize that the question "How does X behave?" is infinitely more useful than the question "What is X?"

I agree with your point, but am infinitely pissed off with the use of infinitely, so alas, I must disagree.

It was used for dramatic effect. I subscribe to Ultrafinitism

Where I use the word "infinite" you should insert your preferred upper bound such that your sensibilities are not being triggered

[attofishpi]

So I pose a question to all which deem themselves wise philosophers: Do you recognize that the question "How does X behave?" is infinitely more useful than the question "What is X?"

I agree with your point, but am infinitely pissed off with the use of infinitely, so alas, I must disagree.

It was used for dramatic effect. I subscribe to Ultrafinitism

Where I use the word "infinite" you should insert your preferred upper bound such that your sensibilities are not being triggered

Oh, well in that case:- >

[Speakpigeon]

The problem is that every black box's transfer characteristics are ALWAYS specified in respect to time, and you believe time is uncountable.
http://mathonline.wikidot.com/the-set-o ... ncountable

I'm sure you understanding of mathematical notions is pretty flimsy at best but maybe you could be motivated... Ah, noooo, I think I know the answer.
So, anyway, you are being funny. You're reasoning, or resonating I should say, like Zeno.
From now on, I'll call you Zeno. Or rather, Zeno-logic! Ze-no-logic, get it?
Zeno-logic! It's you.
Spit image.
Anyway, you might have noticed most physicists don't venture claiming time is countable. Why would that be, do you think? Clue: Zeno had no logic.
And my point was that you can't get rid of "x exist", not that we could get rid of Fx. Funny how you manage to never ever understand what people say. Did you noticed, Zeno-logic?
EB

[Logik]

The problem is that every black box's transfer characteristics are ALWAYS specified in respect to time, and you believe time is uncountable.
http://mathonline.wikidot.com/the-set-o ... ncountable

I'm sure you understanding of mathematical notions is pretty flimsy at best but maybe you could be motivated... Ah, noooo, I think I know the answer.
So, anyway, you are being funny. You're reasoning, or resonating I should say, like Zeno.
From now on, I'll call you Zeno. Or rather, Zeno-logic! Ze-no-logic, get it?
Zeno-logic! It's you.
Spit image.
Anyway, you might have noticed most physicists don't venture claiming time is countable. Why would that be, do you think? Clue: Zeno had no logic.
And my point was that you can't get rid of "x exist", not that we could get rid of Fx. Funny how you manage to never ever understand what people say. Did you noticed, Zeno-logic?
EB

You seem rather rattled. I am sorry about the Notre Dame.

Please go and grieve. Respond to me when you are a little less emotional. I am still waiting for you to answer my question from the other thread:

Assign numerical values to the concepts of "yesterday", "today" and "tomorrow" on your infinite-reals (0,1) model

[Eodnhoj7]

There is a mantra in the field of scientific inquiry: If you ask a stupid question - you will get a stupid answer.

I am of the opinion that all ontological questions in the form of "What is X?" are stupid questions.
We live in a dynamic universe. Change is the only constant is colloquial wisdom.

Time and time I observe that ontological questions lead to answers which are untestable and unfalsifiable. e.g not even wrong
This happens so frequently that I am convinced ontological inquiry is a procedural error in this universe.

So I pose a question to all which deem themselves wise philosophers: Do you recognize that the question "How does X behave?" is infinitely more useful than the question "What is X?"

"What" is an objectification of a specific phenomena and as such is and observation of relations which are grounded in these "dynamic" or "changing" properties you claim.

Keep in mind the "who/what", "when/where", "how/why" are fundamentally dichotomies of different aspects of being where "what" (as being objective in nature) is balance by the more subjective "who" thus necessitating certain subject/object dichotomies inseparable from the act of questioning itself and thus giving grounds to all questions as having a nature inseparable from that of the subject/object dichotomy synthesis under the medial term "axiom"...in simpler terms all questions have a axiomatic state where subject/object are, again using this term, "inseparable."

Relativism only points to a consistent set of values where contextuality is the determining factor of morality; hence there is a right and wrong nature to being given a specific context.

Secondly a question of definition occurs in regards to the nature of relativism. If I argue there is no real rectangle because of infinite variety of rectangles have multiple variations of the same line there is "some" credence to this point (however this example in itself is debatable)...this is considering from one view point a rectangle may in fact be a square and a square a rectangle given the angle of observation. However if I change the contextual definition of a rectangle to that of strictly "4 points connected" the context is not only more simplified but contains a constant general status which allows for an infinite set of variations without some intuitive sense of "chaos" or fragmentation in definition.

[RCSaunders]

So I pose a question to all which deem themselves wise philosophers: Do you recognize that the question "How does X behave?" is infinitely more useful than the question "What is X?"

What X is must be known before what X does (its behavior) can be known. It is what X is (its nature or identity) that determines what X does.

An existent's identity or nature are, of course, all its characteristics or attributes (qualities) which will include its behavior, but its behavior is determined by its nature. Iodine, for example, is a purple-black non-metallic solid, a halogen along with fluorine, chlorine, bromine, and astatine. How iodine behaves, especially relative to other elements, is determined by iodine's own nature and structure.

As another writer pointed out, it is difficult to see how one could describe how anything behaves without first identifying what the thing is one is talking about.

[PeteJ]

" Do you recognize that the question "How does X behave?" is infinitely more useful than the question "What is X?"

No. I see the first as a question for physics and find it rather prosaic and dull. The second is well worth study.

The second question gives rise to (among others) the 'problem of attributes' and in turn this leads us to Kant's indescribable 'thing in itself', which in turn leads us to the philosophy of non-dualism for which nothing really exists. It's a question that has to be asked and answered if we are ever to understand philosophy. Not to ask it is to abandon philosophy.

The Oracle advises that we ask 'What is X' where X is me.

[Univalence]

It's a question that has to be asked and answered if we are ever to understand philosophy. Not to ask it is to abandon philosophy.

OK. Show us. Answer the following two questions without using verbs:

What is understanding?
What is philosophy?

The Oracle advises that we ask 'What is X' where X is me.

It's not who I am underneath, but what I DO that defines me --Batman

If philosophizing doesn't produce anything actionable, you are stuck in a circularity.

[Belinda]

" Do you recognize that the question "How does X behave?" is infinitely more useful than the question "What is X?"

No. I see the first as a question for physics and find it rather prosaic and dull. The second is well worth study.

Better : What are the attributes of X ? And what is the essence of X?

Me, I don't believe there are essences, only attributes.

[PeteJ]

It's a question that has to be asked and answered if we are ever to understand philosophy. Not to ask it is to abandon philosophy.

OK. Show us. Answer the following two questions without using verbs:

What is understanding?
What is philosophy?

I have no idea how this could be done.

If philosophizing doesn't produce anything actionable, you are stuck in a circularity.

Quite so. I'm assuming that we do it well.

[Univalence]

I have no idea how this could be done.

Then it's only fair to conclude that you have no idea what you are even asking; or why you are even asking it.

[PeteJ]

I have no idea how this could be done.

Then it's only fair to conclude that you have no idea what you are even asking; or why you are even asking it.

I see. So if a person cannot explain something without using any verbs they are a fool. Is that it?

Are you aware verbs are required for sentences?

[Univalence]

I see. So if a person cannot explain something without using any verbs they are a fool. Is that it?

Your words. Not mine.

Are you aware verbs are required for sentences?

Why do you need verbs if you are only going to tell me what philosophy IS?
Surely you only need verbs if you are going to tell me what philosophy DOES.

[PeteJ]

I see. So if a person cannot explain something without using any verbs they are a fool. Is that it?

Your words. Not mine.

Are you aware verbs are required for sentences?

Why do you need verbs if you are only going to tell me what philosophy IS?
Surely you only need verbs if you are going to tell me what philosophy DOES.

Perhaps you could demonstrate how to explain, say, a rock without using verbs.

[Univalence]

Perhaps you could demonstrate how to explain, say, a rock without using verbs.

Perhaps you are agreeing with the argument being made?

You can't explain what things are, only how they behave.

One could almost label you an anti-realist.