What is P and -P?

[Terrapin Station]

I also asked why you think lack of adaptation is not a problem for Philosophy, but you ignored the question.

No I didn't I answered it. It's only a problem for someone if they desire something they're not getting. It depends on what individual people desire, what they prefer, etc. Nothing is universally a problem or not a problem. For me, philosophy has constant application to practical things, and that's the case for many philosophers, but that's not necessarily something easy to understand without a sufficient background in philosophy to even understand just what it is and isn't.

I am not interested in their general competence, I am interested in their particular competence in their particular field of know-how: Electrical problems.

As I added above before you saw it:
"And of course you might judge that they did a fine job because insofar as you know, everything seems to be working, but maybe they were incompetent and something they did is going to wind up causing huge problems down the road. Unless you know much about electrical work, you don't have a good basis for making an assessment beyond the most superficial, immediate elements that you can relate to in your limited knowledge."

What does "Philosophy going wrong in practice" look like?

A good example is the tenets of logical positivism. It turned out that logical positivism couldn't meet its own criteria for meaning, testability/confirmation, etc., with a result that there are no more logical positivists per se (that is, per the strict criteria set up for it a la the Vienna Circle).

The musicians they worked with. Again, they wouldn't have gotten the gig without the right background, because it's not possible to have the skills, vocabulary, etc. without that background. That's no more possible than it would be for you to speak Chinese fluently, like a native, etc. without a sufficient background/immersion in Chinese.

How is that even possible? How does one even begin to develop a vocabulary about "jazz music" when Jazz music doesn't exist yet?

No musical genre or subgenre emerges whole cloth out of nothing. They all gradually evolve from earlier stuff. By the time there's clearly something that counts as jazz music, there's earlier stuff one has to be versed in to be competent playing the music in question. Again, this is just like natural languages (it just develops more quickly than natural languages). And of course, by the time there were folks like Louis Armstrong on the scene, jazz had already been developing for a couple decades, and Louis Armstrong was first a factor over 100 years ago already.

If your response to this is longer/brings up even more issues--we're already on at least four different topics here, I'm cutting it way down again. I hate when posts keep getting longer and longer.

[Skepdick]

No I didn't I answered it. It's only a problem for someone if they desire something they're not getting. It depends on what individual people desire, what they prefer, etc. Nothing is universally a problem or not a problem. For me, philosophy has constant application to practical things, and that's the case for many philosophers, but that's not necessarily something easy to understand without a sufficient background in philosophy to even understand just what it is and isn't.

We are not talking about universal problems. We are talking about problems in a social context. Matters of practical, everyday human concerns.

If Philosophy has something of such value that extends beyond the walls of its echo chamber - what is it?

Pretend I am a philanthropist with very deep pockets. Convince me to fund your Philosophy project of great human import!

"And of course you might judge that they did a fine job because insofar as you know, everything seems to be working, but maybe they were incompetent and something they did is going to wind up causing huge problems down the road. Unless you know much about electrical work, you don't have a good basis for making an assessment beyond the most superficial, immediate elements that you can relate to in your limited knowledge."

You continue seeking brilliance, instead of avoiding stupidity...

You are looking signs of competence. I am looking for signs of incompetence.

The "most superficial" is still leaps and bounds ahead of zero. Which is where we are with assessing Philosophy.

A good example is the tenets of logical positivism. It turned out that logical positivism can't meet its own criteria for meaning, testability/confirmation, etc., with a result that there are no more logical positivists per se (that is, per the strict criteria set up for it a la the Vienna Circle).

Why is that a "good" example? You don't even have criteria for Philosophising, so by the above example there should be no Philosophers left either.

You are supposed to be in the inner circle. Surely you know about the Münchhausen trilemma? Surely you know about the criterion problem in epistemology? Surely you know it's unsolved and unsolvable?

No musical genre or subgenre emerges whole cloth out of nothing.

Yes. There are influences, but the genre you call "Jazz" emerged before the word "Jazz" emerged! So how do you even get to speak about vocabularies?

They all gradually evolve from earlier stuff. By the time there's a jazz music, there's earlier stuff one has to be versed in to be competent playing the music in question. Again, this is just like natural languages (it just develops more quickly than natural languages). And of course, by the time there were folks like Louis Armstrong on the scene, jazz had already been developing for a couple decades, and Louis Armstrong was first a factor over 100 years ago already.

See, this is why I cannot take you seriously! You keep confusing competence in talking with competence in doing!
Colloquially there is zero relation between being able to talk the talk, and being able to walk the walk.
I mentioned the Green Lumber Fallacy early on, but it went over your head.

Natural language is one form of self-expression. Music is another.

If you want to determine if somebody is "incompetent" in Jazz. Ask them to play a solo. Ask them to re-interpret one of the greats. Give them sheet music. Play them your favourite song and ask them to improvise!

Surely you would recognise their ability to hear and reproduce the music?

[Terrapin Station]

If Philosophy has something of such value that extends beyond the walls of its echo chamber - what is it?

It has value to some individuals and not to others. Do you agree with that?

Pretend I am a philanthropist with very deep pockets. Convince me to fund your Philosophy project of great human import!

If you are someone who thinks it doesn't have value, then there's a good chance I'd not bother trying to persuade you to have a different opinion. I'd make an assessment of that based on what I discover about your personality--how persuadable I believe you to be in general, what I'd need to do to persuade you of something, etc. Given your particular personality that you've displayed here, I'd definitely not bother with trying to persuade you of anything.

[Skepdick]

It has value to some individuals and not to others. Do you agree with that?

You can say that about anything.

The point is that if it's valuable to some, then those who find it valuable can surely articulate the value?

If you are someone who thinks it doesn't have value

I am not someone like that. I am someone who doesn't know whether it has value or not.

Absence of evidence of value is not evidence for absence of value. None the less, there is absence of evidence.

, then there's a good chance I'd not bother trying to persuade you to have a different opinion. I'd make an assessment of that based on what I discover about your personality--how persuadable I believe you to be in general, what I'd need to do to persuade you of something, etc. Given your particular personality that you've displayed here, I'd definitely not bother with trying to persuade you of anything.

So you've persuaded yourself that I cannot be persuaded?

In the context of "The value of Philosophy" does that Indicate that I cannot be persuaded; or that you are not persuasive; or that there's nothing to persuade me about?

[Terrapin Station]

It has value to some individuals and not to others. Do you agree with that?

You can say that about anything.

Sure. And that's probably one good reason not to disagree with it.

The point is that if it's valuable to some, then those who find it valuable can surely articulate the value?

They can tell you what they value in some manner, probably, although it might just be tautologous, but that might not amount to anything for anyone else.

I am not someone like that. I am someone who doesn't know whether it has value or not.

Technically, it's whether you value it or not. Things don't literally have value themselves. It's whether an individual values it or not. "It has value" is a manner of speaking for "I value this." You don't value it at the moment.

[Eodnhoj7]

P must be expressed through the law of identity but the law of identity is nonsensical.

Again, in philosophy, "P" is conventionally just a variable for a proposition. I explained this to you already. That doesn't stop being the case just because you ignore it or don't understand it.

And a proposition can range from anything to "a rose" to "the rose is red".

[Eodnhoj7]

Competency in logic definitely requires familiarity with its history, yes.

So logic was developed on behalf of humans and exists as an invention of group agreement in determining truth from falsity. This is the bandwagon fallacy.

Logic is a manner of thinking about relations. There's a long history of different logics/different approaches to logic or different species of logic that one must be familiar with to be competent in that field.

This manner of thinking was developed by humans, no? And agreed upon by humans, no?

[Eodnhoj7]

P must be expressed through the law of identity but the law of identity is nonsensical.

"=" is undefined except through P. It is the repetition of P which allows "=" to have any meaning and only through P. The absence of repetition of "=" necessitates "=" as being empty of meaning. This repetition of P necessitates P as having the primary identity as it occurs through repetition.. "P is P" necessitates more than one P existing as there are multiple instances of P under "P is P" thus one P is different from another due to different positions of P in time and space.

When referring to the identity of P, as in one instance, it is best just to use "P" alone.

This HAS been tried but 'equally' fails (mind the pun). The use of it CAN be done if one uses 'absolutes' but people interpret this concept in worse defiance than your point. That is, you CAN define everything as 'absolutely unique', but as soon as I use any language, like English here, to set up the colloquial part of explaining the theory/system, you are forced to use the 26 letters of the alphabet in which the argument could only use each letter once. That would be 26 letters maximum to explain the whole system!

Those main 'laws of logic' are about the language we use to express the meaning of identity only. Otherwise you can only mention the term exactly once (as an 'absolute' instance) and just PRAY that others could somehow intuit what you mean by mere chance.

The better way is to permit a class of 'variables' that have NO direct meaning as containers of particular concepts to refer to WHAT the variables MEAN, not their literal symbols. As such, a set theory type of expression of identity is their, "Postulate of 'extenstion'" ["extension" referring to the nature of the symbols to EXTEND to the meaning, beyond the symbol, just as our senses act as symbols of reality EXTERNAL to ourselves.] Here is an example of their first postulate (of most if not all systems of set theories):

(A = B) means identically that ((Given x is any element of A, that has the same element in B) AND [also that](Given y is any element of B, that has the same element in A))

This keeps the variable's distinct in a relatively 'absolute' way, that DEFINES the meaning of the equal sign, "=". But notice the repetition of the symbols cannot be avoided regardless. This particular set theory definition does this to clarify that the meanings of A and B refer to their contents or members, not the symbol as a whole class.

Now, if you still disagree, I can only ask if YOU can express any logical system that improves upon these. And, as I've asked before of others, can you define ANY system without reference to the postulated "laws of logic" referring to the meaning of "consistency, inconsistency, and contradiction"? All we need is one clear example that cannot be confusing.

1. False, one word can have a variety of meanings thus subjecting it to equivocation. Your answer of A=B shows the repetition of underlying sub variables which leaves "=" as undefined. "=" can only be defined through repetition where "= p =" is necessary for "=" to having any underlying identity.

2. As to the logical system: viewtopic.php?f=26&t=30276

[Terrapin Station]

P must be expressed through the law of identity but the law of identity is nonsensical.

Again, in philosophy, "P" is conventionally just a variable for a proposition. I explained this to you already. That doesn't stop being the case just because you ignore it or don't understand it.

And a proposition can range from anything to "a rose" to "the rose is red".

"A rose" isn't a proposition. To be a proposition it would have to say something about the rose.

[Eodnhoj7]

Again, in philosophy, "P" is conventionally just a variable for a proposition. I explained this to you already. That doesn't stop being the case just because you ignore it or don't understand it.

And a proposition can range from anything to "a rose" to "the rose is red".

"A rose" isn't a proposition. To be a proposition it would have to say something about the rose.

"A rose" is a description of a red flower with thorns. "A rose" says something about a unique phenomenon.

Regardless ""the rose is red" equals "the rose is red"" are two instances of a phenomenon in time/space thus observing it from distinct angles as distinctly seperate phenomenon.

[Terrapin Station]

"A rose" is a description of a red flower with thorns. "A rose" says something about a unique phenomenon.

No, it's the name of that sort of flower (which isn't always red). It's not a description of it. "A rose" doesn't state anything, it just names something. Propositions are statements.

[Eodnhoj7]

"A rose" is a description of a red flower with thorns. "A rose" says something about a unique phenomenon.

No, it's the name of that sort of flower (which isn't always red). It's not a description of it. "A rose" doesn't state anything, it just names something. Propositions are statements.

1. You are ignoring: "Regardless ""the rose is red" equals "the rose is red"" are two instances of a phenomenon in time/space thus observing it from distinct angles as distinctly seperate phenomenon."

2. Names are descriptions. "X" is both a "horse" and an "organism" with "horse" and "organism" being the description of "X". All statements are descriptive by nature.

[Terrapin Station]

"A rose" is a description of a red flower with thorns. "A rose" says something about a unique phenomenon.

No, it's the name of that sort of flower (which isn't always red). It's not a description of it. "A rose" doesn't state anything, it just names something. Propositions are statements.

1. You are ignoring: "Regardless ""the rose is red" equals "the rose is red"" are two instances of a phenomenon in time/space thus observing it from distinct angles as distinctly seperate phenomenon."

2. Names are descriptions. "X" is both a "horse" and an "organism" with "horse" and "organism" being the description of "X". All statements are descriptive by nature.

Wrong and wrong. But it's futile explaining why because you're incapable of understanding this stuff.

[Skepdick]

Wrong and wrong. But it's futile explaining why because you're incapable of understanding this stuff.

You assume you "understand" it?

Why?

[Eodnhoj7]

No, it's the name of that sort of flower (which isn't always red). It's not a description of it. "A rose" doesn't state anything, it just names something. Propositions are statements.

1. You are ignoring: "Regardless ""the rose is red" equals "the rose is red"" are two instances of a phenomenon in time/space thus observing it from distinct angles as distinctly seperate phenomenon."

2. Names are descriptions. "X" is both a "horse" and an "organism" with "horse" and "organism" being the description of "X". All statements are descriptive by nature.

Wrong and wrong. But it's futile explaining why because you're incapable of understanding this stuff.

You are ignoring the point because you have no argument.