reasonvemotion,
The Project wants to know the best way to motivate philosophers to ground their statements on logical argument. Since you are willing to explain the best way without payment, The Project thinks you are awesome. Please explain asp.
"Project Logic" #2
-
chaz wyman
- Posts: 5304
- Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm
Re: "Project Logic" moved
Wow 'The Project" can think on its own!!! Spooookkky!!wleg wrote:reasonvemotion,
The Project wants to know the best way to motivate philosophers to ground their statements on logical argument. Since you are willing to explain the best way without payment, The Project thinks you are awesome. Please explain asp.
Re: "Project Logic" moved
chaz,
The Project is proxy for wleg and when The Project says it "thinks", it is speaking as wleg. But of course you would know that if you would stop being the Forum troll and start doing a little thinking. I've participated on several Philosophy Forums over the years and usually there was someone who acted trollish, but you are the only one I've experienced with such an obsessive need for attention and no concern for others. Take some time off and give everyone a break.
The Project is proxy for wleg and when The Project says it "thinks", it is speaking as wleg. But of course you would know that if you would stop being the Forum troll and start doing a little thinking. I've participated on several Philosophy Forums over the years and usually there was someone who acted trollish, but you are the only one I've experienced with such an obsessive need for attention and no concern for others. Take some time off and give everyone a break.
-
reasonvemotion
- Posts: 1813
- Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 1:22 am
Re: "Project Logic" moved
I was under the impression that Philosophy chases questions rather than answers. Is it not more desirable to question than answer.reasonvemotion,
The Project wants to know the best way to motivate philosophers to ground their statements on logical argument. Since you are willing to explain the best way without payment, The Project thinks you are awesome. Please explain asp.
Is Philosophy forced to abide by certain truths? If this were so, it would indeed quell any urge to valiantly delve deeper.
Motivate Philosophers? I would be the least qualified to have any impact/influence on the fine minds of this Forum.
-
chaz wyman
- Posts: 5304
- Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm
Re: "Project Logic" moved
Careful - you might get yourself confused with an inanimate entity - like Kelly.wleg wrote:chaz,
The Project is proxy for wleg and when The Project says it "thinks", it is speaking as wleg. But of course you would know that if you would stop being the Forum troll and start doing a little thinking. I've participated on several Philosophy Forums over the years and usually there was someone who acted trollish, but you are the only one I've experienced with such an obsessive need for attention and no concern for others. Take some time off and give everyone a break.
Re: "Project Logic" moved
reasonvemotion,
Great post, it demands an intelligent reply. I will begin to construct a reply by recognizing the existence of two opposite opinions. The two opinions are:
1- “The purpose of Philosophy is not to answer questions but rather to ask them”
2- “The purpose of Philosophy is to answer questions to understand the conditions we can all agree are important to the satisfactory state of our existence”
Argument that supports opinion #2
If the condition of our existence (human existence) can either be satisfactory and enjoyable or unsatisfactory and miserable then having the ability to construct the answers/knowledge (to understand the conditions that cause our existence to be satisfactory) begins with understanding the nature of knowledge itself. Philosophers can continue to ask the question: “What is the nature of knowledge”, but what benefits mankind is the answer. The question without the answer benefits no one; it only keeps the conversation going at the expense of mankind.
The reason philosophers incessantly keep asking the same questions century after century is they simply can’t answer the questions without first understanding how knowledge is constructed. This lack of ability to answer the philosophical questions and incessant asking the same questions over and over is the pseudo Philosophy we have today.
The purpose of philosophers is to answer the questions that construct the knowledge we need to understand the conditions important to the satisfactory state of our existence. Because knowledge is the most important condition to the satisfactory state of our existence, not answering the question: “What is the nature of knowledge” is the most detrimental condition that effects the state of human existence.
Wayne Leggette Sr.
Great post, it demands an intelligent reply. I will begin to construct a reply by recognizing the existence of two opposite opinions. The two opinions are:
1- “The purpose of Philosophy is not to answer questions but rather to ask them”
2- “The purpose of Philosophy is to answer questions to understand the conditions we can all agree are important to the satisfactory state of our existence”
Argument that supports opinion #2
If the condition of our existence (human existence) can either be satisfactory and enjoyable or unsatisfactory and miserable then having the ability to construct the answers/knowledge (to understand the conditions that cause our existence to be satisfactory) begins with understanding the nature of knowledge itself. Philosophers can continue to ask the question: “What is the nature of knowledge”, but what benefits mankind is the answer. The question without the answer benefits no one; it only keeps the conversation going at the expense of mankind.
The reason philosophers incessantly keep asking the same questions century after century is they simply can’t answer the questions without first understanding how knowledge is constructed. This lack of ability to answer the philosophical questions and incessant asking the same questions over and over is the pseudo Philosophy we have today.
The purpose of philosophers is to answer the questions that construct the knowledge we need to understand the conditions important to the satisfactory state of our existence. Because knowledge is the most important condition to the satisfactory state of our existence, not answering the question: “What is the nature of knowledge” is the most detrimental condition that effects the state of human existence.
Wayne Leggette Sr.
-
reasonvemotion
- Posts: 1813
- Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 1:22 am
Re: "Project Logic" moved
What is the meaning of life?
Are there not a stream of answers, different and new ones everyday. So the question remains unanswered, to the satisfaction of all involved, only to be repeatedly asked over and over again. Challenging, but never resolved. Sometimes, there are no answers.
Are there not a stream of answers, different and new ones everyday. So the question remains unanswered, to the satisfaction of all involved, only to be repeatedly asked over and over again. Challenging, but never resolved. Sometimes, there are no answers.
-
chaz wyman
- Posts: 5304
- Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm
Re: "Project Logic" moved
I think it is fair that we are able and justified to answer that question for ourselves; not in the sense of ;"The Meaning of Life"; what what the meaning of 'my' life is to me.reasonvemotion wrote:What is the meaning of life?
Are there not a stream of answers, different and new ones everyday. So the question remains unanswered, to the satisfaction of all involved, only to be repeatedly asked over and over again. Challenging, but never resolved. Sometimes, there are no answers.
Without that autonomy we might as well pack-up and go to church!
Re: "Project Logic" moved
reasonvemotion,
To ask the question; “What is the meaning of life”, and then be satisfied not to know the answer reminds me of something I read somewhere. “There are intelligent people and there are unintelligent people, but there are no intelligent people who want to be unintelligent, only unintelligent people want this.”
When we ask; “What is the meaning of life”, we identify two existing concepts (meaning and life) we believe are related to the existence of each other and to our own existence. How then is it possible for an intelligent person to not want an intelligent answer to this question? If an intelligent answer has never existed, and the question remains unanswered, the result will be a stream of non-intelligent answers different and new ones every day. This make it appear and appealing to some that there is no answer and should not be an answer. What is appealing about not having an intelligent answer is it creates a license for some to spout their infinite non-intelligent answers. When a non-intelligent answer, is compared to an intelligent answer, most if not all of the time it is obvious to an intelligent person which answer is true.
We are challenged to construct an argument to recognize the one intelligent answer to the question; “what is the meaning of life?”
Argument: When a living organism is conscious that the state of it’s’ existence (life) depends on satisfying its’ needs, the things and conditions that satisfy its’ needs have conscious meaning to the organism. To satisfy any need is pleasurable and there is a tendency to satisfy our needs in the most pleasurable way. Thus, the meaning of life is our consciousnes of the things and conditions that satisfy our needs in the most pleasurable way.
If the logic is hard to understand, imagine that all the things and conditions we use to satisfy our needs suddenly vanish. We would cease to exist and nothing could have meaning.
Those who disagree, please construct an argument to justify your different answer.
Wayne Leggette Sr.
To ask the question; “What is the meaning of life”, and then be satisfied not to know the answer reminds me of something I read somewhere. “There are intelligent people and there are unintelligent people, but there are no intelligent people who want to be unintelligent, only unintelligent people want this.”
When we ask; “What is the meaning of life”, we identify two existing concepts (meaning and life) we believe are related to the existence of each other and to our own existence. How then is it possible for an intelligent person to not want an intelligent answer to this question? If an intelligent answer has never existed, and the question remains unanswered, the result will be a stream of non-intelligent answers different and new ones every day. This make it appear and appealing to some that there is no answer and should not be an answer. What is appealing about not having an intelligent answer is it creates a license for some to spout their infinite non-intelligent answers. When a non-intelligent answer, is compared to an intelligent answer, most if not all of the time it is obvious to an intelligent person which answer is true.
We are challenged to construct an argument to recognize the one intelligent answer to the question; “what is the meaning of life?”
Argument: When a living organism is conscious that the state of it’s’ existence (life) depends on satisfying its’ needs, the things and conditions that satisfy its’ needs have conscious meaning to the organism. To satisfy any need is pleasurable and there is a tendency to satisfy our needs in the most pleasurable way. Thus, the meaning of life is our consciousnes of the things and conditions that satisfy our needs in the most pleasurable way.
If the logic is hard to understand, imagine that all the things and conditions we use to satisfy our needs suddenly vanish. We would cease to exist and nothing could have meaning.
Those who disagree, please construct an argument to justify your different answer.
Wayne Leggette Sr.
-
reasonvemotion
- Posts: 1813
- Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 1:22 am
Re: "Project Logic" moved
I would like to ask the question another way. Why does anything exist?
-
chaz wyman
- Posts: 5304
- Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm
Re: "Project Logic" moved
good luck with that one!reasonvemotion wrote:I would like to ask the question another way. Why does anything exist?
Re: "Project Logic" moved
reasonvemotion,
The question identifies two concepts “thing” and “existence” and ask: “what is the relationship of a thing to its’ existence.
The argument to understand the nature of the existence of a thing is this:
If a thing is it self and not some other thing, it must have attributes that are different from the attributes of any other thing, else no things would be different, and every thing that exist would be a single thing. Thus it follows, the existence of a thing is a construct of its’ attributes. This answers the question; “Why does anything exist”. If the questioner is not satisfied and ask; “Why do attributes exist”, the answer is the same for attributes are things too.
Philosophers, never understanding this explanation, grounded on this argument, have attempted to understand the nature of the existence of a thing by removing all its’ attributes until nothing is left but a single particle. Obviously, this makes understanding the nature of a thing impossible because now there are no unique attributes that distinguish one particle from any other particle. Go Figure.
Wayne Leggette Sr.
The question identifies two concepts “thing” and “existence” and ask: “what is the relationship of a thing to its’ existence.
The argument to understand the nature of the existence of a thing is this:
If a thing is it self and not some other thing, it must have attributes that are different from the attributes of any other thing, else no things would be different, and every thing that exist would be a single thing. Thus it follows, the existence of a thing is a construct of its’ attributes. This answers the question; “Why does anything exist”. If the questioner is not satisfied and ask; “Why do attributes exist”, the answer is the same for attributes are things too.
Philosophers, never understanding this explanation, grounded on this argument, have attempted to understand the nature of the existence of a thing by removing all its’ attributes until nothing is left but a single particle. Obviously, this makes understanding the nature of a thing impossible because now there are no unique attributes that distinguish one particle from any other particle. Go Figure.
Wayne Leggette Sr.
-
chaz wyman
- Posts: 5304
- Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm
Re: "Project Logic" moved
Ah at last he speaks the truth!!puto wrote:Truth.
Re: "Project Logic" moved
Announcement:
Project Logic is changing the way it has been operating. Instead of offering to buy propositional sentences, grounded on logical argument, that enhance philosophical knowledge, The Project will buy questions whose answers, grounded on logical argument, enhance philosophical knowledge.
The Project has acquired an off lease business computer, installed more memory, and installed all the writings of all the philosophers during the last twenty-five centuries. The computer is programmed to answer questions by first searching the writings of all the philosophers, discard what it has found, and construct original knowledge to answer the questions. .
This is where participants on the PN Forum get involved. You supply the questions. The only variable in the process is whether or not the questions you supply are the right questions and are, or not, in systematic order. The Project will pay ten dollars (10 carrots) for each question if it is in systematic order.
Being in systematic order means first question first and second question second, not first question second and second question first. Visualize it this way; imagine all the knowledge necessary to revolutionize Philosophy in a book ("The Book of Logical Philosophical Knowledge"). Each propositional sentence in the book is an answer to a question and needs to be in systematic order or nothing if little in the book would make sense. The Project realizes it will be almost impossible to submit questions in perfect systematic order. No problem, we’ll work it out together. After the questions are submitted and before they are entered in the computer, we will collaborate and decide the order they should be entered.
The Project will start three new threads, one, ONLY FOR COLLECTING THE QUESTIONS, NO DISCUSSION, another thread for discussing which order the question should be submitted to the computer, and another thread for the computers’ answers.
At this point in time, The Project needs feedback before it continues to implement the changes. Let’s hear what those who participate on this Forum think.
Wayne Leggette Sr.
Project Logic is changing the way it has been operating. Instead of offering to buy propositional sentences, grounded on logical argument, that enhance philosophical knowledge, The Project will buy questions whose answers, grounded on logical argument, enhance philosophical knowledge.
The Project has acquired an off lease business computer, installed more memory, and installed all the writings of all the philosophers during the last twenty-five centuries. The computer is programmed to answer questions by first searching the writings of all the philosophers, discard what it has found, and construct original knowledge to answer the questions. .
This is where participants on the PN Forum get involved. You supply the questions. The only variable in the process is whether or not the questions you supply are the right questions and are, or not, in systematic order. The Project will pay ten dollars (10 carrots) for each question if it is in systematic order.
Being in systematic order means first question first and second question second, not first question second and second question first. Visualize it this way; imagine all the knowledge necessary to revolutionize Philosophy in a book ("The Book of Logical Philosophical Knowledge"). Each propositional sentence in the book is an answer to a question and needs to be in systematic order or nothing if little in the book would make sense. The Project realizes it will be almost impossible to submit questions in perfect systematic order. No problem, we’ll work it out together. After the questions are submitted and before they are entered in the computer, we will collaborate and decide the order they should be entered.
The Project will start three new threads, one, ONLY FOR COLLECTING THE QUESTIONS, NO DISCUSSION, another thread for discussing which order the question should be submitted to the computer, and another thread for the computers’ answers.
At this point in time, The Project needs feedback before it continues to implement the changes. Let’s hear what those who participate on this Forum think.
Wayne Leggette Sr.