A New Philosophy

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
HexHammer
Posts: 3347
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 8:19 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: A New Philosophy

Post by HexHammer »

uwot wrote:
HexHammer wrote:ban all those who doesn't understand the concept of relevance and factual knowledge,
Can you give an example of factual knowledge?
Science does nothing but dwell in knowledge that is verifyed, thus factual knowledge, else knowledge can be theorized.
James Markham
Posts: 171
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 11:18 pm

Re: A New Philosophy

Post by James Markham »

Wleg, I'm definitely interested in the goals your attempting to attain, and I agree the methods needed to reach that goal will be a matter of determining the meaning of terms, and structuring a forum to facilitate people who have similar aspersions as yourself.

I would be happy to help if I can, and your welcome to send me any information or requests. Unfortunately I'm not going to be much use in the actual creation of a web site, but in terms of input, I will give all the help I can.

I don't mind starting a thread on the subject you suggest, but I think that rather than just writing a thread on the value of knowledge, which will probably attract the sort of posters you wish to avoid, I suggest we collaborate on two threads. One can contain a specific proposition, and the other can be about a general question of epistemology. I will try and write them both over the next couple of days, and I'll send them over to you before I submit them. It's my belief that the more specific and sound proposition, will elicit less of the senseless responses you wish to avoid.
wleg
Posts: 204
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2010 7:49 pm

Re: A New Philosophy

Post by wleg »

Doc,
You say: “To me philosophy is an “idea or belief” that guides you in living your life.” This is exactly my idea too, and why I would like to expand the “ideas of Philosophy” to reveal the process of “rational thinking”. Everything we do well, and does not cause problems for ourselves and others, requires rational thinking. Yet the process of rational thinking, in the philosophical area of our lives, is not grounded on “realistic ideas”. Mankind does not yet have a universal comprehensive understanding or “idea” of what ‘truth’ is. Not that it is impossible to have the understanding we need; we don’t have it because philosophers have not thought systematic enough to construct the comprehensive definition needed. The ‘state of our existence’ depends on our ability to think ‘rationally’ and understanding the idea concept of “truth” is a necessary part of understanding the process of “rational thinking”.

My effort at constructing original knowledge necessary to understand the process of rational thinking is slow, tedious, and boring. It’s like the first grade; the students who can read; “See Jane run, get bored listening to the other students practice reading "See Jane run, over and over. I believe the boredom issue is the fault of my techniques both in constructing the ideas and presentation. Also the hostility issue, caused by new ideas, does not generate incentive to collaborate and slows the process. If all that is not problem enough, I despise having to write as I think. I’m not a good writer and writing slows thinking to half the speed of a drunk snail. Also, the logic of good sentence structure, spelling and grammar conflicts with the logic of constructing original knowledge. Evidence of this is that philosophers are usually excellent writers with mind twisting vocabularies, which actually creates a huge problem for them. Not understanding the nature of knowledge itself, they use their vocabulary of philosophical terminology attempting to explain what they cannot understand. The result is gibberish, as evidence; not a single philosophical concept has a universal comprehensive definition after over twenty-five centuries of philosophers writing. “The Problems of Philosophy” still exist and the field is wide open presenting a challenge for anyone who loves the challenge of solving problems.

What I’m going to do is think about changing techniques to speed us my process and maybe I won’t be so boring.

Thanks for creating your profile. I’m nothing special, retired, have a one acre garden, live in a hanger, wife died recently, my only interest now is gardening and advancing philosophical knowledge.

Hex, all,

I thought I explained the reason for deleting “off topic post” is because they destroy the continuity and make it almost impossible to accomplish the ‘purpose’ of a thread. When the purpose of a thread is stated and clear in the opening post, what right do readers have to reply off topic if their post destroy the continuity and clogs the thread?

James,

Excellent, I'm will be thinking how my techniques can be changed to eliminate the problems they are causing.

Wayne Kelly Leggette Sr.
thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: A New Philosophy

Post by thedoc »

wleg wrote:Doc,
Thanks for creating your profile. I’m nothing special, retired, have a one acre garden, live in a hanger, wife died recently, my only interest now is gardening and advancing philosophical knowledge.

Wayne Kelly Leggette Sr.
Sorry to hear about your wife, I know loss like that, my parents are both passed on, as well as other relatives.

Let me add to my profile, when I was young my father insisted that we cultivate a 1/2 acre truck patch, and my brother and I got to do all the 'grunt' work. My grandfather was a coal miner but also had a farm, and I remember picking peas, beans, corn, and rocks out of his fields. My uncle was a dairy farmer and I would help him bring in hay and straw. My neighbor was a coal miner and a farmer as well, and I remember making hay when the younger son and I were on the hay wagon pulled by horses and the older boys loaded the wagon with pitch forks and we tramped the hay down on the wagon. More recently my son is a certified Arborist, and good friends of my wife and I are involved in a newsletter "Plant Propagator", he is retired from teaching horticulture from Penn State, and his wife worked for 'Pennsylvania Nurseryman's'. Questions about your garden, I'll try to get answers.

Tell me about your philosophy of gardening?
thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: A New Philosophy

Post by thedoc »

FYI, My wife is very skittish about revealing anything personal on a forum like this, yet she posts her name on 'face book', a public media? It was like pulling teeth to get her to help with information on my last post. I don't think I revealed anything that could lead anyone to track us down and find out who we are. Talk about a double standard?
User avatar
HexHammer
Posts: 3347
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 8:19 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: A New Philosophy

Post by HexHammer »

wleg wrote: Hex, all,

I thought I explained the reason for deleting “off topic post” is because they destroy the continuity and make it almost impossible to accomplish the ‘purpose’ of a thread. When the purpose of a thread is stated and clear in the opening post, what right do readers have to reply off topic if their post destroy the continuity and clogs the thread?
I'm sorry that you don't understand the simple relevance in my words, maybe you should reread my posts and try to comprehend it.
wleg
Posts: 204
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2010 7:49 pm

Re: A New Philosophy

Post by wleg »

Hex,
You are right, when I reread your post, I realized my response was meant for aiddon who posted this on the "Understanding Forum Participants" thread:
According to wleg's criteria for advancing knowledge, all stupid posts should be deleted. He considers it hostile if you disagree or if you don't go along with his little logic game. Do what Ive done, uwot , and go elsewhere.
Sorry for the mistake, you seem to understand what I have been pounding the table about. It won't happen again.

Doc,
You will be sorry getting me started talking about my garden. Anyone who tracks me down will have to listen for hours about gardening and Philosophy.

My philosophy about gardening is: Its better to have too many tomatoes than not enough, and, cultivate ever square foot available, you need the exercise.

The garden produces around twenty-five hundred pounds of tomatoes a year. Someone said the other day:"It will sound like more if you say a ton and a quarter". We give away all we can, then can all we can, then sell what is left, we still don't have enough. The garden produces nine patches of sweet corn, and I mean sweeet, planted about a week and a half apart. The last picking is about the middle of October, probably the only garden in the state to produce corn this late. I have developed a system that solves the corn ear-worm problem and makes it easy and relatively inexpensive to grow sweet corn over a long season. The garden produces beans, peas, okra, pepper (all kinds), eggplant, cantaloupe, watermelon, turnips, mustard greens, collard greens, broccoli and sometimes cauliflower.Oh yea, I forget cucumbers. Any way, you see what happens when I get started talking about gardening, and I could go on and on.

Wayne Kelly Leggette Sr.
Last edited by wleg on Mon Dec 23, 2013 7:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
HexHammer
Posts: 3347
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 8:19 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: A New Philosophy

Post by HexHammer »

wleg wrote:Hex,
You are right, when I reread your post, I realized my response was meant for aiddon who posted this on the "Understanding Forum Participants" thread:
According to wleg's criteria for advancing knowledge, all stupid posts should be deleted. He considers it hostile if you disagree or if you don't go along with his little logic game. Do what Ive done, uwot , and go elsewhere.
Sorry for the mistake, you seem to understand what I have been pounding the table about. It won't happen again.
Mistakes happens, all is forgiven and forgotten.
thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: A New Philosophy

Post by thedoc »

Wleg, We live on 2.3 acres of hardwood forest and other than the trees the only thing we have any luck growing are Sassafras, blackberries and raspberries. Birds and other animals get most of the berries, and so far only one person has shown an interest in the sassafras roots when I pull them out. They grow like weeds around here, and I pull them out with my pickup truck and a length of chain. The ground is acidic from the trees and we don't get much sunlight from the trees. My daughter is eager to grow some of her own food and this year we had some luck with squash so we're going to plant more next year. Tomatoes don't do well at all. I'm also going to build some raised beds to grow plants in to try and keep the animals out.
wleg
Posts: 204
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2010 7:49 pm

Re: A New Philosophy

Post by wleg »

Doc,

There are three most important things to know about growing tomatoes. If you are having trouble, then grow the most disease resistant varieties. "Celebrity" is the variety I grow, but the developers have recently developed newer varieties with more resistance to diseases. Second, if you are having trouble with blossom-end-rot, use much more agricultural lime than normal, about twice to three times as much. Third, don't fertilize with straight chemical nitrogen like 33% ammonia nitrate, or ammonia sulfate, instead side-dress with more of the same fertilizer used when the plants are set out. I will say though, just using "Miracle Grow" is the best way to fertilize a small number of tomato plants. I don't have to spray my tomatoes for worms because the moths seem to prefer laying their eggs on the new corn silks that are always near by. I do spray tomatoes for fungus diseases using fungicides. I don't wet the foliage when watering, this encourages fungus.

This time of year I trade broccoli for hair cuts, i'm short broccoli and long hair. Winter is a misery for me, I would like to be somewhere I could grow corn and tomatoes year round.

Wayne Kelly Leggette Sr.
User avatar
Hjarloprillar
Posts: 952
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 7:36 am
Location: Sol sector.

Re: A New Philosophy

Post by Hjarloprillar »

wleg wrote:I am thinking out loud, attempting to understand how it might be possible to use this forum to test a prototype of a future “New Philosophy” forum that collects ideas to advance philosophical knowledge. The ideas must be connected in systematic order in a thread for the sum total of the ideas to create the knowledge. Obviously, ideas submitted that are of no value will clog up the ‘thread’, and there is no way I can delete them. The problem of senseless ideas clogging up the collection effort seems almost impossible to solve, but there may be a way.
First, the 'purpose' of constructing the knowledge must be clearly established.Thus, anyone who summits an idea is aware of ‘the purpose’ and can better judge for themselves if their ideas relate to that purpose.
Second, everyone must understand, that since their ideas are the result of their mental activity, their ‘ideas illustrate their state of mind'. Recognizing our ideas expressed in statements illustrate our ‘state of mind’ might establish some incentive to limit ‘senseless statements’.
Third, everyone understands their propositional statements have a ‘subject’ and a ‘predicate’ and each must ‘relate to the existence of the other’ plus relate to the existence of the specific knowledge being constructed. Else, the statements will be gibberish, demonstrating state of mind, and certainly not construct knowledge.
Constructing original knowledge is a tenuous stop and go process easy to derail, particularly when the knowledge being constructed is abstract and not about physical things where the physical senses can be utilized. The only tool available to construct ‘original philosophical knowledge’ is ‘systematic reasoning’ which no one is born with and has to learn.
This prototype project I hope will demonstrate the systematic process necessary to construct the knowledge everyone needs to understand the process of systematic/rational reasoning. This is the 'purpose' of the project and everyone can judge for themselves if their ideas conform to this 'purpose'.

Wayne Kelly Leggette Sr.
sounds like a damn good idea.

systematic reasoning could be taught in school. It is not because a workforce that thinks well is not needed or indeed desired.
Very few schools teach the basics of deductive and inductive reasoning.
Arrogance is everywhere.

the goalkeepers you and i see the fundamental weakness in man is its belief that it knows how to think.

It falls to us to change this.. a DAUNTING task
wleg
Posts: 204
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2010 7:49 pm

Re: A New Philosophy

Post by wleg »

Hjarloprillar,

When you say, “The fundamental weakness in man is our belief that we know how to think”, you have identified the cause of mankind’s problems.

I will attempt to think systematically /rationally and construct ideas, illustrated by propositional sentences, that explain why this is so.

All voluntary human behavior is preceded by a rational or irrational thought process that generates ideas that are rational, or irrational. If the ideas are rational the behavior will be rational and not cause problems, and, if the ideas are irrational the behavior will be irrational and cause problems. Thus it follows; no matter which ideas are generated by a person’s process of thought, his ideas make sense to him because that is the rational or irrational way he thinks.

As you say; the solution is to teach systematic /rational thinking early in school. Understanding the “process of rational thinking” is not rocket science, it begins by understanding the “nature of existence”. Once that is understood, we can begin to think systematically to understand the nature of a satisfactory human existence not threatened by problems caused by irrational thinking. Really, nothing to it, except having the willingness to accept the ideas necessary to understand the 'nature of existence'.

As is evident by my posts, I am pounding the table over and over attempting to promote the construction of a comprehensive definition of “existence” to begin understanding the process of systematic rational thinking. Haven’t had much success, for reasons explain in the “Understanding Forum participants” thread.

Wayne Kelly Leggette Sr.
User avatar
Hjarloprillar
Posts: 952
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 7:36 am
Location: Sol sector.

Re: A New Philosophy

Post by Hjarloprillar »

there with you.

I am not an emotional person yet i cry at lost potential.

90%+of what we could be is lost forever from stupidity and willfull ignorance of how to think and think well.
willfull.[deliberate, intentional, intended, done on purpose, premeditated, planned, calculated, purposeful, conscious]
willfull stupidity
willfull ignorance
willfull sloth

or is it simply 'too stupid to know they are stupid'
sorry i rant. on another path.

We are the only sentient species here with gaul to change the world. through reason we can actually crack the planet earth into a new asteroid belt.
yes we have that power.tho few realize it.
I prefer we limit ourselves to art and exploration. Call me provincial.

this i watch over and over. doc may agree
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GU7zuG6igI

the knowing , well its not for the weak of thought and cage..no.. Michael Fassbender yes.
Last edited by Hjarloprillar on Wed Dec 25, 2013 11:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12313
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: A New Philosophy

Post by Arising_uk »

wleg wrote:Uwot,

You say: Since the propositions are pretty much the statements that underpin Logic:

"Something can be or not be."

"Nothing can be and not be."

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

"If something is necessary then that something is."

"I am."

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

I say: Present a logical argument to support the truth of each statement. ...
I say not Uwot but a_uk.
You are doing what philosophers have always done, making statements that are not supported by logical argument. The fact is; philosophers did not know how to construct logical arguments because they did not know that constructing knowledge is grounded in understanding the 'nature of the existence' of the concepts they were making statements about. ...
The propositions I stated are exactly examples of logical argument. E.g. P is any proposition. What can you say about P? Just that it could not be, Not P, but what it cannot be is both P and Not P, this is a proposition that advances philosophical knowledge as it frames all possible propositions.
The nature of the existence of a concept is a 'comprehensive definition' that identifies the concept and its attributes, thus constructing a realistic definition.
Thats the definition of an explanation of a concept. A concept itself may well be other than the linguistic explanation, much as thought may well be different from thinking in language.
Example: "Truth is a propositional statement, illustrating the state of mind when it recognizes two or more things and conditions relating to the existence of each other."

This definition of "truth" is comprehensive because it identifies the subject "truth" as relating to the "condition (state of mind)", and another "condition (behavior of recognizing"), and another "condition (existence)" all stated as the "condition" (of relating). From this definition we can know that "truth" is a product of the mental behavior of "recognizing" things and conditions that relate to the existence of each other and then illustrated by a propositional statement/sentence. And it follows; statements that identify things and conditions that do not relate to the existence of each other are not "true" and demonstrate, at best, a faulty state of mind.
Don't disagree but are you saying that 'truth' only exists if language exists?
User avatar
Hjarloprillar
Posts: 952
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 7:36 am
Location: Sol sector.

Re: A New Philosophy

Post by Hjarloprillar »

Truth as a human term only exists because of language

A priori truth or fact exists independent of an observer.
there is no philosophy 100 meters above event horizon. just protons torn apart by angular momentum

Schrodingers cat [example of indeterminacy] is both dead and alive because of observer
the unsaid layer over the theory.

And people wonder why older thinkers go suddenly insane.
Its not because the marbles fell out its because one too many marbles were injested

:wink:
Post Reply