A New Philosophy

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: A New Philosophy

Post by thedoc »

Hjarloprillar wrote:
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.

I didn't see the movie but I listened to the music you posted.

Now listen to this and let me know what you think?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIxZw6fQOKI

Sorry about the advertisement, It seems you can't avoid them on youtube anymore.
User avatar
Hjarloprillar
Posts: 952
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 7:36 am
Location: Sol sector.

Re: A New Philosophy

Post by Hjarloprillar »

doc . so much better. superb
such power and precision.
something i rarely feel, [since appolo]pride in humanity doing what is fundamentally ,done because we love music and art and creativity.
it serves a purpose. to exist because this is the one place and time where it does, a new thing in reality

prill
User avatar
Hjarloprillar
Posts: 952
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 7:36 am
Location: Sol sector.

Re: A New Philosophy

Post by Hjarloprillar »

played it 4 times now, each time i am awed by my luck of of being in place and time when i can do so.
the old saying . the way to a mans heart is though his stomach or lower.
the way to mine is ideas and music like
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIxZw6fQOKI

thank you for link
wleg
Posts: 204
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2010 7:49 pm

Re: A New Philosophy

Post by wleg »

Hjarloprillar,
I agree with you completely, stupidity is the problem and caused by unsystematic irrational thinking. People who think irrationally have stupid ideas and they depend on their ideas for their self-esteem as much, if not more, than rational thinkers depend on their sensible ideas for their self-esteem. It is far more difficult to deal with irrational thinkers for they are mentally less able to accept their ideas are irrational and stupid. The only solution; is to develop the knowledge to understand the mechanics of systematic rational thinking and teach it early in school. I also believe techniques can be used to teach adults as well, using the internet. Of course; we are saying this without first constructing a full understanding of the mechanics of rational thinking, but, it won’t be difficult once we recognize the importance of grounding an understanding on understanding the “nature of existence”.


UK,
The tool of language was invented to communicate understanding but it also made thinking easier to understand the existence of things. Unfortunately, the instructions how to understand the existence of things did not come with language.

The use of language is preceded by a process of thought, if the process of thought is rational the use of language will be rational and vice verse. (Let’s not complicate the effort, at this moment, to understand the nature of “truth” by having to factor in the use of language to deceive.)

Language can be used to construct propositional sentences that illustrate the reality of things or be used to construct propositional sentences that do not reflect the reality of things. There is the obvious need to distinguish one statement from the other. This is accomplished by designating one as being “true” and the other as “false”. Just as obvious, this does not tell us why the one is “true” and the other is “false”. It does tell us that “truth” only exists if language exists. Otherwise, what need would there be for the designating words “true” and “false”?

Understanding why a statement is true begins with understanding the nature of knowledge and how knowledge is constructed. This understanding comes from having a comprehensive definition of “existence”. All knowledge is the result of understanding the existence of any thing or abstract concept by recognizing the attributes that equate/relate to the existence of that thing and to construct a comprehensive definition of the abstract concept.

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

Re: A New Philosophy

Post by thedoc »

Hjarloprillar wrote:played it 4 times now, each time i am awed by my luck of of being in place and time when i can do so.
the old saying . the way to a mans heart is though his stomach or lower.
the way to mine is ideas and music like
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIxZw6fQOKI

thank you for link

I can't help thinking the movie version was done that way deliberately to emphasize the confusion mentioned in some of the comments. It seemed that the conductor brought out the secondary parts to be equal in sound to the main melody, and I can't help thinking it was on purpose for the movie.
User avatar
Hjarloprillar
Posts: 952
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 7:36 am
Location: Sol sector.

Re: A New Philosophy

Post by Hjarloprillar »

thedoc wrote:
Hjarloprillar wrote:played it 4 times now, each time i am awed by my luck of of being in place and time when i can do so.
the old saying . the way to a mans heart is though his stomach or lower.
the way to mine is ideas and music like
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIxZw6fQOKI

thank you for link

I can't help thinking the movie version was done that way deliberately to emphasize the confusion mentioned in some of the comments. It seemed that the conductor brought out the secondary parts to be equal in sound to the main melody, and I can't help thinking it was on purpose for the movie.
hollywood believes it has licence to butcher and it butchers. they who protest are abs. whiners and nit pickers.
It allowed that music to highten the spooky aspect of film [see bartok and shining]
which 70% could not process being stupid myself included . thee difference between move ver and one doc posted is very large
i liked it because determinism played such huge roll
not that i agreed with it or believed benevolent aliens would do what they do

wait one i have knowing on drive E

ah yes time capsule was buried the year i was born
'59
cage is bad choice. a more believable on would be wise
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12313
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: A New Philosophy

Post by Arising_uk »

Hjarloprillar wrote:... through reason we can actually crack the planet earth into a new asteroid belt. ...
I doubt this. Can you provide some links.
User avatar
Hjarloprillar
Posts: 952
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 7:36 am
Location: Sol sector.

Re: A New Philosophy

Post by Hjarloprillar »

Arising_uk wrote:
Hjarloprillar wrote:... through reason we can actually crack the planet earth into a new asteroid belt. ...
I doubt this. Can you provide some links.
May actually be categorized as 'physics'. "Mythbusters"
"Can we destroy Earth"

There are many ideas out there UK. Some are very likely to work.

30 or 40x 1-3 gigaton weapons in faultlines would start the falling down of planet. we can build the warheads.
thee rest is desire,,'why would we'?
Greylorn Ell
Posts: 892
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
Location: SE Arizona

Re: A New Philosophy

Post by Greylorn Ell »

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.
Wayne,
Your goals are admirable, but welcome to the real world. Maybe we can kick around alternative ideas.

What if PNow established an elite class of forum, modeled on the style of British men's clubs. Here are some standards for such a forum, which would be unique in the entire world of internet forums.

1. Require a membership fee consisting of a two-year subscription to Philosophy Now, printed version, to join.

2. Each member will establish a forum account of $100 US minimum. Thus eliminating the riff-raff.

3. Each OP (Opening Poster) pays a fee of $20 for every thread that he initiates, automatically deducted from his account. This will either eliminate the glut of irrelevant nits who fill sections with irrelevant threads, or turn a profit for the Forum Sponsor.

4. Each commenter will pay 0.50 per post, deducted automatically from his account. No account, no comment.

5. Administrators will not patrol this forum or respond to complaints.

6. Every OP has the option to exclude any other poster from all threads that he initiates, simply by putting that person on his personal shit list.

7. The forum will see to it that the same individual will not reappear under different handles, permanently eliminating all who attempt this ploy.

8. There will be no restrictions on someone who has been banned by a particular poster from initiating threads dedicated to whining about that poster. However, such threads must be initiated in a special "Whining" section of the forum, and will require a $20 fee per thread.

These seem plenty enough rules.

I envision awesome potential for such a forum. At best it could include interesting subjects that transcend philosophy. For example, every physics-related forum that I've tried comes down hard on any poster who challenges conventional physics theories. That would not be the case on the proposed toll-road forum. It might lead to the discovery of new physics principles. Such principles coming out of a philosophy-sponsored forum would be a significant coup for philosophy in general.

The idea is that a toll-road forum could become a FORUM for INNOVATION, unfettered by the pinheads who cannot contribute to new ideas, having never had one.

For example, I can drive through Illinois using the state's toll roads, paying a few extra bucks. Or I can drive through Illinois using free highways and back roads, where I'll spend a lot of time driving behind Farmer John, or slow 18-wheelers bypassing the truck scales.

Imagine how cool it would be to participate in a thread whose other participants were there to make contributions-- to get where we all want to go-- rather than deal with mindless posts by nitwits who think that they own the intellectual road, and try to block to passage of anyone going faster than them.

There will be many who will initiate threads under these rules and screw up their own threads by banning all who dissent from their opinions. Fair enough; they paid their $20 for a bullshit platform to which few will reply. Natural selection will rule here. They'll get tired of their silly nonsense, in time.

BTW, I proposed this idea to Rick a month or so ago. No response, so it won't happen here. With some outside support, I'd consider taking on the project. The problem is, I think that such a forum would be best run under the umbrella of an established source of ideas, such as PNow. Its current forum, open to any ignorant nits who choose to enter, would remain unaffected by the introduction of a membership-only forum. The founding of membership-only clubs where men can gather for conversation in a convivial environment free of riff-raff has never been shown to impact the economic survival of pubs and saloons where the riffs can freely gather to complain about the ways of the raffs.
Blaggard
Posts: 2246
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2014 9:17 pm

Re: A New Philosophy

Post by Blaggard »

The sort of sense of entitlement and snobbery this thread seems to engender makes me feel quite nauseous. I see numbnnut El is stroking his ego again, rif raf, who the hell do you think you are mate, grow the hell up. Oh I can afford $100 aren't I fucking impressive. lol

God I do hope all Americans are not this obsessed with money and elitist. It's ironic really considering that it was founded on meritocratic ideals, most Americans seem to be totally obsessed with status. Just goes to show nothing really changes no matter how well meaning the founders are.

All that making the site subscription only would do is leave about 10 members wondering why the forum is dead all of a sudden. You people are stupid if you think anything else would magically happen, honestly. About 60% of posters don't currently subscribe, do you honestly think that getting rid of most of the forum users is a good idea?If you seriously think you can run an internet forum with compulsory subscription, nay you aren't stupid you are delusional. Voluntary subscription maybe.

I know let's limit our user base and make sure that very few people post, that'll certainly help the magazines profile. You really are batting minus a thousand there El. ;)

Sighs*

This whole discussion is moronic quite frankly.
BTW, I proposed this idea to Rick a month or so ago. No response, so it won't happen here. With some outside support, I'd consider taking on the project. The problem is, I think that such a forum would be best run under the umbrella of an established source of ideas, such as PNow. Its current forum, open to any ignorant nits who choose to enter, would remain unaffected by the introduction of a membership-only forum. The founding of membership-only clubs where men can gather for conversation in a convivial environment free of riff-raff has never been shown to impact the economic survival of pubs and saloons where the riffs can freely gather to complain about the ways of the raffs.
It's never going to happen, like ever because he is not an idiot. If it had the remotest chance of ever happening do you think he would of said something by now? Or is he just playing a game of Texas hold 'em with the user base? ;)
Advocate
Posts: 1071
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: A New Philosophy

Post by Advocate »

[quote=wleg post_id=154509 time=1387494468 user_id=4954]
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.
[/quote]

The only difficulty i see is in the organization. Each issue can be drawn out as a flowchart; Abortion; Which is the most important priority: a) life b) sentience c) potential... etc. Then "Which definition of life is the one you intended? a) simple life as when does and egg meet and begin dividing b) the existence of a working mind... etc. Various websites have tried to do something of this nature with politics, but none too successfully because i suspect they didn't get the basics right which ends up going down the same arbitrary path of conversation that gets most philosophy nowhere.
Advocate
Posts: 1071
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: A New Philosophy

Post by Advocate »

[quote=wleg post_id=154555 time=1387553168 user_id=4954]Considering the fact that writers have not constructed a single comprehensive definition of any philosophical concept is twenty-five centuries, one might begin to suspect there is more to constructing realistic knowledge than just writing. I will keep pounding the table about first understanding how knowledge is constructed by understanding the nature of the existence of the things we need to construct knowledge of. So far, I haven’t found anyone who understands the necessity of doing this .

How is it possible for any philosopher writer to be intelligent about anything he/she writes about without first understanding the nature of knowledge? If anyone can explain how this is possible, I will stop keep pounding the table.

Wayne Kelly Leggette Sr.
[/quote]

I'd like your feedback on the epistemology parts of tiny.cc/TheWholeStory. I find it necessary and sufficient for all related philosophy questions/problems. Sorry about the editing so far.
Advocate
Posts: 1071
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: A New Philosophy

Post by Advocate »

[quote=thedoc post_id=154600 time=1387580300 user_id=8079]
[quote="wleg"]Doc, I like this forum just fine, the interaction here is exactly the same as any other forum I have participated on. When I leave here to start my own forum it will be when I finally understand what techniques are necessary to accomplish its purpose. The interaction with others here is the most difficult and hostile environment possible to constructing new and different ideas and is helping me develop the techniques. I am getting for free the experiences I need.

[color=#FF0000]It would be extremely helpful if I had the ability to unclog a thread by deleting posts but that's probably too much to ask for.[/color]

Wayne Kelly Leggette Sr.[/quote]


You could let me know via. PM, the link to the new forum, if you like, I would certainly have a look. One thing I have found on forums like this one is that there is a learning curve of which posters are of interest and value to me, and which ones I can skim over or actually ignore. Hostility, abuse, and insult seem to be common on forums where there is little moderation, but they also seem to be fertile ground for a lot of different ideas. I can't help but think that excessive moderation would stifle a lot of creativity. Sometimes the 'clogging' you refer to can lead off in a different direction that is actually more interesting than the original topic. Moderation would cut that off and the ideas might just die where they are.
[/quote]

This is why bespoke tools like blocking or friend/foe are necessary; and useful to the extent they allow meaningful manipulation of your experience in line with those markers.
Advocate
Posts: 1071
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: A New Philosophy

Post by Advocate »

>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”.

The thing is, many philosophers understand the concepts adequately but don't use the same vocabulary to describe their understanding so they continue to waste time talking at cross purposes, even if they totally agree. I believe intelligent, knowledgeable people never actually disagree if salience, perspective, and priority are given proper consideration.

>. 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.

Want to discuss the philosophy of Permaculture, Holistic Management, and the like?
Advocate
Posts: 1071
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: A New Philosophy

Post by Advocate »

[quote=thedoc post_id=154786 time=1387820471 user_id=8079]
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.
[/quote]

How much does it cost to ship sassafras root to the other corner of the country? (It grows primarily in the SE and i'm in the NW now.) I miss sassafras tea.. which is fucking delicious. Leaves too.. It was always a handy woods-wandering snack. Have you tried them in a salad with dandelion, radish greens, and purslane? (and goat cheese, but i digress)
Post Reply