Changing Technique

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

wleg
Posts: 204
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2010 7:49 pm

Changing Technique

Post by wleg »

I have thought about how to present the message; “there is a better way to do Philosophy that benefits all of mankind”, without boring everyone to tears. On a public forum it is impossible to have continuity because off-topic post break the continuity and clog up a thread and they can’t be deleted. This causes the originator of the thread to have to repeatedly start over when the off-topic threads show the person posting them does not understand the string of logic being presented. Recognize, constructing a string of logic is very challenging and the person constructing it is hoping for input by others to make the effort go faster and less challenging, not slower and more challenging.

The better way to do Philosophy is for philosophers to first understand and then teach the mechanics of rational thinking which will be the most benefit to mankind. The technique I have thought of; ask forum participants to think of questions whose answers will construct the knowledge to understand the process or rational thinking. Since I am promoting the effort, I will attempt to answer the questions. If someone else wants to answer the questions, that is fine with me.

Using this technique, hopefully, all that will be posted on the thread with be questions and answers. Thus, if the questions result in answers that construct the needed knowledge the effort will be successful. All we need are questions whose answers will construct the knowledge we need. It has already been established that I am stupid so don’t clog up the thread with post restating it. Whatever annoys anyone about this effort, do not post expressing it.

All we want are questions, nothing else. Example: What is the nature of thinking? What is the nature of “whatever” you think is important to understand rational thinking. There needs be at least five questions before any are answered so it is possible to answer questions in the sequence the logic demands (not random-like).

Wayne Kelly Leggette Sr.
User avatar
HexHammer
Posts: 3354
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 8:19 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: Changing Technique

Post by HexHammer »

wleg wrote:On a public forum it is impossible to have continuity because off-topic post break the continuity and clog up a thread and they can’t be deleted. This causes the originator of the thread to have to repeatedly start over when the off-topic threads show the person posting them does not understand the string of logic being presented.
That demands that the topic in the first place is sound and logically, but if someone spew random nonsens, and doesn't understand people trying to "derail" the topic because they want's to dispute the nonsens in OP, then the problem isn't the "derailing" but the lack of understanding sound philosophy.
Tusok
Posts: 36
Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2013 1:14 am

Re: Changing Technique

Post by Tusok »

wleg wrote:“there is a better way to do Philosophy that benefits all of mankind”
...
The better way to do Philosophy is for philosophers to first understand and then teach the mechanics of rational thinking which will be the most benefit to mankind. The technique I have thought of; ask forum participants to think of questions whose answers will construct the knowledge to understand the process or rational thinking. Since I am promoting the effort, I will attempt to answer the questions. If someone else wants to answer the questions, that is fine with me.
...
All we want are questions, nothing else. Example: What is the nature of thinking?
Wayne Kelly Leggette Sr.
Dear wleg,

I'm new enough here to applaud your efforts without a shrug, or a duck for that matter.

And all you want are five questions? Let's see what I can do on the spur of the moment...

Am I a disciplined thinker?
If not, how do I become disciplined enough such that my approach to any given problem, no matter how trivial, is rigorous and complete?
How do I define these important terms: discipline, rigor, and completeness, with respect to thinking?
What are the minimum number of steps or stages needed in order to answer / solve / complete any given thinking task?
How can I know when my thought process (or a forum thread for that matter) has reached a point where progress is thwarted?

Well, how do you like that. I think that's 5, and I realize that I could keep going for quite a while. So I better stop before getting carried away. I'm looking forward to seeing what happens.

Sincerely,

Tusok
wleg
Posts: 204
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2010 7:49 pm

Re: Changing Technique

Post by wleg »

Tusok,

You are obviously someone who enjoys a challenge; I appreciate that, so do I. When I read your post I realize I could have made the effort a little less challenging if I had described a little more clearly exactly what we are attempting to accomplish. We are attempting to understand the process of rational thinking.

This might have been attempted before but I don’t think so, I’m positive it has never been accomplished. I have thought about how to solve this problem (create the understanding) for years so I might have the advantage.

When I began to think how to solve this problem, I remember asking myself: What can I think rationally about? This question raised the condition of “existence”, and the question: is it possible to think rationally/realistically about something that does not exist, has never existed and cannot exist? I decided it was not possible which raised the question: what is the nature of existence? Once I focused on understanding the “nature of existence” this suddenly opened up a portal to understand how “knowledge” is constructed. What I am doing by saying all this is reveal where my effort has progressed to so far. Now, you should have a better idea what is involved and better able to construct questions.... Example:
1- What can I think rationally about?
2- What is the nature of the existence of things I can think about?
3- How does existence and knowledge relate?

Your questions helped me understand I needed to explain what is involved more clearly. This is a challenging project that involves constructing original knowledge. It has been difficult to get others involved. Think about questions directly related to the ‘process’ itself of ‘rational thinking’.

Wayne Kelly Leggette Sr.
User avatar
HexHammer
Posts: 3354
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 8:19 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: Changing Technique

Post by HexHammer »

wleg wrote:We are attempting to understand the process of rational thinking.

This might have been attempted before but I don’t think so, I’m positive it has never been accomplished. I have thought about how to solve this problem (create the understanding) for years so I might have the advantage.

When I began to think how to solve this problem, I remember asking myself: What can I think rationally about? This question raised the condition of “existence”, and the question: is it possible to think rationally/realistically about something that does not exist, has never existed and cannot exist? I decided it was not possible which raised the question: what is the nature of existence? Once I focused on understanding the “nature of existence” this suddenly opened up a portal to understand how “knowledge” is constructed. What I am doing by saying all this is reveal where my effort has progressed to so far. Now, you should have a better idea what is involved and better able to construct questions.... Example:
1- What can I think rationally about?
2- What is the nature of the existence of things I can think about?
3- How does existence and knowledge relate?
This is pure nonsens! We can send up complex rockets in orbit of the Earth, we can build skyscrapers, we can program complex algorithms on even more conplex computers.
Science has the rational basis of thinking, which you seem helplessly clueless about.

It's all about the methodically thinking and process which Socrates established, you should know that, and now that you actually don't it's even more tragic.
James Markham
Posts: 171
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 11:18 pm

Re: Changing Technique

Post by James Markham »

Wleg, hexhammer has already proceeded to derail one of our threads, and in order that he doesn't disrupt this one, I say we should just ignore his posts. I will continue to respond in a like for like manner elsewhere, but here we should continue with the topic.

So if we take it one step at a time, I would firstly like to establish what we mean by the term existence. For instance, possibilities exist, and we could define them as being real, but their existence is not akin to the way a chair exists. Likewise, if we take the example of a chair, it can be reasoned that it's existence is by virtue of our interpretation of it as such, it could also at any time be referred to as a collection of molecules, or an energy pattern. So for me the word existent doesn't refer to some obviously unambiguous trait, or characteristic.

So if we say that ideas and concepts have metaphysical existence, and that things which aren't incumbent upon the function of mind have existence as being, then I think it's sensible to say that what exists can be classed as primary, or secondary. That which has existence by virtue of being we can call primary, and things which exist by virtue of a primary, we can call secondary.

What I believe we are concerned with here is that which has primary existence, and if we now explore some examples of this class, we may better define what primary existence is. So the obvious one is the mind, or sentience, but the only other one I can think of is what we collectively term as the objective universe, it may seem like this second candidate pretty much covers everything, but not if we take it in isolation from the mind, it could then be argued that things such as time, space and matter, have a secondary form of existence, and that what can be said about the primary existence of the universe, is as elusive as that which can be said about the mind.

It could also be argued that much of what we experience as real, has only a secondary form of existence, and exists by virtue of the interactions between these two things which have a primary existence.

I don't know if you consider it in this way, but to my mind it is a huge topic to absorb, and I think this helps to understand that when we use the word existence, it has different connotations depending on context.
User avatar
HexHammer
Posts: 3354
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 8:19 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: Changing Technique

Post by HexHammer »

James Markham wrote:Wleg, hexhammer has already proceeded to derail one of our threads, and in order that he doesn't disrupt this one, I say we should just ignore his posts. I will continue to respond in a like for like manner elsewhere, but here we should continue with the topic.
Dear James, please stop trolling for whatever reason you are doing it. If my posts really was that appaling you could just report me and it would be removed, instead you resort to puerile behaviour because you can't do it intellectually, please stop emberessing youself.
Tusok
Posts: 36
Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2013 1:14 am

Re: Changing Technique

Post by Tusok »

Dear James and Wayne,

I think I can understand where you are both coming from.

In which case, you may be sitting down to eat a whole buffet!

May I suggest that we choose one thread and follow it as far as we can?

The original (intended) question was pretty good. What is rational thought?

It may be easier if we can agree on a definition of rational, AND thought!

Tusok
wleg
Posts: 204
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2010 7:49 pm

Re: Changing Technique

Post by wleg »

Tusok,

You are right, as James has said, if we can’t agree what the words mean that we are using in a discussion we are talking in different languages. The lack of universal definitions of words used in philosophical discussion is the reason philosophical knowledge has not advanced from the beginning. As far as I can tell, there are twenty-five words (more or less), and constructing their definitions is the only purpose for Philosophy.

These are the words: Existence, Reality, Knowledge, Ideas, Rational, Thought , Truth, Need, Right, Good, Purpose, Meaning, Value, Experience, Perception, Equal, Different, Consciousness, Sense, Concept, , Logic, Reason, Belief, Behavior, Problems, ?,?,?.

Is there anyone who believes that sensible Philosophy can exist without comprehensive definitions of these words? If not, then no one can believe that sensible Philosophy exists. It would only make sense to stop all the senseless philosophical discussion and focus on constructing the comprehensive definitions that make Philosophy sensible and reveals the process of rational thinking.
May I suggest that we choose one thread and follow it as far as we can?

The original (intended) question was pretty good. What is rational thought?

It may be easier if we can agree on a definition of rational, AND thought!
I agree, and the only way to construct a comprehensive definition of rational, thought and rational thinking is to first understand the nature of “existence” itself. The logic that: the existence of any thing is a construct of its’ attributes, establishes what is rational thinking. In other words; to think rationally to understand any thing we must conform our thought process to identifying the attributes that construct/define the existence of that thing. Thus, the process of rational thinking conforms to the logic of the existence of the thing we are attempting to understand by identifying its’ attributes.

I hope saying this reveals the change in focus that philosophers must make, to do philosophy that makes sense and be useful.

Wayne Kelly Leggette

Hex,
Is the test to determine if I recognize or not that the questions have nothing to do with Philosophy?
Felasco
Posts: 544
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2012 12:38 pm

Re: Changing Technique

Post by Felasco »

In other words; to think rationally to understand any thing we must conform our thought process to identifying the attributes that construct/define the existence of that thing.
And the deeper we get in to creating these definitions, these boundaries, the farther from reality we get, because in the real world there are no boundaries.
wleg
Posts: 204
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2010 7:49 pm

Re: Changing Technique

Post by wleg »

Failassco,

chuckle,, Then there is no reason to spell correctly.
Felasco
Posts: 544
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2012 12:38 pm

Re: Changing Technique

Post by Felasco »

Ok, whatever that means.
wleg
Posts: 204
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2010 7:49 pm

Re: Changing Technique

Post by wleg »

best that you don't get it.
Felasco
Posts: 544
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2012 12:38 pm

Re: Changing Technique

Post by Felasco »

wleg wrote:best that you don't get it.
Um, what I get so far is that you don't understand the challenge I presented to your key argument, or you don't have the gumption to address it.
James Markham
Posts: 171
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 11:18 pm

Re: Changing Technique

Post by James Markham »

Tusok wrote:Dear James and Wayne,

I think I can understand where you are both coming from.

In which case, you may be sitting down to eat a whole buffet!

May I suggest that we choose one thread and follow it as far as we can?

The original (intended) question was pretty good. What is rational thought?

It may be easier if we can agree on a definition of rational, AND thought!

Tusok
Tusok, I agree with you, a good starting point would be to agree a definition of rational, and proceed to a method of rational thought. It also seems to be point on which there cannot be much debate, as there is only one meaning of rational, and it seems to be pretty unambiguous.

So rational means reasoned and logical, which dictates that all rational thought must proceed in a step by step manner from a predicate, to a conclusion. So I would suggest that any rational discussion on the subject of reality must have an established starting point, or primary predicate from which further rational judgements can proceed from.

And I would also suggest that any further ambiguity in respect to word definitions should be resolved as the terms are encountered.

If to begin our discussion, we define the term reality to mean the complete experience of what is is to be existent, then I would suggest a simple predicate with which to begin would be the one with which Descartes began,"I think therefore I am".

And my suggestion as regards to an inference would be that if we think, we think of, and if we are other than that which we think of, it follows that there is that which thinks, and that which is thought of.

I'll wait an see what you think, and whether you would consider this statement to be a rational premise to begin an investigation of reality from.
Post Reply