~ To be a Legitimate Philosopher in Today's World ~

[Arising_uk]

...
Fair enough. However, I am still wondering what constitutes a legitimate philosophy as opposed to most other types of philosophy. Perhaps Bill can tell us.

Not sure there is any such thing but if I was to make an attempt then a 'legitimate' philosophy is one that has a metaphysic, an ethic, an ontology, an epistemology and maybe a phenomenology, a philosophy of mind and a philosophy of politics, all of which tie together to support each other and based upon logic and reason, i.e. no logical contradictions.

"- to raise an edifice that is uniform and self-consistent. And I hope to erect it on such a basis that I shan’t need to shore it up with props and buttresses, leaning on borrowed or begged foundations. Even if it turns out to be a castle in the air, I shall try to make it one that is all of a piece and that hangs together." John Locke - An Essay Concerning Human Understanding.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.




I just created a new thread that directly addresses this question specifically.

Hope you enjoy and continue to participate.





.

[Arising_uk]

.
I just created a new thread that directly addresses this question specifically.

Explain what you mean by "I"? Explain what you mean by "Am"? Explain what you mean by "here"? Explain what you mean by "self-consciousness"? If what you claim is true why do you keep talking? Please provide some techniques to do what you say otherwise how are you saying or thinking "I am here?" What is this 'feeling' you describe?

[Bill Wiltrack]

.





I - in this case, means an individual ego.

Am - a refrence to where an individual ego is at any given time.

Here - a point in a multi-dimentional world.

Self-consciousness - When we obtain and hold the simple perception of I am here, and nothing more.




These are great questions. Practice.





......................................................






.

[Arising_uk]

I - in this case, means an individual ego.

What do you mean by "ego'? And if its what I think how can it not be 'individual'?

Am - a refrence to where an individual ego is at any given time.

What do you mean by 'where'? You mean this 'point in a multi-dimentional world'?

Here - a point in a multi-dimentional world.

The world is three-dimensional, what do you mean by this?

Self-consciousness - When we obtain and hold the simple perception of I am here, and nothing more.

Descartes already had a simpler one, 'I Am', your 'here' is redundant in Philosophy. Personally I have no idea why you think perceiving that one is 'here' is self-consciousness as its knowing that one is and more importantly self-consciousness is knowing how to use consciousness, not just having a feeling.

These are great questions. Practice.

Practice what? As you give no techniques to practice. I really don't need your faint praise as it comes from a source that does not walk its talk.

[uwot]

...a 'legitimate' philosophy is one that has a metaphysic, an ethic, an ontology, an epistemology and maybe a phenomenology, a philosophy of mind and a philosophy of politics, all of which tie together to support each other and based upon logic and reason, i.e. no logical contradictions.

"- to raise an edifice that is uniform and self-consistent. And I hope to erect it on such a basis that I shan’t need to shore it up with props and buttresses, leaning on borrowed or begged foundations. Even if it turns out to be a castle in the air, I shall try to make it one that is all of a piece and that hangs together." John Locke - An Essay Concerning Human Understanding.

I got the quote wrong in the other thread, I was working from memory. What Descartes said was: "There is nothing so strange and so unbelievable that it has not been said by one philosopher or another." Cicero said much the same "There is nothing so absurd that some philosopher has not already said it."
I went on to say:
"Ultimately, the reason there are so many different philosophies is that it is difficult to prove any of them; they are essentially stories and any one of them which isn't demonstrably false, might be true. People generally support their philosophy for geographic and cultural reasons, much as they do football teams, except with a better organised and more violent hooligan element.
The thing is, interesting as other people's stories are, the fact that they are coherent doesn't make them true."

John Locke of course, had the good sense to base his philosophy on actual events in the real (phenomenal) world.
Long story short, Arising, I think that's a reasonable shopping list.

Whaddya reckon, Bill? Looks like you're going Cogito without the thinking.

[mattsidedish]

Fair enough. However, I am still wondering what constitutes a legitimate philosophy as opposed to most other types of philosophy. Perhaps Bill can tell us.

This is what I've been getting at the entire time, aside from a couple smaller points.

[uwot]

Fair enough. However, I am still wondering what constitutes a legitimate philosophy as opposed to most other types of philosophy. Perhaps Bill can tell us.

This is what I've been getting at the entire time, aside from a couple smaller points.

Philosophies are generally modelled on Euclid's axiomatic model to a greater or lesser degree. Start with a couple of premises, these can be pretty well anything, generally they will be metaphysical and therefore unfalsifiable, and then apply rigorous logic and steadfastly adhere to the conclusions regardless of how nonsensical they are. So long as the logic is valid, most philosophers will respect it, even if they oppose it violently.

[mattsidedish]

Fair enough. However, I am still wondering what constitutes a legitimate philosophy as opposed to most other types of philosophy. Perhaps Bill can tell us.

This is what I've been getting at the entire time, aside from a couple smaller points.

Philosophies are generally modelled on Euclid's axiomatic model to a greater or lesser degree. Start with a couple of premises, these can be pretty well anything, generally they will be metaphysical and therefore unfalsifiable, and then apply rigorous logic and steadfastly adhere to the conclusions regardless of how nonsensical they are. So long as the logic is valid, most philosophers will respect it, even if they oppose it violently.

Bill's conclusion of what makes a 'legitimate philosopher' is not unfalsifiable. He has provided us no information as to what categorizes one except a general statement of feeling 'I am here.' This is not a justification and is perfectly open to scrutiny because it is not only nonsensical, but justifiably logically invalid.

We (being the community here) have generally not respected it (as you can read above), and we also oppose it violently not because it's not worth agreeing on, but because of the lack of justification for his subjective differentiation. Bill has every opportunity in the world to fix this if he would decide to give us a definition of the term. He has failed to do so as of yet. His definition is, "the term denotes the term."

So, Bill, are you ready to answer the question?

[HexHammer]

What OP refeers to is cozy chatters, average people who thinks they'r philosophers, but the tragic truth is that they can never do philospohy as they don't comprehend the nature of relevance, thus all their discussing and studying ends up being invain.

Philosophy = love of wisdom, but when all their talk doesn't contain any relevance it's just a cozy chat.

[Arising_uk]

... So long as the logic is valid, most philosophers will respect it, even if they oppose it violently.

Vehemently not violently surely or is that hopefully.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.






Intellect is a function of being human.


We're never going to be able to think our way out of this thing.

Real philosophy; real philosophers understand that there is no right answer. If there was someone would already have found it.

ALL of you that have responded are continuing to try to untie the Gordian Knot.






..........................................



The only thing that separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom is our ability to have a higher degree and longer durations of self-consciousness.

There, my friends, is where real philosophy resides.


The exploration and possible development of periods of self-consciousness is where real philosophers interact.


To Be A Legitimate Philosopher in Today's World we need to meet at this crossroads.




Thank you.


GREAT questions.



Always have faith in me. Never fear when I am with you.



.

[Arising_uk]

Intellect is a function of being human.

We're never going to be able to think our way out of this thing.

What thing? And why do you want to be out of it?

If its a function of being human then why would you wish to do away with it?

Real philosophy; real philosophers understand that there is no right answer. If there was someone would already have found it.

Right answer to what? 'Real' philosophers understand that its about framing the questions.

ALL of you that have responded are continuing to try to untie the Gordian Knot.[/size]

What knot?

The only thing that separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom is our ability to have a higher degree and longer durations of self-consciousness.

Which of the rest of the animal kingdom are you claiming have self-consciousness in any way like ours? Length of duration or not.

You forgot language, opposable thumbs, laughter, music, imagination, etc.

There, my friends, is where real philosophy resides.

The exploration and possible development of periods of self-consciousness is where real philosophers interact.

So what are you in these times of not being self-conscious?

To Be A Legitimate Philosopher in Today's World we need to meet at this crossroads.

What crossroads? What are you talking about?

Always have faith in me. Never fear when I am with you.

The universal cry of the demagogue, mystic and gnu.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.


The characteristic of you query points to the Gordian Knot thingy.


We can't find or hold the right answer.


By being more self-conscious we are able to ingrain ourselves within the flow of any given moment of our reality.

As Hubert Benoit stated, Let Go!




So I don't want to appear to be evasive but I can't give you the right answer. There is none.

To be a Legitimate Philosopher in Today's World you need to understand that. I can't make you or anyone else understand. Nor do I want to.




.

[Arising_uk]

.

The characteristic of you query points to the Gordian Knot thingy.

All it points to is the knot of confusion you tie yourself in.

We can't find or hold the right answer.

Not asking you to, just want you to frame the questions you are posing in a way that we can understand what it is you are talking about?

Oh! And what you've just said is an example of your confusion, either we can't find it or we can't hold it but not both.

By being more self-conscious we are able to ingrain ourselves within the flow of any given moment of our reality.

Try explaining how we can be more 'self-conscious'? Give us some concrete examples from your life or at the very least a workable technique.

Hubert Benoit stated, Let Go!

Of what?

So I don't want to appear to be evasive but I can't give you the right answer. There is none.

Don't want you to, I'm asking you what the question or problem is that you think you are addressing?

To be a Legitimate Philosopher in Today's World you need to understand that. I can't make you or anyone else understand. Nor do I want to.[/size]

Course you do pumpkin as if you didn't you'd actually be able to state what it is that you think you are addressing, philosophically that is. You continually attempt to assert that you are the flame-keeper of this 'real' or 'legitimate' mode of philosophising and oppose anything that smacks of intellectualism or actually thinking about things but can never say what the issue is that you think you are addressing or why you think it needs addressing. You are an Interweeb Gnu of the highest sort.