Philosophies...

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 4360
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Philosophies...

Post by Harbal »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: I would argue that Philosophy is the observation and manifestation of definition, with these definitions manifesting proportionalities and symmetries which are reflective in structure and equal in function to "truth".
Or as I like to put it: Philosophy is thinking about things.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6708
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Philosophies...

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Harbal wrote:
Eodnhoj7 wrote: I would argue that Philosophy is the observation and manifestation of definition, with these definitions manifesting proportionalities and symmetries which are reflective in structure and equal in function to "truth".
Or as I like to put it: Philosophy is thinking about things.

I would argue that you are both right and wrong at the same time in different respects. I would argue that you are right, of course, as observation has an inherent intellectual element. This would be foolish to deny. Where I would argue you are wrong, and I don't like the word "wrong" because it is over dramatic as you are technically "not wrong", is that the nature of observation is multidimensional (sensory experience, emotions/will, etc.) so to limit it to "strictly only" intellect is to limit the nature of observation. This limited observation inherently reflects back to the intellect and a regressive approach to knowledge begins to occur. The same argument applies, naturally, that observation cannot be limited strictly to sensory experience, emotions/will, etc.

The ability to observe definition requires the ability to observe degrees and dimensions of all realities and non-realities; it is in this respect that a multidimensional approach is necessary as the intellect is still "stuck" rationalizing dimensions that in and of themselves are not rational. This, I argue, can lead to form of "disproportionality" as manifesting a symmetry between a definite and a non-definite is not always possible. Sometimes proportionality between irrationals requires a proportionality between irrationals. And example of this would be a "A" axiom. Alone this is little understand of its nature and dimensions. However when relative to, reflective of, or synthesizing with "B" axiom greater proportions are observed and a clear definition can be given.

Another example would be emotions. Of course there is a degree of intellectualism that can be applied, however because the structures of the intellect and emotions are reflective does not make them equal. Emotions often best manifest definition relative to other emotions (observing emotions through emotion) and once this definition is observed, a greater proportion of intellect can be applied. I hope this makes sense.
User avatar
mtmynd1
Posts: 429
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 11:43 pm
Location: TX, USA

Re: Philosophies...

Post by mtmynd1 »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: That is an absolute statement...

I agree so why taint truth with the unsettling of the mind? Using mind exclusively will always end up dry, without a definite solution, without Truth which was the initial reasoning behind the your contradiction (which is a mind trick that has no solution).


Eodnhoj7 wrote:I would argue that Philosophy is the observation and manifestation of definition, with these definitions manifesting proportionalities and symmetries which are reflective in structure and equal in function to "truth".
You "ARE" arguing and nonsensically, I may add.

"Philosophy is the observation and manifestation of definition" Really? Philosophy has been noted and agreed upon for centuries, "the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence"... which BTW has NOT found any conclusive answer... only a continuing collection of opinions upon opinions which end up with a resound zero to show for it... other than mankind's necessity to "talk".

"...with these definitions manifesting proportionalities and symmetries which are reflective in structure and equal in function to "truth". Please note you ended this sentence *and* the comment with the word "truth". Therein lies the problem mind has wrestled with since it recognized it was capable of causing questions... questioning all that we know and have known with a future of continuing down that same path. The is no question that will bring forth an answer that will not create another question. This mind game is insatiable and the largest problem mankind has been dealing with ever since it recognized it's preponderance of that which mind is.

Mind does not produce, make, give or even take "Truth" for it never will agree to Truth as anything but an assumptive end. Mind's nature will not allow an end... the ending of anything that it alone has concluded.
User avatar
mtmynd1
Posts: 429
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 11:43 pm
Location: TX, USA

Re: Philosophies...

Post by mtmynd1 »

Harbal wrote:Or as I like to put it: Philosophy is thinking about things.
You may "like" putting Philosophy in that small box but you err. Just a cursory look at this site, Philosophy Now, which has a board index. I'm sure you're aware of this but you've not given any thought to the topics listed, i.e. "asthetics", "ethics", "epistemology", "gender", "metaphysics", "language", "mind", "religion", "science", "mathematics", and "politics"... are you aware that not anyone of these topics are in and of themselves "things"? To think about "things" you might begin with any of the Earth Sciences, perhaps astronomy, geology, biology... many "things" to learn about. You are right that philosophy is "thinking" but it's unable to go beyond thinking... it is a mind game not a board game or a card game... no things... only mind can play philosophical games... not any thing.

Think about it...
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 4360
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Philosophies...

Post by Harbal »

mtmynd1 wrote: but you've not given any thought to the topics listed,
You underestimate me, mtmynd1, there are also many other things that I have not given any thought to.
Think about it...
That's not the way I work.
User avatar
mtmynd1
Posts: 429
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 11:43 pm
Location: TX, USA

Re: Philosophies...

Post by mtmynd1 »

Harbal wrote: "...there are also many other things that I have not given any thought to."
That is very positive, "Harbal". Enjoy the journey thought will give you and remember no one subject should be ignored.
That's not the way I work.
That is the way to work.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6708
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Philosophies...

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

mtmynd1 wrote:
Eodnhoj7 wrote: That is an absolute statement...

I agree so why taint truth with the unsettling of the mind? Using mind exclusively will always end up dry, without a definite solution, without Truth which was the initial reasoning behind the your contradiction (which is a mind trick that has no solution).

If you would have looked below, I argued that truth cannot be limited to intellect only however the intellect is a critical component.

Eodnhoj7 wrote:I would argue that Philosophy is the observation and manifestation of definition, with these definitions manifesting proportionalities and symmetries which are reflective in structure and equal in function to "truth".
You "ARE" arguing and nonsensically, I may add.

"Philosophy is the observation and manifestation of definition" Really? Philosophy has been noted and agreed upon for centuries, "the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence"... which BTW has NOT found any conclusive answer... only a continuing collection of opinions upon opinions which end up with a resound zero to show for it... other than mankind's necessity to "talk".

The ability to observe and manifest definition is congruent to observing and manifesting truth. Study is a degree of observation. As to any conclusive answer, their is no criteria as to what a clear definition would be, so it is a self-defeating. If philosophy is "only a continuing collection of opinions upon opinions which end up with a resound zero to show for it... other than mankind's necessity to "talk"' than by default you admit to being "just talk".

"...with these definitions manifesting proportionalities and symmetries which are reflective in structure and equal in function to "truth". Please note you ended this sentence *and* the comment with the word "truth". Therein lies the problem mind has wrestled with since it recognized it was capable of causing questions... questioning all that we know and have known with a future of continuing down that same path. The is no question that will bring forth an answer that will not create another question. This mind game is insatiable and the largest problem mankind has been dealing with ever since it recognized it's preponderance of that which mind is.

You quote me then talk about the futility of questioning, when I was not questioning but rather making an observation. It appears to me the only one questioning everything is you, and I am assuming you go about questioning yourself all day long.

Mind does not produce, make, give or even take "Truth" for it never will agree to Truth as anything but an assumptive end. Mind's nature will not allow an end... the ending of anything that it alone has concluded.
But we can observe degrees of Truth, we can observe reflections of truth. I understand how you believe you have had an original thought with the "truth never really being known, it is just a bunch of assumptives" type thinking, however what you are doing is stating a fact. If you are stating a fact, then you are contradicting yourself. If you are stating an opinion, then you are just boring me.

I don't want to come off as ruder than I already might have appeared, but if all you are going to do is argue about "how there is no truth", or "the truth cannot be none", etc. do yourself the favor and save it as I have literally seen all of the arguments before.

Unless you want to surprised me... I am game for that.
User avatar
mtmynd1
Posts: 429
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 11:43 pm
Location: TX, USA

Re: Philosophies...

Post by mtmynd1 »

Eodnhoj7 wrote:"... I have literally seen all of the arguments before.

You may have "seen" all of the arguments before today, but what have they gotten you? Flitting about Philosophy Now
has only gotten you more mental food to chew on but hardly nutritionally good for your Being.
Unless you want to surprised me... I am game for that."
I do surprise you, game or no game, for Truth transcends all. When you find that Truism, you will find your true Self, 'johndoe'.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6708
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Philosophies...

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

mtmynd1 wrote:
Eodnhoj7 wrote:"... I have literally seen all of the arguments before.

You may have "seen" all of the arguments before today, but what have they gotten you?
What have they gotten you?

Flitting about Philosophy Now
has only gotten you more mental food to chew on but hardly nutritionally good for your Being.
Then why are you here?
Unless you want to surprised me... I am game for that."
I do surprise you, game or no game, for Truth transcends all. When you find that Truism, you will find your true Self, 'johndoe'.
Yeah...um...you were telling all of us about how Truth is mere opinion prior to this. I get it...your "deep", that is..."original". And what is "your" true self?
User avatar
mtmynd1
Posts: 429
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 11:43 pm
Location: TX, USA

Re: Philosophies...

Post by mtmynd1 »

Eodnhoj wrote: I get it...your "deep", that is..."original".?
Depth and originality don't share the same meaning.
And what is "your" true self?
Find your own true self and you'll find the answer to your question. I can't do it for you.
User avatar
Necromancer
Posts: 405
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2015 12:30 am
Location: Metropolitan-Oslo, Norway, Europe
Contact:

Re: Philosophies...

Post by Necromancer »

My philosophies as they have matured now look like this:
Ethics: Kantian (Neo-Kantian), Deontologist, Moral Realist, Ethical Objectivist, I'll include Cognitivist also so that it doesn't escape in it all

Applied Ethics: Deep Ecology Philosopher and Pro-Euthanasia/Assisted Suicide Philosopher.

Philosophy of Language: Artificial Language Philosopher, De Dicto - Propositional - Philosopher, Gricean in meaning theory
- Formally settling the question of language philosophy (also including logical contorversies). This is it: The further development of my position on "Artificial Language Philosophy" is this simplicity, that more or less settles it, is that as the logical connectives enter the artificial language in non-contradictory way and maintaining the strict logical requirements of being consistent, the logical connectives can be read aloud like this fx. "the logical connective NOT" to [entity] "by parantheses" and reading onwards and that this, principally makes Carnap's project crossing the finishing line! - Carnap is the Winner along with the rest of us!

Epistemology: Foundherentist (Foundationalism by photons and other quants, you can also add time and space to this, although, by Smolin, I don't bother to support more than 4 dimensions, 3 space and 1 time) and Internalist Externalist Compatibilist

Philosophy of Science: Scientific Realist, Fallback strategy to heuristic Instrumentalism and Operationalism which both include Conventionalism, Formally: Phenomenologist, Revisionist Standard Model Philosopher and Cumulative Growth of Knowledge Philosopher or Anti-Kuhnian

Metaphysics: Interactionist, Solipsist and Quietist (there's a problem relating to the status of reality. I believe in God, being a deist, status of the mind effecting matter, the brain, taking part in the kingdom of ideas, and so on. I'd really like to put Realism in here, but I find it impossible because it's likely to cut me short), Free Will Philosopher, Truth Realist, Universalism and Particularism Compatibilist

Philosophy of Mind: Reductionist/Substance Dualist (It depends on the development of Standard Model in Physics)

Logics: Logical Realist

Philosophy of Mathematics: Mathematical Realist and Tarski-Gödel Compatibilist

Philosophy of Politics: Utopian, Activist, Welfare-Capitalist, Conservative, Cosmopolitanist, Realist, Pragmatist, Idealist (maybe synonymous with Utopian), Multiculturalist, Patriotist and Secularist (!)
- Accordance Realist Pragmatist Idealist with the all-important word Accordance. - This enters in light of my little notice that pays respect to all of these three concepts inline, properly

Philosophy of Law (as formerly written): Absolutist, Legislationist and Originalist (!), Formalist Philosopher and Legal Reasoning Closure Principle Philosopher, legal reasoning, being valid, has to comply with logical entailment and that this is minimally the claim that it does, apart from the (many book) examples that it does. (This is only a formal note, not the text for lawyers to actually having to sit and make these logical texts themselves, i.e., to burden them with much extra work.)

Philosophy of Business: Minimalist (rather jokingly, as earlier noted) (!)

Philosophy of Religion: Scientific Deist, Modern Christian, Moderate Christian, Reasonable Christian, Scientologist, Ecumenical Philosopher, Deist: (Deism & Christianity = compatible "with Bible belief intact", 10 Comm., the rest) and All-Interpretationist (math. "union-U"), but only the best acc. to sense, pref. my own, also by "The Scientific Bible 2.0 - Commentary to the Bible, All Versions".

Philosophy of Aesthetics: Kantian

Philosophy of Public Relations: That under Philosophy of Public Relations (PR), I declare myself "white-side"/anti-Goebbels.
- By this, I also note that (black-side-)Goebbels is a bloody negative study and that one must remember that he has been a core-Nazi-German and all that this brings with a personhood of deep corruption. Despite this, Goebbels must have set into operation such vastness that it would have made Aristotle drool for months after witnessing it. USA has no poss. to object to this position of mine, formal note.

Cheers! :)
User avatar
mtmynd1
Posts: 429
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 11:43 pm
Location: TX, USA

Re: Philosophies...

Post by mtmynd1 »

Necromancer wrote:My philosophies as they have matured now look like this:
Ethics: Kantian (Neo-Kantian), Deontologist, Moral Realist, Ethical Objectivist, I'll include Cognitivist also so that it doesn't escape in it all

Cheers! :)
It seems to me that the maturation of philosophies would encourage a lighting of the load rather than taking on more baggage than one finds necessary.
But I'm sure your well-traveled path allows all excess without tripping over your mind. ;)
Post Reply