Philosophy Now Forum

In Honor of Philosopher's Day, and to show why noone honors philosopher's day:

Everyone can ignore every single post I made from this point prior, as it is summed up in this:

The Prime Triadic Axioms as Laws for All Logic and Reason:

These axioms argued are original, progress to eachother and further axioms, while maintaining themselves as logical and structured through self-referencing. These axioms are laws.


1. All axioms are points of origin; hence all axioms as progressive linear definition and circularity are points of origins. The point of origin progresses to another point of origin through point 2 and cycles back to itself through point 3 with this linear progression and circularity originating from themselves, through eachother and point 1.

Point 1 is original and exists through points 2 and 3 as points 2 and 3.

As original Points 1,2,3 are extension of eachother as one axiom, while simultaneously being nothing in themselves as points of origin that invert to further axioms respectively; hence originate as 1 and 3 through 1 and 3 as 1 and 3 laws

2. All axioms are progressive linear definition; point 1 and 3 progress to point 2 as respective points of origin observed in point 1 while this linear progression from one to another through alternation and exists as circulation between points 1 and 3 to point 2 and point 2 progressing to points 1 and 3.

Point 2 is definitive and defines points 1 and 3 with points 1 and 3 defining point 2.

As definitive Points 1,2,3 progress from one to another and are inherently seperate. As seperating one from another they are connected under a common function of "seperation"; hence are defined as 1 and 3 through 1 and 3 as 1 and 3 laws.

3. All axioms are maintain through a circularity, as linear alternation through point 2, and points of origin as point 1, with point 1 and 2 circulating through each other as point three while circulating through themselves as each other. Point 3 maintains itself as circular and maintains points 1 and 2 as circular while points 1,2 and 3 circulating through eachother maintain eachother.

Point 3 is circular and exists through 1 and 2 as 1 and 2.

As circular Points 1,2,3 are maintained through eachother as eachother as one axiom, while simultaneously dissolving into further axioms as eachother; hence they circulate as 1 and 3 through 1 and 3 as 1 and 3 laws.


All philosophers adhere to the Prime Triadic Axioms whether they know it or not. They contradict themselves in not admitting to these axioms and further philosophical arguments occurs from these original arguments to further define them while resulting in a circularity between the schools of thoughts.

Where one argument fails another argument maintains it and defines it while seamingly antithetical, they synthesis new schools in the process.

Beating around the many bushes as usual.
Your problem here is you did not define 'what is philosophy' i.e. philosophy-proper before you start bashing your own twisted understanding of 'what is philosophy'.

My view of the essence of philosophy-proper is this from Russell;

Thus, to sum up our discussion of the value of philosophy;
Philosophy is to be studied, not for the sake of any definite answers to its questions since no definite answers can, as a rule, be known to be true, but rather for the sake of the questions themselves;
because these questions enlarge our conception of what is possible, enrich our intellectual imagination and diminish the dogmatic assurance which closes the mind against speculation;
but above all because, through the greatness of the universe which philosophy contemplates, the mind also is rendered great, and becomes capable of that union with the universe which constitutes its highest good.

While there are forms, the above is grounded on the generic features of the human DNA.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Nov 18, 2018 5:11 am Beating around the many bushes as usual.
Your problem here is you did not define 'what is philosophy' i.e. philosophy-proper before you start bashing your own twisted understanding of 'what is philosophy'.

My view of the essence of philosophy-proper is this from Russell;

Thus, to sum up our discussion of the value of philosophy;
Philosophy is to be studied, not for the sake of any definite answers to its questions since no definite answers can, as a rule, be known to be true, but rather for the sake of the questions themselves;
because these questions enlarge our conception of what is possible, enrich our intellectual imagination and diminish the dogmatic assurance which closes the mind against speculation;
but above all because, through the greatness of the universe which philosophy contemplates, the mind also is rendered great, and becomes capable of that union with the universe which constitutes its highest good.

While there are forms, the above is grounded on the generic features of the human DNA.

All philosophy exists through axioms, a philosophy which does not contain axioms is not axiomatic.

This (your argument) is an axiom; hence is subject to the above laws.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 18, 2018 5:14 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Nov 18, 2018 5:11 am Beating around the many bushes as usual.
Your problem here is you did not define 'what is philosophy' i.e. philosophy-proper before you start bashing your own twisted understanding of 'what is philosophy'.

My view of the essence of philosophy-proper is this from Russell;

Thus, to sum up our discussion of the value of philosophy;
Philosophy is to be studied, not for the sake of any definite answers to its questions since no definite answers can, as a rule, be known to be true, but rather for the sake of the questions themselves;
because these questions enlarge our conception of what is possible, enrich our intellectual imagination and diminish the dogmatic assurance which closes the mind against speculation;
but above all because, through the greatness of the universe which philosophy contemplates, the mind also is rendered great, and becomes capable of that union with the universe which constitutes its highest good.

While there are forms, the above is grounded on the generic features of the human DNA.

All philosophy exists through axioms, a philosophy which does not contain axioms is not axiomatic.

This (your argument) is an axiom; hence is subject to the above laws.

Why?
Whatever you state above [axiom or otherwise] is subjected to more questioning, that is the basis of philosophy.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Nov 18, 2018 5:18 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 18, 2018 5:14 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Nov 18, 2018 5:11 am Beating around the many bushes as usual.
Your problem here is you did not define 'what is philosophy' i.e. philosophy-proper before you start bashing your own twisted understanding of 'what is philosophy'.

My view of the essence of philosophy-proper is this from Russell;



While there are forms, the above is grounded on the generic features of the human DNA.

All philosophy exists through axioms, a philosophy which does not contain axioms is not axiomatic.

This (your argument) is an axiom; hence is subject to the above laws.

Why?
Whatever you state above [axiom or otherwise] is subjected to more questioning, that is the basis of philosophy.

That is inherent within the laws, a a progressive continuum. Already covered.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Nov 18, 2018 5:18 am Why?
Whatever you state above [axiom or otherwise] is subjected to more questioning, that is the basis of philosophy.

It is how deduction works.

All men are mortal. You are a man. You are mortal. "All men are mortal" is the axiom of the argument.

Your definition of "philosophy" is the axiom of yours.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sun Nov 18, 2018 5:24 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Nov 18, 2018 5:18 am Why?
Whatever you state above [axiom or otherwise] is subjected to more questioning, that is the basis of philosophy.

It is how deduction works.

All men are mortal. You are a man. You are mortal. "All men are mortal" is the axiom of the argument.

Your definition of "philosophy" is the axiom of yours.

My definition of philosophy is based on induction from experience.
It is like
'change is the only constant' as observed and inferred from experience.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 18, 2018 5:19 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Nov 18, 2018 5:18 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 18, 2018 5:14 am
All philosophy exists through axioms, a philosophy which does not contain axioms is not axiomatic.

This (your argument) is an axiom; hence is subject to the above laws.

Why?
Whatever you state above [axiom or otherwise] is subjected to more questioning, that is the basis of philosophy.

That is inherent within the laws, a a progressive continuum. Already covered.

Note Russell's definition of the value of Philosophy is based on empirical evidence and inferences/arguments therefrom.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Nov 18, 2018 5:29 am My definition of philosophy is based on induction from experience.
It is like

And you have defined "philosophy" like I have defined "curiosity". I am an autodidact. I learned what I learned on my own initiative.
I applied what I learned in the real world - which is why I focus on decision theory, not on logic. Logic/deduction is mechanical - decisions are not.

Which is also why I can dance in circles around philosophers who only know how to play logical word games. They are slaves of logic - I am its master.

P.S Russell was wrong. That's why mathematics needed ZFC.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Nov 18, 2018 5:29 am My definition of philosophy is based on induction from experience.
It is like
'change is the only constant' as observed and inferred from experience.

Then it follows that without one who observers and infers, there is no constant.

Solipsism.

Walker wrote: ↑Sun Nov 18, 2018 5:39 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Nov 18, 2018 5:29 am My definition of philosophy is based on induction from experience.
It is like
'change is the only constant' as observed and inferred from experience.

Then it follows that without one who observers and infers, there is no constant.

Solipsism.

I can push the envelope on an argument where you (incorrectly) infer that I am a solipsist. Because all taxonomies have edge/corner cases. That's where all the interesting problems lie...

It goes like this: Do you believe the universe exists? I don't.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sun Nov 18, 2018 5:34 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Nov 18, 2018 5:29 am My definition of philosophy is based on induction from experience.
It is like

And you have defined "philosophy" like I have defined "curiosity". I am an autodidact. I learned what I learned on my own initiative.
I applied what I learned in the real world - which is why I focus on decision theory, not on logic. Logic/deduction is mechanical - decisions are not.

Which is also why I can dance in circles around philosophers who only know how to play logical word games. They are slaves of logic - I am its master.

P.S Russell was wrong. That's why mathematics needed ZFC.

That Russell's quote was from early-Russell, not later-Russell where his concentration was on Mathematics.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Nov 18, 2018 5:41 am

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sun Nov 18, 2018 5:34 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Nov 18, 2018 5:29 am My definition of philosophy is based on induction from experience.
It is like

And you have defined "philosophy" like I have defined "curiosity". I am an autodidact. I learned what I learned on my own initiative.
I applied what I learned in the real world - which is why I focus on decision theory, not on logic. Logic/deduction is mechanical - decisions are not.

Which is also why I can dance in circles around philosophers who only know how to play logical word games. They are slaves of logic - I am its master.

P.S Russell was wrong. That's why mathematics needed ZFC.

That Russell's quote was from early-Russell, not later-Russell where his concentration was on Mathematics.

Later Russel was also wrong. There is a skill more important than asking questions. Knowing which questions are NOT decidable.
So you don't waste any of your time trying to answer them

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decidability_(logic) which is Turing's halting problem.

It is in the land of the undecidable questions where Philosophers love to play.

Walker wrote: ↑Sun Nov 18, 2018 5:39 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Nov 18, 2018 5:29 am My definition of philosophy is based on induction from experience.
It is like
'change is the only constant' as observed and inferred from experience.

Then it follows that without one who observers and infers, there is no constant.

Solipsism.

Yes, no observer and no thinker therefore no constant.

Nothing to do with solipsism in this case.
When a clear sky change to dark clouds and lightning, one better run to safety.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sun Nov 18, 2018 5:43 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Nov 18, 2018 5:41 am

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sun Nov 18, 2018 5:34 am
And you have defined "philosophy" like I have defined "curiosity". I am an autodidact. I learned what I learned on my own initiative.
I applied what I learned in the real world - which is why I focus on decision theory, not on logic. Logic/deduction is mechanical - decisions are not.

Which is also why I can dance in circles around philosophers who only know how to play logical word games. They are slaves of logic - I am its master.

P.S Russell was wrong. That's why mathematics needed ZFC.

That Russell's quote was from early-Russell, not later-Russell where his concentration was on Mathematics.

Later Russel was also wrong. There is a skill more important than asking questions. Knowing which questions are NOT decidable.
So you don't waste any of your time trying to answer them

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decidability_(logic) which is Turing's halting problem.

It is in the land of the undecidable questions where Philosophers love to play.

You are lost again.

I stated the heavily argued quote was from early-Russell. I am not bothered with later-Russell whether he was right or wrong.

The principle here is;
-focus on the next question [good or bad] not the answers [good or bad].
this attitude will prevent dogmatism and bigotry like those of the theists on the answer -"God did it" as final and absolute.