A New Philosophy

[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.

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.

Wayne Kelly Leggette Sr.

[thedoc]

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.

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.

Wayne Kelly Leggette Sr.

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.

[Felasco]

Felasco, sorry to read you have no interest in participating, hope you change your mind.

I might become interested if you should demonstrate an ability to get your project off the ground. So far, I don't see that.

[wleg]

Doc, Felasco, my only interest in philosophy is the challenge of advancing philosophical knowledge. I would enjoy the collaborative method of accomplishing this. What makes this process so difficult on a forum like this; the new ideas required to advance philosophical knowledge are different and a threat to the established ideas of others on the forums, thus the hostility. I've learned not to let hostility bother me once I realized what was/is happening. The problem is; the hostility makes collaboration impossible. I have tried different techniques to overcome this problem, even offering to pay for propositional statement, supported by logical argument, that advance the knowledge. So far, no technique I've tried has worked. I have come to the conclusive realization that collaboration on a forum like this is impossible and now I am just waiting until the time is right to try a different approach.

Wayne Kelly Leggette Sr.

[James Markham]

wleg, I've read a few of your different posts, and they all seem to be about the same topic, namely the development of philosophical understanding. I also think this is an important step in mans development of knowledge, and one that will eventually be performed in the manner you have stipulated.

As you have remarked, the first step in formulating a system by which philosophical speculation can become actual knowledge, would have to be the standardisation of terminology definitions. It's not until people can agree on what a term means, that they can sensibly debate it's use, and until we all have agreed definitions, we may as well be talking different languages.

So I think your ideas are a good way of moving forward, but I'm not sure these type of forums are the best place to actually implement your plans, it may be an idea to simply use philosophy forums to find and vet the participants who you think can contribute sensible premises and responses, and then allow them to post on a forum of your own.

As for a format that allows for a structured analysis of reality, but at the same time prohibits senseless jabber, I would suggest a system where by a person who enters a thread, can read a propositional statement, and select an option to make a post in support or against that statement. Once a poster has submitted his supporting statement, it could open a sub- thread in which that statement is debated. In this way, an initial proposition or premiss, with an inference and conclusion would exist as a starting point, and then a perspective poster can chose to submit a point that either supports or disputes the premiss, inference or conclusion, or alternately they can read through the submitted content, and chose to debate on one of these sub-threads.

I think this type of format would prove less popular with the kind of responses we see on this forum, and any such input would at least be confined to the sub threads.

[thedoc]

Doc, Felasco, my only interest in philosophy is the challenge of advancing philosophical knowledge. I would enjoy the collaborative method of accomplishing this. What makes this process so difficult on a forum like this; the new ideas required to advance philosophical knowledge are different and a threat to the established ideas of others on the forums, thus the hostility. I've learned not to let hostility bother me once I realized what was/is happening. The problem is; the hostility makes collaboration impossible. I have tried different techniques to overcome this problem, even offering to pay for propositional statement, supported by logical argument, that advance the knowledge. So far, no technique I've tried has worked. I have come to the conclusive realization that collaboration on a forum like this is impossible and now I am just waiting until the time is right to try a different approach.

Wayne Kelly Leggette Sr.

Wleg, I disagree with the idea that collaboration is impossible, it's just very difficult. On any forum you are not obliged to read or respond to any other post, so it becomes a process of 'pick and choose', and this can extend to the posts and the poster. A collaborative exchange can take place if those who are really interested, can look past those who would disrupt that exchange. It sounds like you are part way there by not letting hostility bother you. One other thing to keep in mind is that an individual poster can switch between a serious response and a flippant or hostile one in the same thread, depending on which other post is being referenced.

What questions or comments do you wish to discuss?

[Arising_uk]

I was offering to pay for propositional statements I believe advance Philosophical knowledge. My offer to pay works like every day commerce, if I want it, I pay for it, if I don't pay its because I don't want it. Nothing devious about it.

Wayne Kelly Leggette Sr.

And yet all those statements are philosophical propositions that advance philosophical knowledge. So what you are saying is that you only want to advance what you consider philosophical knowledge?

[wleg]

James,

You do indeed; understand what I have been attempting to get at. Your suggestions; how to structure a forum to advance knowledge demonstrates excellent inventive logic. Do you have an interest is discussing further on this forum or by email either hypothetically, or, actually starting a website? Either way, would be interesting to me.

I would like us to have a discussion 'here' relating to the “value of philosophical knowledge” by first discussing how different sub subjects, that relate, should be systematically organized to create a sensible discussion. If this interests you, why don’t you start a new thread, “The Value of Philosophical Knowledge”, or whatever name you think is appropriate. You might suggest in the opening post that readers who really have no overwhelming interest is the subject try to restrain themselves and not post a reply. Fragmented threads, where replies make sense, followed by off topic replies that make no sense, destroy the continuity of a thread.


Doc,

If James starts a new thread, let’s practice collaboration on it. I believe the secrete to successful collaboration, when the purpose is to solve a problem, is break the problem into its smallest parts and work on understanding the small parts most important to solving the problem in descending importance. While this systematic process is understood and used in other areas of investigation, there is no evidence, as far as I know, of it being used in the philosophical area.

UK, I want to advance philosophical knowledge using statement that are supported by logical arguments.

Wayne Kelly Leggette Sr.

[Arising_uk]

...
UK, I want to advance philosophical knowledge using statement that are supported by logical arguments.

Since the propositions are pretty much the statements that underpin Logic I think they are also ones that have advanced philosophical knowledge. As such I'm still awaiting my pay.

[wleg]

Uwot,

You say: Since the propositions are pretty much the statements that underpin Logic:

"Something can be or not be."

"Nothing can be and not be."

"If something then something else, and that something is, that something else is."

"If something is necessary then that something is."

"I am."

"I can speak and think in a language therefore at least one other exists besides myself."

I say: Present a logical argument to support the truth of each statement.

You are doing what philosophers have always done, making statements that are not supported by logical argument. The fact is; philosophers did not know how to construct logical arguments because they did not know that constructing knowledge is grounded in understanding the 'nature of the existence' of the concepts they were making statements about.

The nature of the existence of a concept is a 'comprehensive definition' that identifies the concept and its attributes, thus constructing a realistic definition.

Example: "Truth is a propositional statement, illustrating the state of mind when it recognizes two or more things and conditions relating to the existence of each other."

This definition of "truth" is comprehensive because it identifies the subject "truth" as relating to the "condition (state of mind)", and another "condition (behavior of recognizing"), and another "condition (existence)" all stated as the "condition" (of relating). From this definition we can know that "truth" is a product of the mental behavior of "recognizing" things and conditions that relate to the existence of each other and then illustrated by a propositional statement/sentence. And it follows; statements that identify things and conditions that do not relate to the existence of each other are not "true" and demonstrate, at best, a faulty state of mind.

Wayne Kelly Leggette Sr.

[Felasco]

Do you have an interest is discussing further on this forum or by email either hypothetically, or, actually starting a website? Either way, would be interesting to me.

1) Register a domain name (DirectNic.com - $15)

2) Get a web hosting account (HostGator.com - $10/mo)

3) Get phpBB forum software (phpBB.com - free)

4) Hire someone on phpBB.com to do the install and serve as your technical adviser.

5) Write an opening post that explains the purpose of the forum, and any rules and procedures new members should be aware of.

Once the above 5 steps are complete you'll be in a position to make credible invitations. It will still be a slow process, but at least you'll have something concrete to put on the table. You'll find folks more receptive to a live project, as opposed to a maybe someday project.

[wleg]

Felasco,

Awesome! thanks

Wayne Kelly Leggette Sr.

[thedoc]

Doc,
If James starts a new thread, let’s practice collaboration on it. I believe the secrete to successful collaboration, when the purpose is to solve a problem, is break the problem into its smallest parts and work on understanding the small parts most important to solving the problem in descending importance. While this systematic process is understood and used in other areas of investigation, there is no evidence, as far as I know, of it being used in the philosophical area.

Wayne Kelly Leggette Sr.

I'm game, just let me know where to go, as long as the dialogue is real and not so dry that it puts me to sleep. (Once I was checking an old e-mail box and dozed off with my finger on the delete key, and woke up to an empty box.) My areas of interest are grandchildren, model trains, classical music, science - especially cosmology, and a few others. I have worked in machine shops as a machine operator, worked as a draftsman, and owned a hobby shop. Any of these areas are viable for applying philosophy, and to use to illustrate the concepts of philosophy. To me philosophy is an idea or belief that guides you in living your life, if you think it is something higher and more esoteric, you are probably beyond me from the start. I have also read a lot of Zen, but I don't have the books now.

[HexHammer]

Wleg

It seems you want to create some elitism in the way we dicuss things, which I agree with, but the problem arises that you don't have any idea about what it takes, and how we should do it, which in the end would leave you out of the elitism.

Imo it's very easy, ban all those who doesn't understand the concept of relevance and factual knowledge, all these are merely cosy chatters, as they exchange only knowledge, not wisdom as philosophy are based upon.

[uwot]

ban all those who doesn't understand the concept of relevance and factual knowledge,

Can you give an example of factual knowledge?