On a Method for Correct Philosophizing

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

de Silentio
 
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2010 07:36 pm
@HexHammer,
HexHammer;174437 wrote:

Logic does depends both on psycology, intelligence and raw knowledge, else you get logical things like...

..all ill logic from past history, so yearh ..logic alone doesn't cut it. Often simple minded people will conjour up ill logic, because they can't take any obvious factors into account.


I don't think that all logic is ill-logic, however. Much of the examples you gave are not logical. Logic as a discipline does not rest on psychology. Logic as a discipline is branch of philosophy. Therefore, some philosophy doesn't rely on Logic.

Quote:
No offence, but I consider Kirkegaard the absolute most useless philosopher around, relying on empty rethorics and unrealistic ideals. "objective truth" ..eeeeh ..yearh?


No offense taken, to each his own. Kierkegaard aides my philosophical growth in a different way than other philosophers/philosophies. However, our prejudices aside, both Kierkegaard and Dostoevsky use psychology in their philosophy.



I think we have different ideas of what logic is and the role it plays in life and philosophy.
 
TuringEquivalent
 
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 02:00 am
@de Silentio,
de Silentio;174426 wrote:


I will take Turing one step further and say that studying is not enough. Creatively thinking about how to solve philosophical problems is also key.



That is not true. If you study the method, and the concepts. What you will learn is the method of teasing meaning of out statements. A retard can state a view, and repeat a principle. Real philosophers can tell you all the possible ways the view is good, and bad from all possible angles. Those people are called experts. Perhaps, your goal is not that grand....
 
HexHammer
 
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 05:09 am
@de Silentio,
de Silentio;174443 wrote:
I don't think that all logic is ill-logic, however. Much of the examples you gave are not logical. Logic as a discipline does not rest on psychology. Logic as a discipline is branch of philosophy. Therefore, some philosophy doesn't rely on Logic.
All of them are, it is the church and pope who made these poor logical conclusions, and ofc a theater play (which doesn't really count).
 
de Silentio
 
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 05:50 am
@TuringEquivalent,
TuringEquivalent;174540 wrote:
That is not true. If you study the method, and the concepts. What you will learn is the method of teasing meaning of out statements. A retard can state a view, and repeat a principle. Real philosophers can tell you all the possible ways the view is good, and bad from all possible angles. Those people are called experts. Perhaps, your goal is not that grand....


Actually, my goals are quite grand. I felt the same way about studying as you, until I started being trained by the experts and my eyes were opened to the world of philosophy. Perhaps you misinterpreted what I said, as I did not say that a person should just "repeat a principle", quite the opposite. Creatively thinking about philosophical problems requires a bringing together a synthesis of materials that coherently coincide to solve a problem.

Did Kant just read Hume and absorb his concepts, no, he took Hume a step further and created great philosophy. Did Descartes just study the method of the scholastics, no, he took what they did and rebuilt a foundation upon which a philosophy could stand. If this is not grandeur, then I don't know what is.

You say: Real philosophers can tell you all the possible ways the view is good, and bad from all possible angles

You are correct, but how can I evaluate all angles if I just study what others have done. Philosophy is an art of creation as much as an art of study. Real philosophers create, that is why they are published. Creativity is what drives philosophy forward, not study.

---------- Post added 06-08-2010 at 07:54 AM ----------

HexHammer;174603 wrote:
All of them are, it is the church and pope who made these poor logical conclusions, and ofc a theater play (which doesn't really count).


Sorry, I mistyped the logical conclusion I was trying to convey. The conclusion should have read: Therefore, some philosophy doesn't require PSYCHOLOGY.

As to your reply, I'm a unclear on the point you are trying to make. Sorry.
 
apehead
 
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 06:21 am
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;174361 wrote:
I wish more people understood this point. There are many debates on the forum about 'the mind-independent reality' of the universe. I maintain that, whatever that might be, it is not knowable to us, and to hold it up as an ideal of objectivity is illusory. I scientifically-inclined tend to idealise this concept and hold it up as that which is gradually disclosed by science. But I don't think there is any such thing - everything must exist from some viewpoint. That is my understanding of it anyway.


I find the realization that objectivity is an impossible ideal to be helpful, as it allows one to take certain "truths" a little less seriously.
 
TuringEquivalent
 
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 06:26 am
@de Silentio,
Here is an example:

Suppose you want to be good in mathematical analysis. What do you do? You learn, and study all the proofs, and theorems. What else do you do? You do the problems. Some of the problems are hard, and it takes many hours to figure out. Suppose you figure out a hard problem, and found a solution that is simple, and straight forward. Some people would say the solution is' creative'.

What can we say from this example? The word 'creativity' applies to the end product( ie: solution to a problem). What does 'being creativity' mean here?

This is in contrast to being 'creativity' because you made a nice drawing. It is very easy to be 'creativity' in this sense because there is no right, or wrong answer for some interesting drawing. The 'creativity' in this sense has no possibility of being wrong, while 'creativity' in sense of finding a simple solution to a hard problem is not a easy thing to do, and have the possibility of not being the right solution.

The 'creativity' in the sense of coming up with a smart solution to a hard problem do seem to require a lot of study. You need to learn the problem. You need to learn all the attempts at solution by others, so that you don` t fall in the same trap as others before you. Also, the notion of 'creativity' is tied down to solving problems, but how does one solve a problem before one understands the problem? Perhaps, they need to study the problem, and do the problems. If some solutions are smart, then we called it 'creative'. In this whole process, there is no process of 'being creativity'. There are just creative solutions to hard problems.
 
HexHammer
 
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 06:53 am
@de Silentio,
de Silentio;174622 wrote:
Therefore, some philosophy doesn't require PSYCHOLOGY.
"some" ..that we can agree on.
 
de Silentio
 
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 08:14 am
@TuringEquivalent,
TuringEquivalent;174629 wrote:
Here is an example:

Suppose you want to be good in mathematical analysis. What do you do? You learn, and study all the proofs, and theorems. ...

What can we say from this example? The word 'creativity' applies to the end product( ie: solution to a problem). What does 'being creativity' mean here?


Why would a philosopher want to be good just at philosophical analysis? Analysis is extremely important, but it is only a part of doing philosophy. Expanding on philosophical theories and progressing philosophy requires creative thinking.

Creative Thinking and Critical Thinking are different, and both are important for philosophy. I pulled this definition from another website, it is in regards to Bloom's Taxonomy:

Quote:
Critical thinking involves logical thinking and reasoning including skills such as comparison, classification, sequencing, cause/effect, patterning, webbing, analogies, deductive and inductive reasoning, forecasting, planning, hyphothesizing, and critquing.


Creative thinking involves creating something new or original. It involves the skills of flexibility, originality, fluency, elaboration, brainstorming, modification, imagery, associative thinking, attribute listing, metaphorical thinking, forced relationships. The aim of creative thinking is to stimulate curiosity and promote divergence.




Quote:
Turing: This is in contrast to being 'creativity' because you made a nice drawing.
...

In this whole process, there is no process of 'being creativity'. There are just creative solutions to hard problems.


Let me give you an example. I recently studied the Sellars Problem and a solution given to the problem by Laurence Bonjour. In my paper, I analysed the Sellars Problem, Bonjour's Solution, and some critiques to his solution given by other philosophers. This was my analysis.

The criticisms leveled against Bonjour undermine his solution to the Sellars Problem. What I did was modify Bonjour solution to render the criticisms leveled against his solution irrelevant. This required that I be creative and think of a modification to Bonjour's Solution that is coherent, cogent, and sound. I don't see how this is not being creative. It requires Creative Thinking which yields original solutions to a problem.

If I'm not mistaken, all of my previous posts point to this sort of creativity, and not the sort like "creating a drawing".

Now, how do we become good creative thinkers... by practicing. So what if I come up with a creative solution to a problem that someone already has before me. If I, completely independantly of other source, analyze a problem and create a solution that is sound, what does it matter if someone else has come up with the problem before? Now, do I go off and try to get this published... No. I understand that what I did was an exercise to develop an important part of my intellectual ability.. the ability to create orginal material.
 
Ding an Sich
 
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 08:37 am
@de Silentio,
de Silentio;174426 wrote:
Logic certaintly doesn't depend on psychology, and logic serves as a root for much recent philosophy.


Logic has served the root of all philosophy, going back to Socrates (he was the guy who came up with the HD method. Pretty snazzy). it didnt really become a subject matter until Aristotle and the Posterior Analytics; up until that point, Logic was a part of Rhetoric, taught by the Sophists.

Keep in mind ladies and gents that Logic does not deal with matter, but with the FORM of the matter. Give you a simplistic example:

All A are B
All B are C
All A are C

Logically this is a valid syllogism (I reserve the term "valid" for a structure of logic, not whether it's true or false) and the form itself does not concern itself with the matter or "empirical evidence", or what-have-you. I can put anything in for A, B, and C (from experience) and plug it in. Same is true with propositional logic.

Answer to Haxhammer's "Greater Logic" problem: the other garbage man realized that his friend was in a coma on account of the perfume from the vendors. He simply used cause and effect, which is an a priori condition of the understanding, and is also expressed in terms of propositional logic "if p, then q". The garbage man realized that the effect was caused by the perfume, and proceeded to get his friend out. He thought that "if" he got his friend to fresh air, he would "then" come out of his coma (which might I add uses the same form as the conditional proposition mentioned above). This was the case and so this argument can be formed.

1. If I get my friend out of the perfume and into fresh air, then he will recover from his coma, or [if (p and q), then r].

2. I got my friend out of there and into fresh air. (p and q)

3. Therefore, my friend will recover from his coma. (r)

heres the form of the argument:

1. if (p and q), then r
2. (p and q)
3. therefore r

Therewith "Hexhammer's Problem" vanishes.

---------- Post added 06-08-2010 at 10:40 AM ----------

jeeprs;174404 wrote:
It is admirable to know one's limits. There are more than a few around here who could benefit from some of that.


I try not to delve into things in which I do not have a proper understanding of or background in. Thats why you will never see me on certain parts of this forum (and if you do, it will be because I am feeling silly).
 
de Silentio
 
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 08:53 am
@Ding an Sich,
Ding_an_Sich;174668 wrote:
Keep in mind ladies and gents that Logic does not deal with matter, but with the FORM of the matter. Give you a simplistic example:


Thanks thing_in_itself for filling in where I could not. Love the name, by the way.
 
Ding an Sich
 
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 01:14 pm
@de Silentio,
de Silentio;174675 wrote:
Thanks thing_in_itself for filling in where I could not. Love the name, by the way.


Youre quite welcome good sir. I do my best.

Thanks. People seem to like this name. I was originally going to go with sum_ergo_cogito, but I was feeling more Kantian that day. In fact, strangely, I feel Kantian everyday.:bigsmile:
 
HexHammer
 
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 02:30 pm
@Ding an Sich,
Ding_an_Sich;174668 wrote:
Answer to Haxhammer's "Greater Logic" problem: the other garbage man realized that his friend was in a coma on account of the perfume from the vendors. He simply used cause and effect, which is an a priori condition of the understanding, and is also expressed in terms of propositional logic "if p, then q". The garbage man realized that the effect was caused by the perfume, and proceeded to get his friend out. He thought that "if" he got his friend to fresh air, he would "then" come out of his coma (which might I add uses the same form as the conditional proposition mentioned above). This was the case and so this argument can be formed.
That's only putting some solutoins to the obvious and straightforward by applying simple logic, not greater logic.
 
apehead
 
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 02:44 pm
@Ding an Sich,
Ding_an_Sich;174200 wrote:
:detective:
And this is where representation comes in. Objects for me are things-in-themselves. We can only know of the objective knowledge of representations, and not objects themselves (or "in-themselves"). But that does not mean that we cannot have objective knowledge per se. The subject always presupposes the object, and conversely. Granted, we might not be able to have knowledge of everything, as this requires omniscience, but, from my standpoint, I am pretty sure we can have knowledge of objects in a possible experience. Things like God, Freedom, Soul do not come into this, as (at least for me) they are not in a possible experience (its impossible to prove them sufficiently). Hope this helps.


I understand, but the relation between phenomena, and our perception of said phenomena is fundamentally dependent on a myriad of factors, which disallow even objective observation, i.e. unbiased completely detached observation. Without sensory input (observation), there is no knowledge. The capability of perfect observation would result in perfect knowledge (objective truth). Since acting beings are capable of imperfect observation (subjective experience), we have imperfect knowledge as a result (differing interpretation of phenomena).

Bringing this back to your post, not only are we incapable of observation of phenomena-in-itself, we are incapable of perfect computation due to imperfect observation. As the old programming adage states,

"Garbage in, garbage out"
 
Ding an Sich
 
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 04:03 pm
@HexHammer,
HexHammer;174796 wrote:
That's only putting some solutoins to the obvious and straightforward by applying simple logic, not greater logic.


You do not need Greater Logic for this.
 
HexHammer
 
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 04:11 pm
@Ding an Sich,
Ding_an_Sich;174836 wrote:
You do not need Greater Logic for this.
You do, because you havn't solved it fully.
 
Ding an Sich
 
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 04:13 pm
@apehead,
apehead;174806 wrote:
I understand, but the relation between phenomena, and our perception of said phenomena is fundamentally dependent on a myriad of factors, which disallow even objective observation, i.e. unbiased completely detached observation. Without sensory input (observation), there is no knowledge. The capability of perfect observation would result in perfect knowledge (objective truth). Since acting beings are capable of imperfect observation (subjective experience), we have imperfect knowledge as a result (differing interpretation of phenomena).

Bringing this back to your post, not only are we incapable of observation of phenomena-in-itself, we are incapable of perfect computation due to imperfect observation. As the old programming adage states,

"Garbage in, garbage out"


Well of course completely objective detached observation cannot work, as it automatically presupposes a subject. Thats the materialist way of things good sir.

Just out of curiousity did you mean to say the "thing-in-itself" or "phenomena-in-itself"?

---------- Post added 06-08-2010 at 06:14 PM ----------

HexHammer;174843 wrote:
You do, because you havn't solved it fully.


Have you solved it fully? Because Im already done here.
 
HexHammer
 
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 04:20 pm
@Ding an Sich,
Ding_an_Sich;174844 wrote:
Have you solved it fully? Because Im already done here.
Yes I have, that's why my Dr friend would rage at someone like myself, who only play computer games and watch Mtv, when he has read heaps of books and I none ..but Lord of the Rings and a few other fantasy books.
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 04:26 pm
@apehead,
apehead;174628 wrote:
I find the realization that objectivity is an impossible ideal to be helpful, as it allows one to take certain "truths" a little less seriously.


Needs to be handled with care, though, lest you end up mired in the swamp of postmodernism.
 
Ding an Sich
 
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 05:31 pm
@HexHammer,
HexHammer;174849 wrote:
Yes I have, that's why my Dr friend would rage at someone like myself, who only play computer games and watch Mtv, when he has read heaps of books and I none ..but Lord of the Rings and a few other fantasy books.


Im just wondering if you could provide a structure of this "Greater Logic", and post it somewhere. The thread you posted originally is a pile of garbage in introducing this, as ill admit if you can provide, insightful subject.
 
TuringEquivalent
 
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 05:39 pm
@de Silentio,
de Silentio;174659 wrote:
Why would a philosopher want to be good just at philosophical analysis? Analysis is extremely important, but it is only a part of doing philosophy. Expanding on philosophical theories and progressing philosophy requires creative thinking.

Creative Thinking and Critical Thinking are different, and both are important for philosophy. I pulled this definition from another website, it is in regards to Bloom's Taxonomy:



Let me give you an example. I recently studied the Sellars Problem and a solution given to the problem by Laurence Bonjour. In my paper, I analysed the Sellars Problem, Bonjour's Solution, and some critiques to his solution given by other philosophers. This was my analysis.

The criticisms leveled against Bonjour undermine his solution to the Sellars Problem. What I did was modify Bonjour solution to render the criticisms leveled against his solution irrelevant. This required that I be creative and think of a modification to Bonjour's Solution that is coherent, cogent, and sound. I don't see how this is not being creative. It requires Creative Thinking which yields original solutions to a problem.

If I'm not mistaken, all of my previous posts point to this sort of creativity, and not the sort like "creating a drawing".

Now, how do we become good creative thinkers... by practicing. So what if I come up with a creative solution to a problem that someone already has before me. If I, completely independantly of other source, analyze a problem and create a solution that is sound, what does it matter if someone else has come up with the problem before? Now, do I go off and try to get this published... No. I understand that what I did was an exercise to develop an important part of my intellectual ability.. the ability to create orginal material.



Suppose you study the problem(whatever problem), and come up with a interest solution. Is this process you called 'being creativity'? I wouldn` t call this process 'being creativity'. I think i call this process 'problem solving'. It is a skill.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2014 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 12/17/2014 at 06:49:08