What do you think of other members in this forum?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Theaetetus
 
Reply Sat 29 May, 2010 05:20 pm
@Jebediah,
Jebediah;170533 wrote:
I don't understand how critical thought is so different from rational argument. It sounds like unexpressed rational argument.


I use critical thinking all the time, but I don't use rational argument while I am doing so. Most critical thinking is about discerning observation, thoughts, and information. Now rational argument can employ those things, but it is not necessary for critical thinking to involve rational argument. And what about using irrational argument while critical thinking?
 
Jebediah
 
Reply Sat 29 May, 2010 05:28 pm
@Theaetetus,
Theaetetus;170541 wrote:
I use critical thinking all the time, but I don't use rational argument while I am doing so. Most critical thinking is about discerning observation, thoughts, and information. Now rational argument can employ those things, but it is not necessary for critical thinking to involve rational argument. And what about using irrational argument while critical thinking?


Well, my thought, half expressed, when reading that was that good critical thought is like rational argument with all of the premises implied instead of stated. But I expect it would use some heuristics as well. I don't know what place those have in rational argument since I don't know the definition.

I think the rational argument part is the philosophy part, and the other stuff is more aptly called critical thinking. You can think critically all you want, but when the rubber hits the road you are going to be making a rational argument, yes?
 
Theaetetus
 
Reply Sat 29 May, 2010 05:28 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;170540 wrote:
Of course I said that philosophizing ought to be confined to rational argument. I did not say that philosophy was confined to rational argument. You really ought to try to read more carefully, so that you do not ascribe falsity and nonsense to those who do not utter falsity and nonsense. You should not project your defects on others. A superficial glance as some of the posts on this forum would soon disabuse anyone with any sense of the belief that people who discuss philosophy (or think they do) confine themselves to rational argument.

Sigh!


I did not say that you said that philosophy was confined to rational argument. I quoted what you said "philosophy ought to be confined to rational argument." And I went on to say that that claim is incorrect because its "ought" is too narrow of a scope to encompass all of philosophy.

So thus, your are the one that "ought to not project your defects on others and ascribe falsity and nonsense to those who do not utter falsity and nonsense." Thanks for that nice line though, and confirming my already held beliefs and suspicions.

By the way Mr. Amy, I don't need any help poisoning my well, I do a fine job of that on my own.

Jebediah;170542 wrote:

I think the rational argument part is the philosophy part, and the other stuff is more aptly called critical thinking. You can think critically all you want, but when the rubber hits the road you are going to be making a rational argument, yes?


Not necessarily. I can critical think all I want to and then decide not to share my conclusions and the argument at which I reached that conclusion. There is no requirement of reporting to the self or others in the form of a rational argument for their to be critical thinking.
 
Twirlip
 
Reply Sat 29 May, 2010 05:38 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;170540 wrote:
Of course I said that philosophizing ought to be confined to rational argument. I did not say that philosophy was confined to rational argument. You really ought to try to read more carefully, so that you do not ascribe falsity and nonsense to those who do not utter falsity and nonsense. You should not project your defects on others. A superficial glance as some of the posts on this forum would soon disabuse anyone with any sense of the belief that people who discuss philosophy (or think they do) confine themselves to rational argument.

Sigh!

We've already been over this exact same point. (Posts #185 to #188, I think.)

Sigh!

:brickwall:
 
Jebediah
 
Reply Sat 29 May, 2010 05:45 pm
@platorepublic,
Since this thread was originally about the members of the forum, maybe someone can explain a little forum history to me. Where does the username "kennethamy" come from, and why is he sometimes called "Mr. Amy" (presumably not as an insult because that would imply that women are inferior somehow...I mean, I could see "you throw like a girl" as an insult, but not "you post on the forum like a woman").
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Sat 29 May, 2010 06:05 pm
@Jebediah,
Jebediah;170533 wrote:
I don't understand how critical thought is so different from rational argument. It sounds like unexpressed rational argument.

---------- Post added 05-29-2010 at 07:17 PM ----------



hmm, but Recon, we do seek to resolve these questions in philosophy don't we? I don't know what it means to say that it is as much about questions as it is about answers. I mean, you can't have one without the other, so that seems trivially true. It makes more sense to say that it's about resolving the questions (either by answering them, dissolving them, or understanding them clearly enough that they can be answered by some other discipline).


First, let me say that I am indeed a seeker of answers. I've never been accused of having no opinions.Smile

But to balance this:

What comes first? The question or the attempt to answer it? And are all questions answerable? In what way do questions give us a humility in regards to other perspectives? Do questions enlarge our experience of the world? Is there a lyrical aspect to questioning?

I completely respect your post, J. Here's my situation. I've asked all sorts of questions that almost no one has tried to answer. For instance, what is thinking? What is concept? That sort of thing. As crucial as that seems to me, for obvious(?) reasons, there's not much discussion on it. By all means, bring on the answers! Bring on at least the partial answers, the guesses, the hunches...

What makes an answer an answer? Is there an emotional element to this?

---------- Post added 05-29-2010 at 07:08 PM ----------

Oh yes, another good question, and related.. What do we mean by "rational"?
 
Jebediah
 
Reply Sat 29 May, 2010 06:12 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;170556 wrote:
First, let me say that I am indeed a seeker of answers. I've never been accused of having no opinions.Smile

But to balance this:

What comes first? The question or the attempt to answer it? And are all questions answerable? In what way do questions give us a humility in regards to other perspectives? Do questions enlarge our experience of the world? Is there a lyrical aspect to questioning?

I completely respect your post, J. Here's my situation. I've asked all sorts of questions that no one has tried to answer. For instance, what is thinking? What is concept? That sort of thing. As crucial as that seems to me, for obvious(?) reasons, there's not much discussion on it. By all means, bring on the answers! Bring on at least the partial answers, the guesses, the hunches...

What makes an answer an answer? Is there an emotional element to this?


I think the question has to be understood. I suppose in that sense you could say that philosophy is all about the questions. Because once we understand the questions the answers are either clear or answered by some other spin of field (astronomy, psychology, etc). I mean, why did you ask "what is thinking"? To a kid you would say something like "the voice in your head". On a higher level you might look into working memory and long term memory and cognitive biases. Why is there necessarily a "big" answer to the question "what is thinking"? Why not "what you are conscious of involving memory etc, using your mind to consider something". I'm not convinced there's an interesting answer to the question beyond that. I would ask what part of thinking you don't understand, and then there would probably be some more specific questions to ask about that.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Sat 29 May, 2010 06:21 pm
@Jebediah,
Jebediah;170559 wrote:
I think the question has to be understood.

I agree. And if all I had ever said to others was "what is thinking?" that might be too vague. But then one says "the problem of universals...what are universals? what are abstractions?" and perhaps some still find this too vague.
It may be that a certain point the question becomes unanswerable. It becomes reduced to some fundamental aspect of human experience. In my opinion the intuition of unity is exactly that sort of bedrock. I don't see any further answer on this aspect.

I think sensation has an irreducible element as well. Emotion is probably best explored with music and poetry.

---------- Post added 05-29-2010 at 07:22 PM ----------

Jebediah;170559 wrote:
Because once we understand the questions the answers are either clear or answered by some other spin of field (astronomy, psychology, etc).

I generally think you are right here. But that means that asking the question completely is also answering it. Which appeals to me. But whether we call it refining the question or the answer, it still takes time, I think. And it's probably dialectical. Debate keeps it in check, helps refine it.

---------- Post added 05-29-2010 at 07:26 PM ----------

Jebediah;170559 wrote:
On a higher level you might look into working memory and long term memory and cognitive biases.

I would argue that concept is simply another kind of experience than sensation, or another aspect. But this is phenomenological. I think that philosophy is or could/should be the most fundamental science, the science of science. And this is why an investigation of concept and sensation and their relationship seems more than a little important. Natural science is far more practical and revered, but it takes "cash value" perhaps over logical coherence. So maybe the philosopher is something like a poet scientist.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 29 May, 2010 06:32 pm
@Theaetetus,
Theaetetus;170543 wrote:
I did not say that you said that philosophy was confined to rational argument. I quoted what you said "philosophy ought to be confined to rational argument." And I went on to say that that claim is incorrect because its "ought" is too narrow of a scope to encompass all of philosophy.

So thus, your are the one that "ought to not project your defects on others and ascribe falsity and nonsense to those who do not utter falsity and nonsense." Thanks for that nice line though, and confirming my already held beliefs and suspicions.

By the way Mr. Amy, I don't need any help poisoning my well, I do a fine job of that on my own.



.


Sigh. What does "ought" is "too narrow a scope" mean? In which way is it "too narrow a scope". Here, do let me help you. When I say that something ought to be so, I am saying that although it is so, it would be better if it were so. Therefore, the objection that it is not so is irrelevant. In any case I was used the word, "philosophizing" not "philosophy". People who think they are doing philosophy are often irrational. You need only look at the posts on this forum.

I don't know what you may mean by "poisoning your well". I will leave that to you.

'TERENCE, this is stupid stuff: You eat your victuals fast enough; There can't be much amiss, 'tis clear, To see the rate you drink your beer. But oh, good Lord, the verse you make,[SIZE=-2] 5[/SIZE] It gives a chap the belly-ache. The cow, the old cow, she is dead; It sleeps well, the horned head: We poor lads, 'tis our turn now To hear such tunes as killed the cow.[SIZE=-2] 10[/SIZE] Pretty friendship 'tis to rhyme Your friends to death before their time Moping melancholy mad: Come, pipe a tune to dance to, lad.'

A E. Houseman
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Sat 29 May, 2010 06:32 pm
@Jebediah,
Jebediah;170559 wrote:
I'm not convinced there's an interesting answer to the question beyond that. I would ask what part of thinking you don't understand, and then there would probably be some more specific questions to ask about that.


Well, I have my theories, as I say. But at some point in a theory one gets down the irreducible element. It just is. Quantity just is. Sensation just is.
But "matter" and "mind" and "God" and "abstraction" are abstractions. Yes, that definition is partially circular, and so is language generally, but not obviously. The dictionary is a bureaucracy, to speak metaphorically.

In my mind, stumbling upon the truly fundamental is pretty exciting. I think philosophy has often been an itch for the fundamental. And so its offspring seems, natural science.

I would say that thinking is the finding/imposing of structure. Algorithmic information theory. Can we shrink the source code for this output? Occam's razor is significant. Is it an aesthetic principle, really? Does truth to connect to beauty here, despite our justified fear of wishful thinking?

We are forced to use language/thought to investigate language/thought. How we know if we have an answer? Does it feel right? Does it click with the other sentences that feel right and click with the other sentences that feel right and click.....

Smile
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 29 May, 2010 06:44 pm
@Jebediah,
Jebediah;170548 wrote:
Since this thread was originally about the members of the forum, maybe someone can explain a little forum history to me. Where does the username "kennethamy" come from, and why is he sometimes called "Mr. Amy" (presumably not as an insult because that would imply that women are inferior somehow...I mean, I could see "you throw like a girl" as an insult, but not "you post on the forum like a woman").


Oh, it is only Thea that calls me, Mr. Amy. I figure that is because he is disgruntled for causes he has already indicated. Don't mind him. (If I say any more, he'll use his position to penalize me again).
 
Theaetetus
 
Reply Sat 29 May, 2010 06:48 pm
@platorepublic,
Well, it was actually used by a different member that was thanking ken for pointing out the obvious. Rather than using the ken part of the name, I figured I would adopt the the neglected amy part of the name to address him. Much like Mr. Amy just called me Thea.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 29 May, 2010 06:54 pm
@Theaetetus,
Theaetetus;170583 wrote:
Well, it was actually used by a different member that was thanking ken for pointing out the obvious. Rather than using the ken part of the name, I figured I would adopt the the neglected amy part of the name to address him. Much like Mr. Amy just called me Thea.


I would really prefer you just call me, "Excellency".
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Sat 29 May, 2010 07:00 pm
@platorepublic,
Spoken by the biggest member of the smallest cheer squad.Laughing

Incidentally, I am also often nonplussed by what some of the contributors write (I was going to name one, but thought better of it) - but, on the other hand, I am not expecting undergraduate essays here and, despite the fact that quite a bit of it is only tangentially connected to the strict definition of the subject matter of Philosophy as taught in college, it is constantly changing and often very interesting, frequently in the same way as jazz improvisation or impressionist prose is interesting. As is the interaction between the old-school vs avante-garde and the various other contributors.
 
Theaetetus
 
Reply Sat 29 May, 2010 07:01 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;170577 wrote:
(If I say any more, he'll use his position to penalize me again).


Now this is uncalled for. I have never used my position of authority on the board to penalize anyone for airing out their beefs against me. Had I wanted to penalize you to get rid of you, I would have done it long ago. You can complain all you want about my decisions as a moderator. You wouldn't be the first or the second, and probably not the third or the fourth. I uphold a duty within the community and it involves decision making that may or may not be very popular among the population. One person may not like my decision, but there are five others that do.

kennethamy wrote:
In any case I was used the word, "philosophizing" not "philosophy". People who think they are doing philosophy are often irrational. You need only look at the posts on this forum.

I don't know what "I was used the word" means, but based on context I will will assume that you mean to say that you were using the word "philosophizing" not "philosophy." You should go back and check your post that I had originally referred to since in clearly states the later not the former.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 29 May, 2010 07:05 pm
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;170594 wrote:
Spoken by the biggest member of the smallest cheer squad.Laughing

Incidentally, I am also often nonplussed by what some of the contributors write (I was going to name one, but thought better of it) - but, on the other hand, I am not expecting undergraduate essays here and, despite the fact that quite a bit of it is only tangentially connected to the strict definition of the subject matter of Philosophy as taught in college, it is constantly changing and often very interesting, frequently in the same way as jazz improvisation or impressionist prose is interesting. As is the interaction between the old-school vs avante-garde and the various other contributors.


Does "nonplussed" mean "idiotic"? Then I agree with you. Jazz is not idiotic.
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Sat 29 May, 2010 07:11 pm
@platorepublic,
What I mean is that I often can't make head or tail of some of the contributions, or really work out what some contributor is talking about, but I try to appreciate it on aesthetic grounds or for some other reason. A lot depends on the intention and the spirit in which it is written. There are always contributors who really don't make any effort or have anything useful to add, or whose only motivation is Being Right and making others wrong, but that's life.

---------- Post added 05-30-2010 at 11:14 AM ----------

Besides, though I not a believer in astrology, I am a Libran, and have a strong personality trait to avoid conflict and to try and make peace between conflicting viewpoints. Librans are like that. I do like to debate and will put a case strongly, but I really don't like any kind of sense of animosity. That is a purely personal comment of course.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 29 May, 2010 07:29 pm
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;170601 wrote:
What I mean is that I often can't make head or tail of some of the contributions, or really work out what some contributor is talking about, but I try to appreciate it on aesthetic grounds or for some other reason.


Yes. I think we are talking about the same contributor (if that is the word we want). I don't understand what is aesthetic about someone talking absolute nonsense. I find it revolting. But perhaps that goes to, there is no arguing about tastes.
 
sometime sun
 
Reply Sun 30 May, 2010 06:22 am
@kennethamy,
I think Jazz is one of the if not the hardest styles/genres to write to or for an audience before that of the composers own preference or duty to the music and to the Jazz, to them selves.
It cannot work unless it is totally self expression before audience appreciation.
Do you attempt to write Jazz or do you just write pop?
Would you rather write something you could feel proud of and might last forever and not be easily forgone or do you conform and write a chart hitter that only lasts while it is at the top and once number two is quickly dismissed?
Flavour of the month or foundation for centuries to come?
Posterity or Pleasing?
Original or Ketchup?
Spice or Salt?
YouTube - John Coltrane Quartet- Afro Blue
 
reasoning logic
 
Reply Sun 30 May, 2010 09:40 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;170202 wrote:
I don't know what you are saying. What do you mean by, "defining H20"?

---------- Post added 05-28-2010 at 09:45 PM ----------



Yes. Sometimes I think it is true that some people do not distinguish between words and their referents. It is very confused, and very confusing.





Like I said you do have a very good point of view Kennethamy. I was just sharing another point of view, it may or may not have been correct but it was another point of view.Smile LOL

I do think that we should decide for ourselves weather some of the so called facts that we learn are true facts as this seems to be what keeps us from believing a fallacy.

The many problems that the formula of water {H2O} had along its way could have given reason for a name change.
Which would be closer to the correct description of the second gas being described? "Oxygen or 'vital air'" maybe {H2V} LOL

From reading about Antoine Lavoisier He seemed without a doubt a very smart man but he also seem to abuse his elite status. He came from a family of wealth and had alot of time on his hands to do the things he enjoyed like discovering and exploiting. It is a shame about the exploiting as it cost him his head to be decapitated.

John daltons's original atomic hypothises assumed that all elements were monoatomic and that the atoms in compounds would normally have the simplest atomic ratios with respect to one another. For example, Dalton assumed that water's formula was HO, giving the atomic mass of oxygen as 8 times that of hydrogen, instead of the modern value of about 16.

Oxygen entered the English language despite opposition by scientists and the fact that Hard-luck Scheele had first isolated the gas and Joseph Priestley wrote about it. This is partly due to a poem praising the gas titled "Oxygen."

Antoine Lavoisier renamed 'vital air' to in 1777 from the greek roots ὀξύς (oxys) (acid literally "sharp," from the taste of acids) and -γενής (-genēs) (producer, literally begetter), because he mistakenly believed that oxygen was a constituent of all acids. Chemists eventually determined that Lavoisier was wrong in this regard (it is in fact hydrogen that forms the basis for acid chemistry), but by that time it was too late, the name had taken
 
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/28/2024 at 10:34:42