The Right Place To Start

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Metaphysics
  3. » The Right Place To Start

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Thu 24 Sep, 2009 09:21 am
The Right Place To Start

Where is the right place to start for the study of Philosophy? Here, Confucius bids us follow in his "rectification of names." Philosophers deal with words, and in this regards, Plato stated that the craft of a real philosopher was mastery of dialectic. Even Aristotle admitted that dialectic was over all of the sciences because it dealt with names. Dialectic is the use of names to effect psycho-therapy based on the principle of correct grammar. The driving principle is this, if one cannot think correctly, they cannot act correctly-or even effect human will. Thus the dialectician is not interested in promoting any particular doctrine or religion, but in providing a working psychological profile that effects correct human will or expression. Human will and human expression are not the same-human will is effected linguistically, however, man is linguistically limited, therefore one must make human expression as close as one can to the approximation of human will.


  • What does it entail? The answer is acquired by answering questions such as the following:-


  • Where do words get their meaning? Do words even have meaning, or is meaning itself anthropomorphic?


  • How many categories of primitive names are there?
  • What is a definition?
  • What is a description?


  • What do the principles of grammar have to do with the Two-Element Metaphysics of some early Greeks but was forgotten in history?


  • What does this Two-Element System have to do with human biology?
  • What does the Two-Element System have to do with the definition of a thing, and with the two methods of constructing anything, even a "set?"


  • Which categories of names can be defined and which cannot?


  • What role does description play in learning names? What role does definition play?


  • What is predication and what is the law of predication?


  • How many types of primitive sentences are there-and what are they based on? What are the various methods of adding units of predication in order to effect these long sentences that we often construct?


  • How could it be that if one did not know these things that they could ever believe that they can rightly think about anything at all?

This last is very important in the way of self-chastisement-for if one takes it for granted that they can think, they really have no motivation for either thinking or philosophy. It then becomes clear that their so-called philosophical motivations are not philosophical at all.

Confucius said it in the "rectification of names." The Judeo-Christian Scripture said it in the fact that one is told several times it is a sealed work-sealed not by magic as it turns out, but because one does not know-and cannot use-fundamentals of judgment. Plato said it also in many places-in fact, in the very structure of the dialogs themselves. If one is serious about thinking, one must become serious about learning principles of names, words, that have yet to be taught anywhere, in any school on this planet. In the beginning is the Word.

The facts of this are asserted by Plato, the author of the Judeo-Christian Scripture, Confucius, and plain old biological fact. And it is a biological fact also, that one cannot master language beyond what has be genetically determined. Therefore, it is not up to the dialectician, as Plato and many of the other sources mentioned demonstrated, to try and effect psycho-therapy beyond the linguistic ability of the individual involved-myth will often have to be employed. Myth can truthfully be effected simply by understanding the logical foundation of metaphor and employing it correctly.

Mod Edit - Paragraph spacing and general formatting structure edited to be more readable.
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Thu 24 Sep, 2009 09:47 am
@NoOne phil,
What is your reference regarding the claim that Aristotle claims dialectic to be above all other sciences?

In Book E of Metaphysics, Aristotle says that theology, or the science of things eternal, is "first" and "highest" among the sciences.

Aristotle's Metaphysics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
 
Icon
 
Reply Thu 24 Sep, 2009 09:54 am
@NoOne phil,
I have SEVERAL problems with this concept but, for the sake of saving time, I will only list the few which contradict your argument as a whole.

The fundamental basis of this argument is:

"The driving principle is this, if one cannot think correctly, they cannot act correctly-or even effect human will".


How do you, through this method of thought, define or describe "correctly"? To assume you know the answer to this immediately disqualifies your statement. This puts you in the category of those who cannot think.

The second downfall of this argument comes with the question:

"How could it be that if one did not know these things that they could ever believe that they can rightly think about anything at all?"

This, again, comes to the conclusion that you are correct and that everyone who does not think like you is wrong. This immediately discourages your arguments validity because it "defines" a world in which one is incapable of being right save for you. This is do to interpretation and perspective. So I would ask that you provide a more solid argument for this theory or admit that you have been overly obsessive with a certain class of ideas and are incapable of expanding outside of them.
 
NoOne phil
 
Reply Thu 24 Sep, 2009 10:18 am
@Icon,
I can answer every one of the questions I asked, and a great deal more, however I do not recall that I made that claim in the post. We must be reading different posts.

I will give you a hint though, every bit of "correct" grammar, can be traced back to if and if not you can, once giving it, keep your own word. Names are conventional, and if you do not know that every principle of grammar, logic, must maintain the original naming convention, then you know a great deal less about logic than you imagine. j.c.
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Thu 24 Sep, 2009 10:25 am
You say that Aristotle admits that "dialectic is over all of the sciences" yet Aristotle says otherwise in Book E of his Metaphysics. So, what is your source?
 
NoOne phil
 
Reply Thu 24 Sep, 2009 10:33 am
@Didymos Thomas,
You can acquire the complete works on the Internet Archive, and, if you desire to know what an author says about any word, do as I have done, make a word macro that pulls out the text of a word and builds a document with it, then you can sift it, and, well, take it from there. the macro I wrote one simply puts all the work in one directory, types in the word to locate, and the macro will open every document, find all occurances of the word, construct a document, and leave the results to trim down. This is how I learn all that is said about particular word from an author, even his contradictions.
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Thu 24 Sep, 2009 10:40 am
@NoOne phil,
I have the complete works of Aristotle - twice over, actually. Now, I have provided a source, where is yours? There is no sense telling me how to find what you claim exists in the writings - I have read them and then some. Instead, perhaps you can tell me where you find this supposed claim of Aristotle.
 
NoOne phil
 
Reply Thu 24 Sep, 2009 11:02 am
@Didymos Thomas,
Good for you, Now, as an example of what I was saying, If you wish to find it, it is in the works of Aristotle. The Method I explained to you, you can find an example of it I posted on the Internet Archive, Aristotle on Definition. You can clearly see his confusion and contradiction in that work also. As far as me looking up the reference for you, I dare say, I am not going to do it.

Search johnclark8659 on the internet archive--I post audio-and ebooks of several things, freely downloadable, mainly the works of Plato.
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Thu 24 Sep, 2009 11:05 am
@NoOne phil,
That's what I figured - a claim is made, contradicted by a clear and obvious reference, and then the initial claimant refuses to provide a source.
 
NoOne phil
 
Reply Thu 24 Sep, 2009 11:23 am
@Didymos Thomas,
We obvious not only have different versions of Aristotle, but different concepts on truth and slander.

There are actually many places in Aristotle,

Try this one,

"for diallectic is a process of criticism wherein lies the path to the principles of all inquiries."

I will lend you my copies if yours are short on everything Aristotle says about dialectic. j.c.
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Thu 24 Sep, 2009 11:29 am
@NoOne phil,
And where does that quote come from? That's all I'm asking. Tell me where to find this belief of Aristotle. Sheesh, not terribly complicated.
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Metaphysics
  3. » The Right Place To Start
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 12/21/2024 at 07:07:41