I know a lot about the theory and principles of logic.

I am not very fluid on its practice as i do not focus on logic which is
the back-end of philosophy but rather more on the exploratory front end.

Analogically, i prefer to be the architect who comes up with innovative ideas and leave the logical aspects to the back-end technical draughtsman.

Another example is the CEO who seek new business to ensure the survival of the organization and leave the more precise logical and technical to the back room boys of Admin, HR and finance.

I can see your boat have a jammed rudder and its going in circles.

................................:sarcastic:

I'm not a college professor. I am still a graduate student.

And yes, I have been in academic heaven. But I haven't personally seen someone ever this stubborn after so many repeated failed attempts to get through to him.

Even in a classroom, a student who thought like this would immediately see his mistakes and continue to try to correct them.

We are not witnessing a person making mistakes and then wanting to correct those mistakes. We are witnessing stubborn ignorance.

I wasn't even this way at 15 years old. So there is no excuse. The causal factors at stake for this failure to learn are 3:

(1) Sloth
(2) Stubbornness
(3) Some kind of character disorder.

Or a combination of ignorance, and being in the grip of a theory which I suppose can be place under the heading of (2) although it is a stretch. But things are not improving, that is true. (It is easier to disparage something than to make the effort of learning about it.)

Or a combination of ignorance, and being in the grip of a theory which I suppose can be place under the heading of (2) although it is a stretch. But things are not improving, that is true. (It is easier to disparage something than to make the effort of learning about it.)

I agree with these views on logic,

That logic should have been thus successful is an advantage which it owes entirely to its limitations, whereby it is justified in abstracting -- indeed, it is under obligation to do so -- from all objects of knowledge and their differences, leaving the understanding nothing to deal with save itself and its form.

Kant - Preface to 2nd Edition: Critique of Pure Reason

What theory are you griping at?

There are two major camps in philosophy, i.e. philosophical realism and philosophical non-realism.

I am with the philosophical non-realists and their theories have been established thousands of years ago

and is supported by modern physics and QM.

What i am discussing about is nothing new.

The main problem with philosophical realists is that they do not even respect nor understand how their own mind and self interact with reality in which they are a part of.

The Here's a comment from a philosophical non-realist about the limitation of philosophical realism.

In his lecture "Mind and Matter,"

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.
Bertrand Russell - Problems of Philosophy

I hope I have contributed my part to philosophy on at
least for the sake of questions themselves rather than definite answers.

YOU VIOLATED EVERYTHING RUSSELL SAID HERE about WHAT A PHILOSOPHER ACTUALLY DOES.

(1) You haven't EXPLORED anyquestions, you've ANSWERED all of them with your own IDEOLOGY by ABUSING EVERY PHILOSOPHER ON THE TABLE, while accusing everyone of being mistaken who disagreed with you without telling anyone why they were mistaken. Because of this, you've failed to

(2) Actually listen to what others had to say,

And as Russell says,

(2) "enlarge your own conception of what is possible, enrich your own intellectual imagination and diminish your own dogmatic assurance which closes your own mind against speculation

So you've also failed to see how,

(3) the greatness of the universe which philosophy contemplates...and the mind [REASON] [which contemplates that universe]....becomes capable of that union with the universe which constitutes its highest good [by ABANDONING YOUR VERY OWN REASON]

THIS UNION IS EXACTLY WHAT KANT WAS AFTER, THE VERY SAME PERSON WHOM YOU CONSISTENTLY ABUSED

By normal conventional rules, the poster should addressed the philosophical issues and not the person who post.

It is not difficult for me to harass and counter every line of your posts whereever you post in this forum if I want to do so.

However I have made it a point to abide by the rules, with some exceptions when only after i have been goaded to do so.

I have reported this to the moderator and I hope they will take action accordingly.

By normal conventional rules, the poster should address "Berkeley's Treatise and Dialogues As It Is"--not how Russell saw the philosopher's work to be done



It is not hard for me to condem your abused plagiarism of other's ideas.



I find it ironic that you never actually tried to practice any philosophy in a philosophy forum at all. You have just abused it while refusing to use your own reason.

The rest of us started practicing philosophy with respect to Berkeley's Dialogues, but you came in and started being dogmatic that your own interpretation of Berkeley's ideas were correct and everyone else's were incorrect, without actually listening to what others had to say about Berkeley's very own ideas. And you've been accused many times by others (not just by me) for dismissing everything others had to say about Berkeley if it disagreed with your own false reading of him.

So NONE OF US EVEN HAD A CHANCE TO SAY ANYTHING ABOUT BERKELEY THAT WASN'T GOING TO BE DISMISSED BY YOU WITHOUT REASON OR ARGUMENT. We've been sitting ducks having to perform apologetics, in order to DEFEND WHAT PHILOSOPHERS ACTUALLY WERE SAYING FROM YOUR CONSISTENT ABUSE OF THEM. SO THE DISCUSSION NEVER EVEN GOT OFF THE GROUND. THAT'S NO ONE'S FAULT BUT YOUR OWN.



Believe me, I have already made a formal case against you to the moderator for your following actions.

(1) name-calling.
(2) plagiarism
(3) false belittling of others views.
(4) abuse of public information.
(5) widepsread and flagrant interruption of intelligent discussions with the explicit intent to confuse others with misleading information.
(6) your consistent and non-stop lying about your own expertise in these matters as being a proper authority on the subject with the explicit intent to deceive other people.
(7) your abuse of philosopy as a whole

I can't wait for that new feature that is coming out where you can vote on someone's posts if they consistently misuse philosophy, and that if the person gets enough *marks* against him, he is automically shut down.

The peer-review system of publication, while helping to maintain scholarly standards, also serves to screen out innovation and dissent and to promote doctrinal uniformity and a self-referential scholasticism -- the stigmata of academia becoming a rent-seeking bureaucracy. This sort of stagnation was evident in the circumstance that few early modern philosophers were academics. Now the academy has ossified again. As Charles J. Sykes says:
[INDENT]Unread and unreadable, the product of the professoriate is seldom intended to expand the horizons of human knowledge as much as to keep the academic machine running smoothly, the journals filled, the libraries well-stocked, the resumes bulging, and the grants awarded. Volume rather than insight is what counts, and conformity rather than originality is rewarded. [Profscam: Professors and the Demise of Higher Education, St. Martin's Griffin, 1988, p. 104]
[/INDENT]Academic philosophers thus may not be very interested in the project of the Friesian School, any more than the theologians of Paris were interested in Descartes; but it remains to be seen if the works of contemporary academic philosophy are ever noted or remembered after or outside the incestuous community, the opaque, Hermetic references, and the impenetrable jargon of philosophy departments, clubby conferences, and the prestigious journals.

Quote:

The above is not my view, if you want to criticize the above, write to them.

Here's a reference to the forum rules;
Be Polite! - Do not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-orientated, hateful, threatening or otherwise in violation of any laws. Be courteous! Debate and heated discussions are OK, however posting rude, attacking, insulting, profane and otherwise damaging comments are not allowed and may result in the permanent termination of your account.

For 2 -7 most of it are related to expressing an opinion.
In contrast, note the mountains of personal attacks and insults on my posts.I will accept any penalties from the moderator if I am guilty as charged and make an effort to avoid them in future posts.

Dont Attack - We welcome you to criticize the idea or message however
we ask that you refrain from criticizing or attacking the individual.

NO. YOU ARE HEARING THAT AS "BE POLICIALLY CORRECT."

BUT I WON'T! AND I'VE ALREADY COMPLAINED TO MODERATORS ABOUT YOUR CONSTANT COMPLAINING. YOU JUST DON'T WANT TO BE CHALLENGED WHEN YOU LIE TO OTHERS.



NO. THIS ISN'T "JUST YOUR OPINION"

PERSISTENTLY MISREPRESENTING OTHERS' IDEAS PUBLICLY IS A FORM OF SCANDAL AND LYING AND AN ABUSE OF PUBLIC INFORMATION.

WHAT DO YOU THINK THIS FORUM RULE APPLIES TO??????

"Be respectful of others' opinions and points of view. It's impossible to understand how another one views something unless you've walked a mile in his or her shoes. Treat others how you would want others to treat you."

THAT APPLIES TO EVERYONE'S VIEWS, NOT JUST ON THE FORUM. YOU ARE CONSISTENTLY VIOLATING THIS RULE. IF YOU PERSISTENTLY LIE ABOUTWHAT SOMEONE SAID OUTSIDE THE FORUM WHILE CONSTANTLY PRESENTING THOSE LIES INSIDE THE FORUM, THEN YOU ARE IN BREACH OF THIS VERY RULE, ESPECIALLY IF YOU INSIST ON DOING IT ALL THE TIME.

AND I ALREADY HAVE A CAUSE AGAINST YOU THAT I INTEND ON EXPLORING UNTIL EITHER ONE OF TWO THINGS HAPPENS, EITHER

(1) they remove you from this forum altogether.
(2) SOMEBODY stops you from doing what you are doing.

NO ONE SHOULD HAVE TO TOLERATE WHAT YOU'VE BEEN DOING FROM THE START.

UNITL THEN, I WILL CONTINUE TO CRITICIZE YOUR ACTIONS OF PERSISTENTLY LYING, PRESENTING FALSE INFORMATION, ABUSING PUBLIC INFORMATION, AND WIDESPREAD MISREPRESENTATION OF OTHERS' VIEWS BOTH ON AND OFF THE FORUM.



I AM NOT ATTACKING THE PERSON!!! I AM ATTACKING YOUR LYING, YOUR MISREPRESENTING, AND ABUSE OF INFORMATION--THAT IS, YOUR FAILURE TO ABIDE THE FORUM RULES. AND THE CASE IS ALREADY IN MOTION.

on hindsight, i think it was my bad luck to have encountered a person with strong views on academic philosophy.
In future i keep a long distance whenever anyone declare themselves or have strong views of the academia.

all i did was express opinions.
I am sure there are tons of opinions which are worse than mine in
this forum but nobody would bother other than to ignore them.
But for whatever reason, you chose to stalk.

i should read this earlier and avoided all the harassments and insults.
the proceedings of the friesian school

the peer-review system of publication, while helping to maintain scholarly standards, also serves to screen out innovation and dissent and to promote doctrinal uniformity and a self-referential scholasticism -- the stigmata of academia becoming a rent-seeking bureaucracy. This sort of stagnation was evident in the circumstance that few early modern philosophers were academics. Now the academy has ossified again. As charles j. Sykes says:
[INDENT]unread and unreadable, the product of the professoriate is seldom intended to expand the horizons of human knowledge as much as to keep the academic machine running smoothly, the journals filled, the libraries well-stocked, the resumes bulging, and the grants awarded. volume rather than insight is what counts, and conformity rather than originality is rewarded. [profscam: Professors and the demise of higher education, st. Martin's griffin, 1988, p. 104]
[/INDENT]academic philosophers thus may not be very interested in the project of the friesian school, any more than the theologians of paris were interested in descartes; but it remains to be seen if the works of contemporary academic philosophy are ever noted or remembered after or outside the incestuous community, the opaque, hermetic references, and the impenetrable jargon of philosophy departments, clubby conferences, and the prestigious journals.

The above is not my view, if you want to criticize the above, write to them.