True. But what else have you got up your sleeve? I would like to see the rest of your brain. :Glasses:

Just because "some" philosophy has yielded good results in the sience end, doesn't mean that "all" philosophy is constructive/useful.

Simple question, but too complex answer.

Ask specifics please.

True that. Philosophy has no entry fee. In many cases, it's just wankers talking sh*t. And this is one of the reasons I have spend most of my free time reading mathematics. Of course, I still like philosophy, and have found some good conversation on this forum. And then the math-philosophy connection is of course quite engrossing to me. For me, many the issues of philosophy have been solved...but this can't be proved by a moon landing.

I personally like to see a person do something as simple as celebrate/praise their favorite thinkers. One of the things I want out of this forum is just to share the appreciation of great books. We shouldn't do it in this thread, but maybe you can start a thread about your favorite thinker. I would join the discussion.

- I would put it as philosophy in this forum, has no direct consequenses, only by observing the endresult as consequenses one can see if the philosophy has any value, or where the weakpoints are.

- with no consequences, one can be kept in a perpetual naive illusion of a perfect philosophy.

- actually, I do not read books.

http://www.philosophyforum.com/lounge/general-discussion/1001-who-you-favorite-philosopher-why-5.html#post149430

In philosophy, if anyone put forth a thesis, everyone would agree with it for it would be a tautology.

Existence exists.

Reality is rational.

etc.

The point is that there is music, but one must hit many perfect notes to hear its beauty.

You don't know anything about demagogues and group think?

I don't see any of those terms (rhetoric, propaganda, nationalist, populist, religious) as need be negative.

I mean, don't all of the founding fathers fit that definition?

Extrain;150926 wrote:

Those are different judgments then:

(a) Red exists or is a quality.
(b) The firetruck is red

2 different judgments

But "Red" is not judgment. It is a predicate.

What is it that makes you believe predicates are not judgements??? How can something be affirmed without some one, somewhere making judgement... Then iff are talking about the concept: Red, we are dealing with a narrow definition of a certain bandwidth of light... Without that, the concept would be up for grabs, as it was during our Civil War, when soldiers could not distinguish between orange and red... Since many people had never seen oranges, and had no word for orange, this was understandable...

Quote:

Again, concepts are not judgments. We use concepts to make judgments. We judge using concepts. Concepts are parts of our judgments, and are used to predicate of property of something. Red is a concept, and we use it judge that a firetruck is red.

If you should have to say what is a firetruck, you would have to make a judgement, that the thing was that, and that the class excluded all other trucks... Every concept is a classification, and every class is made out of certain knowledge as to the characteristics of one as opposed to another...It is not rocket science.... If you can say why a dog is not a cat you must have certain knowledge, and your knowledge makes the concept...

Quote:

Words are not judgments. We use words to speak or write judgments using concepts denoted by those words, as in the word "red."

Words certainly are judgements, and you may find that if you use the wrong word to describe an object that you are judged as well.. every time we use the word Red to describe a color, the concept is judged, and the person is judged...It is in the correct use of concepts that one is judged intelligent; for example..

Quote:

I never said it didn't. All I said is that cultures can be wrong. That the earth revolves about the sun is not dependent on culture. If people thought the sun revolved around the earth, they would be wrong. Culture can still pass mistaken judgments. Just as some people used to mistakenly think the earth was flat.

It is our culture that teaches us that the earth revolves around the sun.. And it was the culture of the middle ages that taught what was obvious, that the Sun revolves around the earth... We still talk of Sun rise...Here is the problem: When cultures teach what they should know to be false out of a political consideration, then they do their society an injury...And our cultures do that, because it is also culturally accepted to resist change, because like the sunrise, it is obvious that social change is dangerous, and often deadly... This much is true, but change becomes dangerous and deadly because is is so well resisted even when badly needed..

Quote:

Cultures have a conceptual repertoire, sure.



The world and culture both teach us what is true and false. But culture doesn't make things true or false. How the actual world is makes things true or false. So a culture can teach you false things, or the culture can teach you true things. But what the culture says is not always true.

True of false as a term of logic applies only to the physical world... The moral world is made up of infinites that can hardly be judged at all, and only at a distance, so while we may say we have a concept of liberty, or a concept of justice or virtue we do not, because these qualities we recognize cannot be judged... At best we all form subjective Quasi Concepts about them...

Quote:

Language may make a person more linguistically competent, and assist a person in acquiring a more refined understanding of the world, that's for sure. But knowledge does not merely consist in learning a series of definitions. Knowledge is knowledge about the world outside us. And dictionaries help us articulate that knowledge. But knowledge is not just knowing the definitions of words. We have definitions because the world is the way it is. We don't live in a vacuum. You can learn all the meaningless jargon you want, but still not know anything about the world at all. Likewise, you can know much about the world with having a very limite vocabulary.

Quite right here...One must also have a fair amount of experience in order to judge ones concepts against ones reality...It is not enough to have second hand knowledge... One must know enough on ones own to cast a critical eye upon all concepts... We must be prepared to judge what we have received culturally,and in fact this happens...You have a concept of a monkey, and everytime you see a monkey the animal is judged against the concept, and the concept is judged against the animal... Anyone who think the comparison only goes one way is daft...

Quote:

"Bachelors are unmarried men" is a definition. But we know that it is true only if bachelors are, in fact, unmarried men. Definitions are useless unless they are true of the thing defined--in this case, we would not know the earth revolved around the sun unless it did, in fact, revolve around the sun.

What I said: the concept is judged when the reality is judged...

You are talking about one's purpose in life, and what people find valuable and worthwhile. That's different.

In philosophy, if anyone put forth a thesis, everyone would agree with it for it would be a tautology.

Existence exists.

Reality is rational.

etc.

The point is that there is music, but one must hit many perfect notes to hear its beauty.

I like this. Here's a poetic extension: man is reality's rational self-consciousness. But this self-consciousness starts in confusion, and does not recognize itself as such. So the perfect notes are discovered. A melody is hammered out over the centuries.

The tautology point is interesting too. Let's take the Pythagorean theorem. It was, presumably, always true. But knowing it was true made it useful.

..and so it came to pass that the HexHammer would scream in sheer horror of the poor mislead Reconstructo's thirst for pretty empty words.

What is it that makes you believe predicates are not judgements???If you should have to say what is a firetruck, you would have to make a judgement, that the thing was that, and that the class excluded all other trucks... Every concept is a classification, and every class is made out of certain knowledge as to the characteristics of one as opposed to another...It is not rocket science.... If you can say why a dog is not a cat you must have certain knowledge, and your knowledge makes the concept...

How can something be affirmed without some one, somewhere making judgement...

Then iff are talking about the concept: Red, we are dealing with a narrow definition of a certain bandwidth of light... Without that, the concept would be up for grabs, as it was during our Civil War, when soldiers could not distinguish between orange and red... Since many people had never seen oranges, and had no word for orange, this was understandable...

Words certainly are judgements,

and you may find that if you use the wrong word to describe an object that you are judged as well.. every time we use the word Red to describe a color, the concept is judged, and the person is judged...It is in the correct use of concepts that one is judged intelligent; for example.

It is our culture that teaches us that the earth revolves around the sun.. And it was the culture of the middle ages that taught what was obvious, that the Sun revolves around the earth... We still talk of Sun rise...Here is the problem: When cultures teach what they should know to be false out of a political consideration, then they do their society an injury...And our cultures do that, because it is also culturally accepted to resist change, because like the sunrise, it is obvious that social change is dangerous, and often deadly... This much is true, but change becomes dangerous and deadly because is is so well resisted even when badly needed..

Reconstructo if you are so unhappy with my philosophy, then put me on ignore.

I like this. Here's a poetic extension: man is reality's rational self-consciousness. But this self-consciousness starts in confusion, and does not recognize itself as such. So the perfect notes are discovered. A melody is hammered out over the centuries.

The tautology point is interesting too. Let's take the Pythagorean theorem. It was, presumably, always true. But knowing it was true made it useful.

Reconstructo,

After reading many of your post, i realize you probably do not have any formal education in philosophy. I think you are too emotional, and you have a lot of pride.

Formal education teaches the form... Sorry turing; but the form has failed us...We are not going to get anything out of formal government, formal religion, formal society, or formal education... Those people who have mastered their particular forms are all too much concerned with self preservation to do anything good for humanity...Do you not think they realize how usless they are and how unable are their forms to affect reality is a positive fashion??? After a while, all old forms exist only to preserve the form and the meaning goes right out of them...

Reconstructo,

After reading many of your post, i realize you probably do not have any formal education in philosophy. .