On a Method for Correct Philosophizing

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Ding an Sich
 
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 05:50 pm
@TuringEquivalent,
TuringEquivalent;174875 wrote:
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.


Doesnt creating involve bringing out something from nothing? I guess it could be attributed to the all wise Creator of the Universe. I guess we could use creating in a special way for humans as well. But Im not going to digress any more from the original post.
 
de Silentio
 
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 06:25 pm
@TuringEquivalent,
TuringEquivalent;174875 wrote:
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.


Please define what you mean by "being creativity", as I don't undersand it as it is written.

I don't think I ever eluded to Creatively thinking as an end in itself. Creative thinking is a means to an end. If you are trying to solve a problem, creatively thinking about solutions to the problem can and should be involved in solving the problem.

When I do philosophy, I study the problem and create solutions. Studying requires that I learn about the problem using critical thinking. Creating solutions requires that I creatively think about how to solve the problem.

Do you really do philosophy without creating any original ideas?

Smile (The smiley face is incorporated into this message as a reminder that all discussions I have on this forum are done lightheartedly and in good taste. If I ever come across as cocky, arogant, or malevolent in anyway, I apologize here and now. I'm throwing this in as I am virtually a "new guy" again. To Turing, thanks for the discussion and making me think about my views on the matter.)
 
HexHammer
 
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 06:26 pm
@Ding an Sich,
Ding_an_Sich;174872 wrote:
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.
The usual scenario for common thinkers, are defined premesis, objectives and concepts.

What most lack is "inventing concepts" to solve a problem.
With normal geometric understanding, none would ever solve how to make a triable with straight lines with 3 right angles (dunno exact english term sorry), only by being taught, or being a genious, they can solve this.

They can't solve it because it isn't obvious, and require greater geometric understanding, just as this story which I have provided, it require a greater understanding of logic.

Logic vs greater logic.
Logic has often predefined premesis, and clear objectives ..etc, where greater logic does not have any clear premesis, nor objectives. Can have hidden objecives and hidden meanings, which can be alterd.

I'm sorry I'm not good at explaining this, as I have never read any formal logic, it is a natural thing within me.
 
Ding an Sich
 
Reply Fri 11 Jun, 2010 06:01 am
@HexHammer,
HexHammer wrote:

Ding_an_Sich;174872 wrote:
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.
The usual scenario for common thinkers, are defined premesis, objectives and concepts.

What most lack is "inventing concepts" to solve a problem.
With normal geometric understanding, none would ever solve how to make a triable with straight lines with 3 right angles (dunno exact english term sorry), only by being taught, or being a genious, they can solve this.

They can't solve it because it isn't obvious, and require greater geometric understanding, just as this story which I have provided, it require a greater understanding of logic.

Logic vs greater logic.
Logic has often predefined premesis, and clear objectives ..etc, where greater logic does not have any clear premesis, nor objectives. Can have hidden objecives and hidden meanings, which can be alterd.

I'm sorry I'm not good at explaining this, as I have never read any formal logic, it is a natural thing within me.


You obviously do not know what Logic is. Let me reiterate: Logic deals with the form of an argument, not with the material (matter).

Logic does not have any undrlying meanings, and if it does, you have clearly made a mistake in your argument. THERE ARE NO SURPRISES IN LOGIC.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Mon 5 Jul, 2010 10:28 pm
@Ding an Sich,
Hey, man. I would have sent this in a private message but mine are blocked. Perhaps yours are too. I wrote a reply to your letter but have lost your address. Please send me this ([email protected]), and I will get it in the mail. The PM blockage is no fun, as I never spammed anyone. I hope you see this, because I don't think I will return to this particular site.
z.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Tue 6 Jul, 2010 10:05 am
@HexHammer,
HexHammer wrote:

Ding_an_Sich;174872 wrote:
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.
The usual scenario for common thinkers, are defined premesis, objectives and concepts.

What most lack is "inventing concepts" to solve a problem.
With normal geometric understanding, none would ever solve how to make a triable with straight lines with 3 right angles (dunno exact english term sorry), only by being taught, or being a genious, they can solve this.

They can't solve it because it isn't obvious, and require greater geometric understanding, just as this story which I have provided, it require a greater understanding of logic.

Logic vs greater logic.
Logic has often predefined premesis, and clear objectives ..etc, where greater logic does not have any clear premesis, nor objectives. Can have hidden objecives and hidden meanings, which can be alterd.

I'm sorry I'm not good at explaining this, as I have never read any formal logic, it is a natural thing within me.


You mean that you have never studied any logic, but you know all about it anyway? Wow!
 
Ding an Sich
 
Reply Tue 6 Jul, 2010 11:02 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:

HexHammer wrote:

Ding_an_Sich;174872 wrote:
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.
The usual scenario for common thinkers, are defined premesis, objectives and concepts.

What most lack is "inventing concepts" to solve a problem.
With normal geometric understanding, none would ever solve how to make a triable with straight lines with 3 right angles (dunno exact english term sorry), only by being taught, or being a genious, they can solve this.

They can't solve it because it isn't obvious, and require greater geometric understanding, just as this story which I have provided, it require a greater understanding of logic.

Logic vs greater logic.
Logic has often predefined premesis, and clear objectives ..etc, where greater logic does not have any clear premesis, nor objectives. Can have hidden objecives and hidden meanings, which can be alterd.

I'm sorry I'm not good at explaining this, as I have never read any formal logic, it is a natural thing within me.


You mean that you have never studied any logic, but you know all about it anyway? Wow!


Isn't that interesting Ken? That people think they know these things and yet they don't. They cannot seem to plead ignorance to subjects which remain beyond them. Fortunately I have come to realize that I should do the right thing and plead ignorace to things that I do not know. Logic on the whole is almost unknown to me, but I do have an understanding propositional logic (constructing proofs and such). Hopefully when I take Symbolic Logic this Fall I will not be so ignorant.
 
de Silentio
 
Reply Tue 6 Jul, 2010 06:51 pm
@Ding an Sich,
Ding an Sich wrote:

Hopefully when I take Symbolic Logic this Fall I will not be so ignorant.


I know I'm off topic, but this post was dead until today, anyways.

I'm taking Symbolic Logic this fall also. I'm rather excited to see what it has to offer.

I was told by one of my professors that a student of hers claimed to be accepted into a well known Masters program because he aced Symbolic Logic (this particular program is heavy with "Analytics"). So, if you're planning on Grad school, doing well in the class may be beneficial.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2010 07:52 pm
@Ding an Sich,
Ding an Sich wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

HexHammer wrote:

Ding_an_Sich;174872 wrote:
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.
The usual scenario for common thinkers, are defined premesis, objectives and concepts.

What most lack is "inventing concepts" to solve a problem.
With normal geometric understanding, none would ever solve how to make a triable with straight lines with 3 right angles (dunno exact english term sorry), only by being taught, or being a genious, they can solve this.

They can't solve it because it isn't obvious, and require greater geometric understanding, just as this story which I have provided, it require a greater understanding of logic.

Logic vs greater logic.
Logic has often predefined premesis, and clear objectives ..etc, where greater logic does not have any clear premesis, nor objectives. Can have hidden objecives and hidden meanings, which can be alterd.

I'm sorry I'm not good at explaining this, as I have never read any formal logic, it is a natural thing within me.


You mean that you have never studied any logic, but you know all about it anyway? Wow!


Isn't that interesting Ken? That people think they know these things and yet they don't. They cannot seem to plead ignorance to subjects which remain beyond them. Fortunately I have come to realize that I should do the right thing and plead ignorace to things that I do not know. Logic on the whole is almost unknown to me, but I do have an understanding propositional logic (constructing proofs and such). Hopefully when I take Symbolic Logic this Fall I will not be so ignorant.


How can anyone claim to know a technical subject he has never studied? I find that incomprehensible. The only explanation I have is that people don't think that there is anything to know about symbolic logic, or even philosophy, so that they can simply make it up as they go along. They have contempt for logic and philosophy.
 
Ding an Sich
 
Reply Thu 8 Jul, 2010 10:57 am
@kennethamy,
People do it all the time Ken. Especially with philosophy and logic. It seems absurd I know, but nevertheless people do it. :-/
 
mickalos
 
Reply Thu 8 Jul, 2010 01:26 pm
@Ding an Sich,
Ding an Sich wrote:

I have been thinkning about a proper method for the past few days concerning the way in which to approach philosophy, and to philosophize as well. It might appear obvious to others, whereas it might not to a greater group of people on the forum. Well here it is:

I. On the parts of the method.
A. Logic - Symbolic Logic in particular.
B. An Understanding of the History of Western Philosophy.

We recognize immediately that the aforementioned approach has been completed through the parts themselves; but the parts do not end our goal, for we need to work at philosophizing as well. As to my choices for the parts they are still broad in a sense, as anyone can say that they have an understanding of the history of western philosophy, but only in a limited way. They might have only dusted off the choicest bits on which they come to only vaguely acquaint themselves with a 2600 year old history. To such a gentlemen I would have to disagree with them when they state that their "understanding" is sufficient for the method I am soon to present, because my method requires the whole of western philosophy, and not simply scattered parts.

Logic is another important, if not neccessary, part for the method itself, as it allows us to not only structure our thoughts, but do so properly without falling into invalidity (I reserve "valid" as a term that regards the mere form of an argument, and not whether it is true or false). I consider Logic the science upon which philosophy gives unto itself a proper foundation; but this is something that I will not contend for at present. What remains is the necessity of the part itself as an assumption to the method.

Immediately one might object to the parts, in particular part B. They might say that Western Philosophy is too much to take in all at once, better still throughout the course of ones life. In essence it would be a burden to exhaustively go through the annals of Western Philosophy and read every one who has contributed to the subject proper. This objection will be answered with the presentation of the method itself.

So far we have emphasized, albeit briefly, the parts themselves; let us now look at the method:

II. On a Method for Correct Philosophizing
A. Elucidation of questions that have been brought out throughout the history of Western Philosophy.
B. Answers to those questions and the discarding of irrelevant ones.

With the method presented, in its simplicity (to avoid any difficulty), it should come at no surprise to the reader. Philosophy, aside from its foundation in Logic, has at its core questions that cannot be sufficiently answered (or questions that we do not think can be answered). But this begs the question, as we pressupose that these questions cannot be anwered simply because we know they cannot. To this we assent to a level of knowing what we cannot know, and to which the aforementioned method, in its barest, roughest, form, comes in. It serves as a way to answer the questions which we plead ingnorance to, and, in so doing, we further clarify what it is that needs answered.

Returning now to the objection above: I will concede to the point that there is too much information to take in when dealing with the history of Western Philosophy. But what the method does is elucidate questions that have arisen throughout this history and answer them, by means of logic and ingenuity. In short, once we have answered a question, we no longer need to go back to it, at least until another question presents itself so as to destroy or make useless the previous one. In essence, philosophy is a lifetime of work that needs constant revision by one individual and through others. But we must be precise in clarifying our thoughts, so as to not endanger ourselves into accepting vague ideas and substance-less verbiage. In otherwords, my method is to avoid jugglery of the highest rank.

This is just the beginning and I am sure there are problems with the method itself. Perhaps others will come along (you the reader) and try to improve, in a mutual way, what I and many others throughout the history of Western Philosophy have tried to accomplish. To this I recieve warmly the criticisms that are bound to follow, and the improvements that are consequently to be made. Thank you for your time.


1. Why should there be only one approach to philosophy? Different problems require different types of answer. A single problem may be answered in a variety of equally convincing ways; technical answers and non-technical answers. Perhaps a technical question demands a technical answer, perhaps not.

2. How do you propose to deal with the philosophy of logic and the philosophy of history without invoking circularity? Clearly, questions about the foundations of logic and mathematics require answers. e.g. Why does Q follow from P & P->Q? In what sense are logical truths necessary? etc. These cannot be answered to a satisfactory degree by logic and history of philosophy alone.

3. "Once we have answered a question, we no longer need to go back to it, at least until another question presents itself so as to destroy or make useless the previous one." In what sense has a philosophical problem ever been solved? Clearlyt is not in the same way that an engineer solves the problem of getting over a river; at least, we do not seem to think of them in the same way, perhaps we should. Certainly, statements like, "Russell's theory of descriptions is true" seem very strange to me.
 
talk72000
 
Reply Thu 8 Jul, 2010 01:35 pm
@mickalos,
We used to put Q.E.D. at the end meaning Quite Easily Done. Laughing Twisted Evil
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Thu 8 Jul, 2010 02:19 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo wrote:



Symbolic logic is a beautifully efficient way to formalize what in my mind are ultimately intuitions.


But how would you know?
 
Ding an Sich
 
Reply Fri 9 Jul, 2010 10:14 am
@mickalos,
mickalos wrote:

Ding an Sich wrote:

I have been thinkning about a proper method for the past few days concerning the way in which to approach philosophy, and to philosophize as well. It might appear obvious to others, whereas it might not to a greater group of people on the forum. Well here it is:

I. On the parts of the method.
A. Logic - Symbolic Logic in particular.
B. An Understanding of the History of Western Philosophy.

We recognize immediately that the aforementioned approach has been completed through the parts themselves; but the parts do not end our goal, for we need to work at philosophizing as well. As to my choices for the parts they are still broad in a sense, as anyone can say that they have an understanding of the history of western philosophy, but only in a limited way. They might have only dusted off the choicest bits on which they come to only vaguely acquaint themselves with a 2600 year old history. To such a gentlemen I would have to disagree with them when they state that their "understanding" is sufficient for the method I am soon to present, because my method requires the whole of western philosophy, and not simply scattered parts.

Logic is another important, if not neccessary, part for the method itself, as it allows us to not only structure our thoughts, but do so properly without falling into invalidity (I reserve "valid" as a term that regards the mere form of an argument, and not whether it is true or false). I consider Logic the science upon which philosophy gives unto itself a proper foundation; but this is something that I will not contend for at present. What remains is the necessity of the part itself as an assumption to the method.

Immediately one might object to the parts, in particular part B. They might say that Western Philosophy is too much to take in all at once, better still throughout the course of ones life. In essence it would be a burden to exhaustively go through the annals of Western Philosophy and read every one who has contributed to the subject proper. This objection will be answered with the presentation of the method itself.

So far we have emphasized, albeit briefly, the parts themselves; let us now look at the method:

II. On a Method for Correct Philosophizing
A. Elucidation of questions that have been brought out throughout the history of Western Philosophy.
B. Answers to those questions and the discarding of irrelevant ones.

With the method presented, in its simplicity (to avoid any difficulty), it should come at no surprise to the reader. Philosophy, aside from its foundation in Logic, has at its core questions that cannot be sufficiently answered (or questions that we do not think can be answered). But this begs the question, as we pressupose that these questions cannot be anwered simply because we know they cannot. To this we assent to a level of knowing what we cannot know, and to which the aforementioned method, in its barest, roughest, form, comes in. It serves as a way to answer the questions which we plead ingnorance to, and, in so doing, we further clarify what it is that needs answered.

Returning now to the objection above: I will concede to the point that there is too much information to take in when dealing with the history of Western Philosophy. But what the method does is elucidate questions that have arisen throughout this history and answer them, by means of logic and ingenuity. In short, once we have answered a question, we no longer need to go back to it, at least until another question presents itself so as to destroy or make useless the previous one. In essence, philosophy is a lifetime of work that needs constant revision by one individual and through others. But we must be precise in clarifying our thoughts, so as to not endanger ourselves into accepting vague ideas and substance-less verbiage. In otherwords, my method is to avoid jugglery of the highest rank.

This is just the beginning and I am sure there are problems with the method itself. Perhaps others will come along (you the reader) and try to improve, in a mutual way, what I and many others throughout the history of Western Philosophy have tried to accomplish. To this I recieve warmly the criticisms that are bound to follow, and the improvements that are consequently to be made. Thank you for your time.


1. Why should there be only one approach to philosophy? Different problems require different types of answer. A single problem may be answered in a variety of equally convincing ways; technical answers and non-technical answers. Perhaps a technical question demands a technical answer, perhaps not.

2. How do you propose to deal with the philosophy of logic and the philosophy of history without invoking circularity? Clearly, questions about the foundations of logic and mathematics require answers. e.g. Why does Q follow from P & P->Q? In what sense are logical truths necessary? etc. These cannot be answered to a satisfactory degree by logic and history of philosophy alone.

3. "Once we have answered a question, we no longer need to go back to it, at least until another question presents itself so as to destroy or make useless the previous one." In what sense has a philosophical problem ever been solved? Clearlyt is not in the same way that an engineer solves the problem of getting over a river; at least, we do not seem to think of them in the same way, perhaps we should. Certainly, statements like, "Russell's theory of descriptions is true" seem very strange to me.


Allow me to answer your questions; they will correspond to the numbers you have given:

1. This is something that I have thought about after this post: is there indeed a correct method for philosophizing? From the outset it would seem as though my title would be offensive to some, for how could I assert that there is indeed a correct method to Philosophy proper? It's just begging to be shredded by other people (like Hexhammer, but his disagreements and arguments on the subject was much to be desired.). Well what does my method do? It deals with questions, and not just any question, but vital questions that are central to philosophy (nevermind what the questions are themselves, but simply that they are questions that need to be addressed in philosophy. This is the case with any subject proper, e.g., math with math, certain sciences with its own, etc.). The method seems rather lackluster and very, well, narrow minded as I am supporting a more analytic method, but this only because I have not fleshed it out. There is still a lot that needs to be done, and indeed I could very well discard the method; I have only given the form of it.

To what end would a non-technical give? Surely would it not give an ambiguous one? Thats precisely why we need to be technical in philosophy or in any subject for that matter, lest we throw ourselves into absurdity.

2. I do admit that there is indeed a circular process to all of this; but what I propose is a revision, constant revision, of thought. That we should not simply remain content with the answers we are given in philosophy and allow ourselves to be disillusioned by them; take for example the Dogmatic train of thought prior to Kant. My method is simply using revision or a dialectic I suppose as a way to constantly, and critically, philosophize. In order to do this though one must be proficient in the history of philosophy as well as logic (Symbolic Logic in particular). I have not actually reached this point myself yet, but it is something that will come with time. All I endeavoured to do was set out a method to develop a system.

Questions concerning mathematics and logic may tinge upon philosophy (and indeed they do), but they may not be vital questions for philosophy. Granted they are important, and I understand where you are coming from on this, but perhaps questions related to logic and mathematics may not have to necessarily deal with philosophical questions. Then again, I could be wrong.

3. I dont think that questions can ever be really truly solved, but we must make attempts to solve them, instead of simply saying that we never can solve them and leaving it at that.

I hope I have answered your questions sufficiently, and if not, I would encourage you to address them, or others, if needed. Thank you.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Fri 9 Jul, 2010 11:15 am
@Ding an Sich,

3. I dont think that questions can ever be really truly solved, but we must make attempts to solve them, instead of simply saying that we never can solve them and leaving it at that.


[/quote]

I mostly agree with what you say except for this last part. To begin with, I don't know what you mean by the "truly" in "truly solved". Does that imply that we may think they are solved, but they may turn out not to be solved? Well, that does not apply only to philosophy, but to physics, and everything else. Either problems have solutions or they do not. Of course, in the case of philosophy, many problems are solved by showing that there was no problem in the first place, and that there was only believed to be a problem on account of some confusion or misapprehension. So, in those cases, it would be more appropriate to call the solution a dissolution of the problem. But, in any case, whether solved or dissolved, there is no longer an issue. And that is what counts. I think that a number of philosophical problems are capable of solution (in this wider sense I have just talked about). For example: whether knowledge implies certainty; whether fatalism is true; whether people can act of their own free will. And others. Of course, that is not to say that some may not object to those solutions. But the mere fact of objection cannot show that the problem is not solved (or even "truly" solved). It is not the mere fact that there are objections that matters, but what matters is what those objections are, and how good they are. It does not follow from the fact that someone may always object to a solution that the solution fails. We might call that the "but someone might always object" fallacy. Of course, someone might always object. But so what? The question is, what is the objection, and what is its value?

I have the idea that there is a school of thought that runs strongly among philosophers that philosophy consists only of problems but no solutions. But, surely, no one can know that a priori, nor is it true just because the philosopher cannot discover the the solution (in the wide sense I mean) for the problem. Perhaps there are some insoluble problems in philosophy. For all I know, there are. But even if there are, that does not mean that they all are insoluble (why should it?). And it may be that with enough diligence and cleverness, at least some problems are soluble. I have the idea that many problems seem insoluble because they are so vaguely formulated. A more detailed or precise formulation of the problem might lead to a solution.
 
Ding an Sich
 
Reply Fri 9 Jul, 2010 01:36 pm
@kennethamy,
That was actually what I was trying to say (that problems have a solution or dissolution) but for some reason I could not speak clearly. Thank you.
 
Seaumas
 
Reply Mon 16 Jan, 2012 01:41 am
@Ding an Sich,
Ding an Sich wrote:

I have been thinkning about a proper method for the past few days concerning the way in which to approach philosophy, and to philosophize as well. It might appear obvious to others, whereas it might not to a greater group of people on the forum. Well here it is:

I. On the parts of the method.
A. Logic - Symbolic Logic in particular.
B. An Understanding of the History of Western Philosophy.

We recognize immediately that the aforementioned approach has been completed through the parts themselves; but the parts do not end our goal, for we need to work at philosophizing as well. As to my choices for the parts they are still broad in a sense, as anyone can say that they have an understanding of the history of western philosophy, but only in a limited way. They might have only dusted off the choicest bits on which they come to only vaguely acquaint themselves with a 2600 year old history. To such a gentlemen I would have to disagree with them when they state that their "understanding" is sufficient for the method I am soon to present, because my method requires the whole of western philosophy, and not simply scattered parts.

Logic is another important, if not neccessary, part for the method itself, as it allows us to not only structure our thoughts, but do so properly without falling into invalidity (I reserve "valid" as a term that regards the mere form of an argument, and not whether it is true or false). I consider Logic the science upon which philosophy gives unto itself a proper foundation; but this is something that I will not contend for at present. What remains is the necessity of the part itself as an assumption to the method.

Immediately one might object to the parts, in particular part B. They might say that Western Philosophy is too much to take in all at once, better still throughout the course of ones life. In essence it would be a burden to exhaustively go through the annals of Western Philosophy and read every one who has contributed to the subject proper. This objection will be answered with the presentation of the method itself.

So far we have emphasized, albeit briefly, the parts themselves; let us now look at the method:

II. On a Method for Correct Philosophizing
A. Elucidation of questions that have been brought out throughout the history of Western Philosophy.
B. Answers to those questions and the discarding of irrelevant ones.

With the method presented, in its simplicity (to avoid any difficulty), it should come at no surprise to the reader. Philosophy, aside from its foundation in Logic, has at its core questions that cannot be sufficiently answered (or questions that we do not think can be answered). But this begs the question, as we pressupose that these questions cannot be anwered simply because we know they cannot. To this we assent to a level of knowing what we cannot know, and to which the aforementioned method, in its barest, roughest, form, comes in. It serves as a way to answer the questions which we plead ingnorance to, and, in so doing, we further clarify what it is that needs answered.

Returning now to the objection above: I will concede to the point that there is too much information to take in when dealing with the history of Western Philosophy. But what the method does is elucidate questions that have arisen throughout this history and answer them, by means of logic and ingenuity. In short, once we have answered a question, we no longer need to go back to it, at least until another question presents itself so as to destroy or make useless the previous one. In essence, philosophy is a lifetime of work that needs constant revision by one individual and through others. But we must be precise in clarifying our thoughts, so as to not endanger ourselves into accepting vague ideas and substance-less verbiage. In otherwords, my method is to avoid jugglery of the highest rank.

This is just the beginning and I am sure there are problems with the method itself. Perhaps others will come along (you the reader) and try to improve, in a mutual way, what I and many others throughout the history of Western Philosophy have tried to accomplish. To this I recieve warmly the criticisms that are bound to follow, and the improvements that are consequently to be made. Thank you for your time.
 
Seaumas
 
Reply Mon 16 Jan, 2012 01:56 am
@Seaumas,
My Philosophy professor told me there were only three rules- and maybe less.
1. Don't ever let anyone tell you what or how to think.
2. If you think you have a new philosophy, you're wrong.
3. If you can't communicate it, you aren't philosophizing, you're masturbating.
Prof was little tough guy from Ireland and liked to sit in a chair on top of his desk or stand on the desk. Used to point at students and "Quick, what are the five intentions?" At the end of the year he said for us to pull out a piece of paper, give ourselves a course grade and hand it in. "I don't know what ya learned. I just teach the stuff. Truthful. You won't fool yourself or anyone by being dishonest." I remember hearing his first words to my class. "Come in. And leave your egoes in the hall." Neal Brophy died of a heart attack in 1980, in spite of what we medically tortured him with.
 
georgline
 
Reply Tue 24 Jan, 2012 07:28 pm
@Seaumas,
Hi........my love;=How are you?
I hope everythings is moving very fine with uu?
I thank God for every happyest moment to uu= that was my good pleaure to inbreast your good word in ur profile/pls...i wil lik to know uu as my future partner and after i saw ur picture which sparnckled my brain and i was inlove with uu beacuse= i saw you as a good real friend/ real love of my heart and responsible person indeed= that is why i really interested to know uu as my future partner.
But iam seriousely about it,beacu your good word in your profile inspired me and i desire it in my mind/ i also addmireed uu=to be my real love beacu i saw it very very good interested to know u more as someone who knows what i want and someone who knows what he/she want in life and i wil lik you to be my fucture date indeed.
My Name is georgline william and iam gentle,kind,caring,giver,loyal,honesty,creative,educated,romatic,God fearing,and also good in anylevel uu will lik,think or want in a Lady in future.
I wil lik to know uu=if uu are interested to know me as i do,4uu =i wil not lik to hot ur mind but i said if has the desirer to make my dream come true.please=i hav already made up my mind to be your real love indeed in future but i wil be looking forward to hear 4uu as my love of my heart and the desire of my soul..........................
i wil lik you to gate me very well as yours lots of love and for our eiaest comunications,iam 4uu at georglinewilliam at yahoo.com........i wil be very very happy to recieve and welcome ur word as my precious Darling.
Urs faithful georgline
Thanks and May
The Good God
Bless Uu.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/24/2019 at 08:25:29