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.

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.

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.

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;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.

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!

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.