The Radical Academy Discussion Forum
Philosophy, Politics, and the Human Condition
|
||
| Search For Similar Forums · Return to Website | ||
 First |
 Prev |
 Reply |
 Home |
Next  |
Last  |
| Viewing Page 1 of 1 (Total Posts: 8) |
| Author | Comment |
Kevin
 Dec 28, 07 - 10:54 PM |
REFUTING Richard's "philosophical" Definition of Knowledge
RICHARD PREVIOUSLY WROTE on the SUBJECT of "Richard's Perfect Refutation", requote RICHARD: Kevin, It seems to me that interpreting my reply as the "Perfect Refutation" demonstrates the primary reason that philosophical knowledge has not advanced in twenty-five centuries. Has there ever been any philosophical knowledge developed by using 'formal logic'? REPLY: Richard's above cited question was answered previously (in short YES!) under the appropriate subject header. Richard continues, quote RICHARD: The best I can tell, the dependence of Philosophy on 'formal logic' is the result of philosophers never understanding the nature of knowledge and how knowledge is constructed. COMMENT: RICHARD'S THESIS ABOVE IS: *******No philosopher is an understander of knowledge!********** RICHARD: For centuries, philosophers claimed knowledge is 'justified true belief' and is not constructed. REPLY: ON THE CONTRARY, Socrates refuted that definition (KNOWLEDGE is justified true belief!) of knowledge, in concert with Theaetetus and Theodorus centuries ago, quote: SOCRATES: So, apparently to the question, "WHAT IS KNOWLEDGE?" our definition will reply, "CORRECT BELIEF together with KNOWLEDGE of DIFFERENTNESS" for according to it "ADDING AN ACCOUNT" [ie. What Richard calls a "justification" as in "justified TRUE BELIEF"; CW. Socrates's "CORRECT BELIEF" above] will come to that. THEAETETUS: So it seems. SOCRATES: Yes, and when we are inquiring after the NATURE OF KNOWLEDGE, nothing would be SILLIER than to say that it (Knowledge) IS CORRECT BELIEF (c.w. Richard's "true belief" KB) together with a KNOWLEDGE of differentness or of anything whatever. So, Theaetetus, neither PERCEPTION, nor TRUE BELIEF, nor the addition of an 'ACCOUNT' (c.w. Richard's "justification") to TRUE BELIEF can be KNOWLEDGE. THEAETETUS: Apparently not. SOCRATES: Are we in labor, then, with any further child, my friend, or have we brought to birth all we have to say about KNOWLEDGE? THEAETETUS: Indeed we have, and for my part I have already, thanks to you, given utterance to more than I had in me. SOCRATES: All of which our midwife's skill pronounces to be MERE WIND EGGS and NOT WORTH REARING? THEAETETUS: Undoubtedly. SOCRATES: Then, supposing you should ever henceforth try to conceive afresh, Theaetetus, if you succeed, your EMBRYO THOUGHTS will be better as a consequence of today's scrutiny, and if you remain barren, you will be gentler and more agreeable to your companions, having the good sense NOT TO FANCY you KNOW what you DO NOT KNOW. For that, and no more, is all that my ART can effect; nor have I any of that KNOWLEDGE possessed by all the great and admirable men of our own day or of the past. But this midwife's art is a gift from heaven; my mother had it for women and I for young men of a GENEROUS SPIRIT and for all in whom BEAUTY dwells. Now I must go to the portico of the King Archon to meet the indictment which Meletus has drawn up against me. But tomorrow morning, Theodorus, let us meet here again. **********[Plato; Theaetetus; 210a through 210d]*************** REQUOTE RICHARD (for comparison): For centuries, philosophers claimed knowledge is 'justified true belief' and is not constructed. REFUTATION: On the contrary, Socrates, a very well known philosopher of ancient Athens refuted that DEFINITION of KNOWLEDGE in concert with an older GEOMETER from Cyrene, named Theodorus, and a younger Athenian GEOMETER, named Theaetetus, according to Plato, about 25 centuries ago. ARGUMENT: Methinks that you, Richard, confuse KNOWLEDGE with what Plato, Socrates, Theodorus and Theatetus concluded to be a MERE WINDEGG (false mental pregnancy; or false "conception" of "knowledge"), and not "worth rearing" about 25 centuries ago. You also think that YOU KNOW a definition of KNOWLEDGE which actual philosophers (Plato; Socrates; etc. etc.) never "CLAIMED" to be a definition of knowledge, but, TO THE CONTRARY, refuted as a definition of knowledge circa 25 centuries ago! Oh dear! Who have you been listening to FOR CENTURIES, Richard? Let me see... BERTRAND RUSSELL: The argument which has led us to this conclusion is doubtless less strong than we could wish, but is typical of many philosophical arguments, and it is, therefore worth while to consider briefly its general character and validity. ALL KNOWLEDGE, we find, must be built up upon our INSTINCTUAL BELIEFS, and if these are rejected, nothing is left. But among our INSTINCTUAL BELIEFS some are much stronger than others, while many have, by habit and association, become entangled with other BELIEFS, not really INSTINCTIVE, but falsely supposed to be part of what is BELIEVED instinctively. Philosophy should show us the hierarchy of our INSTINCTIVE BELIEFS ... Blah, Blah, yaddety... etc. ****BERTRAND RUSSELL; The Existence of Matter; Ch. 2. PROBLEMS OF PHIILOSOPHY*** Bertie is not "CENTURIES old"! contd. |
|
Kevin
Dec 29th, 2007 - 12:37 AM |
Re: REFUTING Richard's "philosophical" Definition of Knowledge
Let's listen again to Uncle Bertie Russell on BELIEFS. Russell is, arguably, the guy from whom Richard got his alleged "centuries old" definition of knowledge as requote "justified true belief", a definition which Socrates and Theaetetus rejected, along with Plato, about 25 centuries ago. UNCLE BERTIE RUSSELL (requote and continuation): "...it is, therefore worth while to consider briefly its general character and validity. ALL KNOWLEDGE, we find, must be built up upon our INSTINCTUAL BELIEFS, and if these are rejected, nothing is left. But among our INSTINCTUAL BELIEFS some are much stronger than others, while many have, by habit and association, become entangled with other BELIEFS, not really INSTINCTIVE, but falsely supposed to be part of what is BELIEVED instinctively. Philosophy should show us the hierarchy of our INSTINCTIVE BELIEFS, beginning with those we hold most strongly, and presenting each as much isolated and free from irrelevant additions as possible. It (ie. "philosophy" KB) should take care to show that, in the form in which they are finally set forth, our INSTINCTIVE BELIEFS do not CLASH, but form a harmonious SYSTEM. There can never be any reason for rejecting one INSTINCTIVE BELIEF except that it CLASHES with others; thus if they are found to HARMONIZE, the whole system becomes worthy of acceptance. It is of course POSSIBLE that ALL or any of our BELIEFS may be mistaken, and, therefore, ALL OUGHT TO BE HELD with at least some slight element of DOUBT. COMMENT: Hmmh! The above sounds like "Uncle Bertie" has never heard of Hume's correctly stated IS - OUGHT fallacy of moral misreasoning. In effect, argues Russell:- It is possible that every belief we have IS or maybe mistaken, "therefore" Every Belief we have OUGHT to be slightly-DOUBTED. WARNING!!! Is-ought fallacy!!! However EVERY DOUBT is the logical contrary of SOME BELIEF, since BELIEFS and DOUBTS are CONTRARY psychological conditions or states. RUSSELL (continues): But we cannot have REASON to reject a BELIEF except on the ground of some other BELIEF. Hence, by organizing our INSTINCTIVE BELIEFS and their CONSEQUENCES, by considering which among them is MOST POSSIBLE, if necessary, to modify or abandon, we can arrive, on the basis of accepting as our SOLE DATA what we INSTINCTIVELY BELIEVE, at an orderly systemmatic ORGANIZATION of our KNOWLEDGE, in which, though the POSSIBILITY of error remains, its likelihood is diminished by the interrelation of the parts and by the CRITICAL SCRUTINY which has preceded ACQUIESCENCE. COMMENT: The above cited 2nd-sentence is arguably the longest sentence of HOGWASH that Uncle Bertie ever wrote!!! RUSSELL (concludes): This function, at least, philosophy can perform. Most philosophers, rightly or wrongly, BELIEVE that philosophy can do much more than this [ie. Do much more than order our "instinctual BELIEFS" into a "systemmatic organization" KB]--- that it (philosophy) can give us KNOWLEDGE, not otherwise attainable, concerning the UNIVERSE AS A WHOLE, and concerning the NATURE of ultimate REALITY. Whether this be the case or not, the more modest function WE HAVE SPOKEN OF [Who's this "WE"? Is Bertrand Russell the "WE" of "me, myself and I" infamy??? KB] can certainly be performed by philosophy, and certainly suffices for those who have once begun to DOUBT THE ADEQUACY OF COMMON SENSE, to JUSTIFY the arduous and difficult labors that philosophical problems involve. ***BERTRAND RUSSELL; The Existence of Matter; Ch. 2. PROBLEMS OF PHILOSOPHY*** COMMENTARY: This little "philosophical scaliwag", Bertrand Russell, recommended Plato's REPUBLIC at the end of his book---especially Books VI and VII, after ultimately concluding that there are NO KNOWN TRUE ANSWERS TO PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTIONS. He also recommended Descartes's MEDITATIONS, Spinoza's ETHICS, Leibniz's THE MONADOLOGY, Berkeleys 3 DIALOGUES BETWEEN HYLAS AND PHILONOUS, Hume's ENQUIRY CONCERNING HUMAN UNDERSTANDING, and Kant's PROLEGOMENA TO EVERY FUTURE METAPHYSIC. Russell certainly did NOT recommend Plato's THEAETETUS, since that DIALOGUE "blows" his thesis as to "PHILOSOPHY" being "a slightly dubious BELIEF SYSTEM!" into any actual philosopher's "cocked hat"! And the thesis he maintains in his book was refuted 25 centuries before he tried to turn "philosophy" into just such a so-called "slightly dubious BELIEF system", which is the logical and geometrical equivalent of a "slightly square CIRCULAR System." That's why I love "Uncle Bertie"! He is such an utterly "dubious-Mathematician", with pretensions to arduous "philosophical-knowledge/doubt". Arguably he may be the guy who gave Richard his allegedly "CENTURIES OLD" philosophical definition of KNOWLEDGE, as, requote, RICHARD: "...knowledge is 'justified true belief'" RICHARD (full quote): For centuries, philosophers claimed knowledge is 'justified true belief' and is not constructed. COMMENT: False! contd. KB |
|
Kevin
Dec 29th, 2007 - 2:17 AM |
Re: REFUTING Richard's "philosophical" Definition of Knowledge
RICHARD (full Requote): For centuries, philosophers claimed knowledge is 'justified true belief' and is not constructed. PREVIOUS COMMENT: False! PRESENT COMMENT: And a "false-WIND-EGG" mistaken "definition" of KNOWLEDGE, according to Plato and Socrates in the dialogue THEAETETUS --- which is about a 25 century old refutation of what certainly seems to be Russell's "definition" of KNOWLEDGE. As previously mentioned, Bertrand Russell is no where near a "CENTURIES OLD" so-called "philosopher". Plato, Socrates and Theaetetus would describe Russell as a SOPHIST who is wasting his time and energy on "WIND-EGGS" or false mental pregnancies; otherwise known as "false conceptions" of KNOWLEDGE. BACK TO RICHARD: Their (ie Philosopher's) explanation for the existence of 'justified true belief', as knowledge, has been as a 'haphazard trial and error process over a long period of time'. REBUTTAL: No. That "KNOWLEDGE is 'justified true belief'" was a "haphazard trial and error process", for Theaetetus, sometime before one day, shortly prior to about 399 B.C., when Socrates refuted that definition of KNOWLEDGE!!! And Theaetetus agreed that he had not correctly defined KNOWLEDGE correctly with such a "definition". Like Socrates he agreed that such a so-called "definition" was a mere "WIND EGG" or FALSE CONCEPTION of "knowledge". Try again Richard! Your above statement is also a FALSE statement, according to Socrates, Theaetetus, Theodorus and Plato --- forget Aristotle who KNEW all of Plato's Dialogues. As to, RICHARD (requote): "...'haphazard trial and error process over a long period of time'.", who's quotation is that, since you signified you were quoting someone with those little 'scare quote' marks. Who were you quoting? RICHARD: Philosophers have explained the existence of knowledge this way inspite of the enormous knowledge being constructed by Science. REBUTTAL: No. Two philosophers, to wit, Plato and Socrates REFUTED the "definition" of knowledge which you say that they "explained ... this way", in spite of the enormous KNOWLEDGE being contructed by SCIENCE. ARGUMENT: Since you say you enjoyed every word of Ivo's and my dialogue on SCIENCE you must have "enjoyed" the fact that I explained the term KNOWLEDGE to be SCIENTIUM, in Latin, from which we get SCIENCE, in English. So, whether the term is KNOWLEDGE or SCIENCE, Richard, you are talking about the same thing. And your statement above is still FALSE because actual philosophers, like Socrates and Plato, never explained KNOWLEDGE to be "justified true BELIEF". To the CONTRARY, they refuted that "definition" about 25 Centuries ago. That Bertrand Russell, for one example, used such a "definition" of KNOWLEDGE in the 20th Century (1912 to be precise) is a perfect tribute to Russell's SOPHISTRY, which is arguably responsible for your FALSE statements about "philosophers". RICHARD: It appears to me that philosophers simply have never understood the nature and construct of knowledge and this explains by (ie. WHY) Philosophy has no grounding in logic. REPLY: What "seems" to you was KNOWN to be FALSE about 25 centuries ago, Richard. The refutation of Theaetetus's "definition" of knowledge (which you assert to have been "maintained" for "CENTURIES" by "philosophers", when it was actually REFUTED 25 centuries ago) was accomplished by means of Socratic DIALECTIC, which is an entirely LOGICAL process. "Maintaining" and "Refuting" are entirely CONTRARY logical processes, Richard. Think again! The art of LOGIC tells all its actual practitioners that NO one can reach a TRUE conclusion by employing a FALSE premise or false premises in their arguments. Your theses are entirely "undercut" or "groundless", given Socrates's refutation of Theaetetus's "wind egg" bogus definition of KNOWLEDGE which you "maintain" 25 centuries after it was refuted. Your entire argument is "grounded" by a FALSE statement and "wind-egg" bogus definition of knowledge, proved false 25 centuries ago!!! Your conclusion to the effect that, requote RICHARD: "...this explains by (ie. WHY) Philosophy has no grounding in logic." is just as FALSE as the FALSE premise you employed to reach such an absurd conclusion. IN OTHER WORDS: What do you mean by that conclusion? Do you mean to say that "EVERY PHILOSOPHER IS ILLOGICAL?" or that, "NO PHILOSOPHY IS LOGICAL?" or WHAT? IN OTHER WORDS (hypothetically): IF it is true to say that, "PHILOSOPHY has no grounding in LOGIC!", THEN what follows? RICHARD: 'Formal Logic' existences because statements can either contradict or not contradict. REBUTTAL: You seem to be confusing 'FORMAL LOGIC' with 'SENTENTIAL LOGIC' above. All that FORMAL LOGIC teaches is HOW and WHY true statements never lead to FALSE conclusions, and also HOW and WHY true statements may lead to FALSE conclusions when the reasoning FORM is fallacious. More later, out of RAM Kevin |
|
Kevin
Dec 29th, 2007 - 5:10 AM |
Re: REFUTING Richard's "philosophical" Definition of Knowledge
RICHARD: 'Formal Logic' existences because statements can either contradict or not contradict. REBUTTAL: You seem to be confusing 'FORMAL LOGIC' with 'SENTENTIAL LOGIC' above. All that FORMAL LOGIC teaches is HOW and WHY true statements never lead to FALSE conclusions, and also HOW and WHY true statements may lead to FALSE conclusions when the reasoning FORM is fallacious. FOR EXAMPLE, I can argue: Every horse is an animal (TRUE; major premise); but No man is a horse (TRUE; minor premise) "THEREFORE" No man is an animal (FALSE; conclusion) So FORMAL LOGIC "teaches" me, and you, Richard, if you care to learn the discipline, that since I inferred or derived an obviously FALSE conclusion from 2 known true premises, I must have used a FALLACIOUS FORM of reasoning. That is part of what FORMAL LOGIC teaches --- ie. how to go from true propositions to true conclusions while avoiding simple FALLACIES. But 'formal logic' can't tell us which propositions in any given argument are TRUE or FALSE. That is the province of MAJOR or MATERIAL logic, a distinction which most modern logicians fail to recognize or acknowledge (ie. FORMAL vs. MATERIAL logic) especially among the "mathematically inclined" sorts of formal or SYMBOLIC logicians. Incidentally, the FORMAL FALLACY above is called the FALLACY of the illicit MAJOR TERM. The major term is always the PREDICATE of a conclusion. The minor term is always the SUBJECT of a conclusion. When I concluded, fallaciously, that NO MAN is an ANIMAL from 2 true premises [(1) Every horse is an animal & (2) No man is a horse] the conclusion of my argument involved a broader extension of the MAJOR TERM (animal) in the conclusion of the argument than that identical major term had in the major premise [Every horse is an animal.] Thus the fallacy of ILLICIT MAJOR, which is a FORMAL FALLACY. I am quite sure that you don't know what is meant by the expression "BROADER EXTENSION of the Major Term" between premise and conclusion, given your own fallacious argument as to WHY, requote, "Philosophy has no grounding in logic!" Sentential LOGIC, in contrast to FORMAL LOGIC, is all about how (using your own terminology, Richard, requote) "statements can either contradict or not contradict." Contradictory pairs of sentences or propositions are neither FALLACIOUS nor VALID, as is the case with reasoning FORMS which are either VALID or FALLACIOUS. Contradictory pairs of sentences or propositions are simply TRUE, or FALSE, or INDETERMINATE. An example of an INDETERMINATE sentence or proposition is:- EVERY CITIZEN OF JUPITER IS a 12-LEGGED silica based LIFE FORM! Since I have never been to Jupiter, I have no way of KNOWING whether or not that INDETERMINATE sentence, above, is either TRUE or FALSE. But I certainly KNOW its contrary proposition, its contradictory proposition and its subcontrary proposition, having studied Aristotle's, Adler's, Maritain's and Raymond J. McCall's treatments of SENTENTIAL LOGIC, which is only concerned with the individual premises (propositions; statements) of FORMAL LOGIC. A VALID reasoning FORM involves at least 2 propositions, each consisting of 2 and only 2 terms, where one of the two terms in both propositions is called the MIDDLE TERM and the other pair of TERMS are called the EXTREME terms, for a total of 3 terms. The MIDDLE TERM drops out in a deductively VALID conclusion, while the EXREME TERMS are either JOINED or SEPARATED according to the RULES of FORMAL LOGIC, which you don't KNOW, Richard. That is WHY you misreason so badly and fallaciously by "grounding" your argument upon both a FALSE proposition and an INVALID argument form. But you don't KNOW such things, given your egregiously FALSE conclusion ("Philosophy has no grounding in logic!"), plus, proved-FALSE (by Plato's THEAETETUS) statement, concerning a so-called "CENTURIES OLD" bogus "definition" of KNOWLEDGE, proved FALSE by Socrates and Plato about 25 centuries ago!!! PRAY CONTINUE (your misreasoning), quote RICHARD: 'Formal Logic' existences because statements can either contradict or not contradict.[ie. That would be 'sentential logic', more accurately] It (formal logic) reveals nothing about the methodology of constructing statements that reveal the reality of the 'thing or condition' the statements are about. That is correct. People have to appeal to experience or MAJOR LOGIC to "construct" individual statements or propositions. Formal logic only teaches WHY and HOW one goes LOGICALLY from true propositions to true conclusions or, on the other hand, WHY and HOW one went ILLOGICALLY from true propositions to a FALSE conclusion. There are 2 other combinations (3) FALSE premise or premises to VALID, but FALSE, conclusion and (4) equally FALSE premises, but VALID and TRUE conclusion! RICHARD: Thus, for Philosophy to claim credence because of its use of ‘formal logic’ is a sham. REPLY: FALSE in several respects. contd. |
|
Richard
Dec 29th, 2007 - 10:38 AM |
Re: REFUTING Richard's "philosophical" Definition of Knowledge
Kevin, I would suggest that the ideas philosophers had twenty-five centuries ago about philosophical concepts might not be the same ideas they would have if they were living today. Is it then reasonable for us to place much credence in the validity of their ideas if arguably they would have different ideas today? However, if you believe the ideas of dead philosophers are logical, then explain what logical methodology they used to construct their ideas. If you can not explain their logical methodology, then maybe you can list some of their ideas that you believe are logical even though you don't know the thought methodology they used. |
|
Kevin
Dec 31st, 2007 - 1:26 AM |
Re: REFUTING Richard's "philosophical" Definition of Knowledge
RICHARD: Thus, for Philosophy to claim credence because of its use of ‘formal logic’ is a sham. REPLY: FALSE in several respects. KEVIN: No! It's not a "sham" for PHILOSOPHERS to claim CREDENCE (believability) because they KNOW LOGIC, since LOGIC is the essential tool of any philosopher. "Philosophy", in contrast, doesn't make any claims at all. Men make claims. The following passage is what Aristotle claimed about 24 centuries ago. I have broken this passage from METAPHYSICS into little bite-sized chunks because I "believe" it to be the most important passage in any "philosophical" treatise that anyone with a legitimate claim to being a "pursuer of wisdom" (philosopher) ever said/wrote, quote: ARISTOTLE: 1) "The attempts of some of those who discuss the terms upon which truth should be accepted are due to a want of training in LOGIC; for they should know these things already when they come to a special study and not be inquiring into them while they listen to lectures on it. 2) Evidently, then, it belongs to the philosopher, ie. to him who is studying the nature of all substance, to inquire into the principles of syllogism (reasoning-LOGICALLY; KB). But he who knows best about each GENUS (loosely:- GENERAL "cause-of-being") must be able to state the most CERTAIN PRINCIPLE of his subject, so that he whose subject is existing things qua EXISTING must be able to state the most certain principle of all things. 3) This is the philosopher and the most certain principle of all is that regarding which it is impossible to be mistaken; for such a principle must be both 4.1) best known (for all men may be mistaken about things they do not know) and 4.2) non-hypothetical." 5) For a PRINCIPLE which everyone must have, who understands anything that IS (ie. anything that exists) is not a hypothesis and that which everyone must know, who knows anything, he must already have when he comes to a special study (eg. Any sort of "technical talk" subject' eg. SCIENCES are "technical talk" subjects KB). Evidently, then such a principle is the most certain of all; which principle this is, let us proceed to say. 6) It is that the same ATTRIBUTE cannot, at the same time, BELONG and NOT-BELONG to the same SUBJECT in the same RESPECT; we must presuppose, to guard against DIALECTICAL objections any further qualifications which may be added. (NOTE:- No further "qualifications" were ever "added"! KB) 2nd-NOTE:- Aristotle continues to "justify" his thesis as to the FIRST PRINCIPLE of all knowledge and reasoning---which everyone knows, when/if they know anything at all about anything which exists. ARISTOTLE: 7) "For it is impossible for anyone to believe the same thing to be and not to be, as some think Heraclitus says. For what a man says, he does not necessarily believe; (eg. Liars do not believe what they say! Mistaken people do not know either "that" or exactly "why" they are mistaken. K.B.) 8) and if it is impossible that CONTRARY ATTRIBUTES should belong at the same time to the same subject (the usual qualifications must be presupposed in this premise too; ARISTOTLE'S BRACKET), 9) and if an opinion which contradicts another (ie. contradicts another opinion K.B.) is CONTRARY to it obviously it is impossible for the same man, at the same time, to believe the same thing to BE and NOT to BE; for if a man were mistaken on this point, he would have CONTRARY OPINIONS at the same time. 10) It is for this reason that ALL who are carrying out a demonstration reduce it (ie. their demonstration/s KB) to this (ie. to this principle KB) as an ultimate belief; for this (principle) is naturally the starting-point even for ALL THE OTHER AXIOMS." (Aristotle; Metaphysics; Bk.IV., Ch.3., 1005b lines 2-33 approx.) RICHARD (requote): Thus, for Philosophy to claim credence because of its use of ‘formal logic’ is a sham. ARISTOTLE (requote): 1) "The attempts of some of those who discuss the terms upon which truth should be accepted are due to a want of training in LOGIC;... 2) Evidently, then, it belongs to the philosopher, ie. to him who is studying the nature of all substance, to inquire into the principles of syllogism (reasoning-LOGICALLY; KB). COMMENT: According to Richard, Aristotle must have been a "sham", given his emphases on (1) Training in LOGIC and (2) Inquiries into the principles of syllogism [inductive and deductive reasoning]. RICHARD: Kevin, I would suggest that the ideas philosophers had twenty-five centuries ago about philosophical concepts might not be the same ideas they would have if they were living today. REPLY: Neither Aristotle, nor anybody else, has ever refuted the basic LAW OF THOUGHT above cited. Aristotle wouldn't change his mind about that basic "idea", were he alive today. But he'd KNOW where and WHY he went wrong on certain points 24 centuries ago. He'd be "up to speed" on modern SCIENCE in a year or 2 |
|
Kevin
Dec 31st, 2007 - 3:19 AM |
Re: REFUTING Richard's "philosophical" Definition of Knowledge
Re: REFUTING Richard's "philosophical" Definition of Knowledge Kevin, I would suggest that the ideas philosophers had twenty-five centuries ago about philosophical concepts (another name for "idea"; a.k.a. "mental conception"; a.k.a. "mental pregnancy"; harking back to Socrates's "thought midwifery") might not be the same ideas they would have if they were living today. Is it then REASONABLE for us to place much credence in the VALIDITY of their ideas if arguably they would have different ideas today? COMMENT: Assuming what is to be proved! You suggest one thing and conclude the same thing. But your use of the terms "REASONABLE" and "VALIDITY(of ideas)" above, has a single synonym which is "LOGICAL", as an adjective, and "LOGIC" as a noun. Hence, you have asked this question: Q. Is it, then, LOGICAL/reasonable for us to place much credence/(belief) in the LOGIC/validity of their "ideas" (if arguably they would have different ideas today)? ANSWER: Ideas, like words and things, are neither logical nor illogical. It is only when we string words, which symbolize things, and our ideas about things, together, employing the verb "to be", that statements which may be true or false come into being. How we proceed from one statement to the next statement is where LOGIC comes in. RICHARD: However, if you believe the ideas of dead philosophers are logical, then explain what logical methodology they used to construct their ideas. REPLY: People don't CONSTRUCT "ideas", Richard. They ABSTRACT "ideas" from IMAGES-of-THINGS, according to Aristotle. "Ideas", like "things", and "words", are neither logical, nor illogical, although the Greek term from which LOGIC was derived, was LOGOS, meaning WORD, or TERM, in the Greek tongue. It is only when you string words, symbolizing various THINGS, together, that the discipline of LOGIC comes to the foreground. It is arguments which are either LOGICAL or ILLOGICAL (valid vs. invalid; reasonable vs. unreasonable). By contrast, it is only simple PROPOSITIONS, involving the verb "to be" which are either TRUE or FALSE, or as previously mentioned INDETERMINATE or INDEFINITE. RICHARD: If you can not explain their logical methodology, then maybe you can list some of their ideas that you believe are logical even though you don't know the thought methodology they used. REPLY: Once again, Richard. "Ideas" are neither logical, nor illogical, since IDEAS are the means by which we UNDERSTAND various THINGS. Aristotle calls IDEAS "imperceptible universals", as did Plato. However, Aristotle didn't think that there was a SEPARATE WORLD of IDEAS, as did Plato. Aristotle thought that the WORLD OF THE FORMS was in each and every individual human being's SOUL or "life principle", as a peculiar power of such "psyches", to wit, the POWER to take away MEANINGS (ideas; imperceptible-UNIVERSALS) from IMAGES. He says so in both ON THE SOUL and, again, in THE METAPHYSICS. It is arguments which are either logical or illogical, Richard, not "ideas". Hopefully that point is settled. As to your question, you ask, hypothetically, requote: RICHARD: If you can not explain their logical methodology, then maybe you can list some of their ideas that you believe are logical even though you don't know the thought methodology they used. REPLY: Can you see something there again, Richard? It is the same BAD HABIT. You make a hypothetical assertion and then repeat the same hypothetical assertion, with a slight variation, in your concluding statement. Another case of assuming what is to be proved. WATCH YOURSELF do it again. The antecedent of your first HYPOTHESIS is RICHARD: (If) you can not explain their logical methodology... Then you conclude with... RICHARD: ...even though you don't know the thought methodology they used. THUS YOUR "ARGUMENT" IS: IF you cannot explain their logical methodology, THEN, you don't know the thought methodology, they used. This time you make "thought" and "logical" into synonyms, as in "LOGICAL METHODOLOGY" and "THOUGHT METHODOLOGY", which is a very good thing to do. However you apparently think that I don't know the methodology of either Socrates or Aristotle. And WHY would you think that, when this discussion began as a consequence of one of Aristotle's SQUARES of the logical opposition of sentences. I didn't elucidate such "squares". Aristotle did. And Aristotle didn't either invent or discover such "squares". It was Socrates and Plato who used them in their METHODOLOGY, although Plato never publically revealed his developed METHODOLOGY --- only Socrates's method. Plato reserved his method for his fellow ACADEMICS, like Aristotle. But we have Plato's record of Socrates's METHOD of "elenchus"/refutation via Plato's DIALOGUES, featuring Socrates's METHODOLOGY. That was the METHOD I used in debate with Ivo, in which you took some interest. contd. KB |
|
Kevin
Dec 31st, 2007 - 4:56 AM |
Re: REFUTING Richard's "philosophical" Definition of Knowledge
REVIEWING RICHARD'S LATEST ARGUMENT: Kevin, I would suggest that the ideas philosophers had twenty-five centuries ago about philosophical concepts (IDEAS) might not be the same ideas they would have if they were living today. COMMENT: No. Aristotle never forgot the LAW OF CONTRADICTION, mentioned in his 6 LOGIC TREATISES, and fully defended in THE METAPHYSICS. He got that LAW from Socrates and Plato, since people who CONTRADICT themselves, don't KNOW, according to all of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. THAT LAW has always been the basic tool of every philosopher and even of those "pretenders" to "philosophical" insight, whom Aristotle described as either CRITICAL DIALECTICIANS or SOPHISTS. RICHARD: Is it then reasonable for us to place much credence in the validity of their ideas if arguably they would have different ideas today? REPLY: It is entirely reasonable to believe Aristotle's defence and explication of the BASIC PRINCIPLE of thought, which I have quoted above from THE METAPHYSICS. His LOGIC treatises, however, are more difficult, and without KNOWING them, The Metaphysics is, at best, mostly obscure. RICHARD: However, if you believe the ideas of dead philosophers are logical, then explain what logical methodology they used to construct their ideas. REPLY: I don't believe many of the arguments of dead philosophers, as you should well KNOW, by now, Richard. I don't believe Kant's ideas, or arguments, nor Descartes's ideas or arguments, nor Locke's, nor Hume's, nor Berkeley's, nor Leibniz's MONADOLOGY, nor anything remotely described as "modern philosphy". I believe Socrates, as "beautified and rejuvenated" by Plato and I believe whole-heartedly in Aristotle's METHODOLOGY, which, when adapted to HYPOTHETICAL REASONING, became what everybody calls "MODERN SCIENCE". RICHARD: If you can not explain their logical methodology, then maybe you can list some of their ideas that you believe are logical even though you don't know the thought methodology they used. REPLY: Previously commented upon. As to "not explain"-ing their logical methodology, you SAW the Socratic Method practiced with Ivo, in our argument to which you said you listened. Ivo went from what Aristotle and Plato would call EPISTEME (perfect knowledge --- FACT and the CAUSE/s of a FACT; or "scientific knowledge" some might say today) to "pretended" ignorance of the CAUSE/s of his 2 comas, citing "fogetfulness", caused by his two self-willed accidents, resulting in 2 comas. But the only thing that he really thought was "forgotten" were his original statements to this list when it was hosted by the RADICAL ACADEMY and some "hacker" deleted his original admissions, which I had saved to my hard-Drive. When confronted with those original admissions, he ran away, like most of Socrates's less BEAUTIFUL (than Theaetetus) dialogue partners. eg. Eutyphro. That was the SOCRATIC METHOD. Maybe you weren't listening carefully, although you did say, requote: RICHARD (requote): I am, and enjoying every word. COMMENT: Perhaps you were "enjoying" Ivo's discomfiture, but missed the Socratic METHOD by which he was discomfited. None-the-less, the Socratic METHOD is what I employed in my debate with Ivo. That method is EXPLAINABLE by the LAW OF CONTRADICTION. People who KNOW something and then turn around and DENY THAT IDENTICAL KNOWLEDGE are either "dubiously forgetful" or plain old everyday "fibbers". RICHARD (partial requote): "...maybe you can list some of their ideas that you believe are logical." REPLY: As previously mentioned:- Neither THINGS, nor THOUGHTS, nor WORDS, nor IDEAS, are either logical or illogical. Only arguments are logical or illogical. Arguments are constructed out of PROPOSITIONS (otherwise known as declarative sentences). So it is arguments which are LOGICAL or ILLOGICAL. That said, I gave you Aristotle's ARGUMENT as to WHY everyone, who KNOWS anything, KNOWS the Law of Thought, which is the BASIC PRINCIPLE of everyone's thought. He also argued that it is the basic PRINCIPLE upon which all THE OTHER AXIOMS rest --- referring to Geometry, which was the ULTIMATE SCIENCE in Aristotle's and Plato's days and times. As to Aristotle's thought/s on how human minds obtain or "construct" (your expression) IDEAS, I refer you to his TREATISE on THE SOUL. We get IDEAS from IMAGES, the more IMAGES (that we may recall) the better. Another very important passage from Aristotle begins with, quote: ARISTOTLE: "Spoken words are SYMBOLS of mental experience (he literally said, in translated Greek, "SIGNS of AFFECTIONS of THE SOUL"). The written word is a SYMBOL of the spoken word. As all men have NOT the same speech sounds, so, too, all men do not have the same written SYMBOLS. But the MENTAL EXPERIENCES which these (spoken or written symbols) DIRECTLY REPRESENT, are the same for all men, as are THOSE THINGS of which our EXPERIENCES are IMAGES." contd. KB |
| First |
Prev |
Reply |
Home |
Next |
Last |
bravenet.com