The Radical Academy Discussion Forum

Kevin

Dec 31, 07 - 10:19 AM

Richard's latest Advice

Re: LOGIC CORRECTION & Richard's REFUTED "definition" of KNOWLEDGE

Kevin,

You demonstrate that you can only think about the subject of Knowledge according to the ideas of long dead philosophers who, would arguable, have different ideas if they were still living.

REPLY:
Richard! All that you demonstrate is the dubiously "wondrous" ability to REPEAT YOURSELF without ever once giving anything like a CREDIBLE reason for holding the same BELIEFS you simply and repetitively regurgitate. Aristotle would not have a "different idea" of the basic LAW OF THOUGHT were he alive today, since everybody who has ever done any intelligent thinking on any SUBJECT has always used that LAW.

You were the guy who challenged me to give you a so-called "idea" from one of those ancient philosophers. So I gave you Aristotle's "idea" on THOUGHT from the Metaphysics. You don't like it. Big deal! You can't even fix your own car, let alone your own mind. But you KNOW when your car isn't working. Good! I know why your own mind doesn't work very well. You have absolutely NO LOGICAL REASONS for your thoughts.

RICHARD:
Considering that philosophers have never solved the problems of Philosophy should give one cause, except hardcore believers, to suspect there is something terribly wrong with the way philosophers think.

REPLY:
You seem to be simply a "hardcore believer" in Bertrand Russell's WRITTEN ramblings. He is the only guy, that I recall, who has ever asserted that philosophers have never solved THE PROBLEMS OF PHILOSOPHY, which is the title of his 1912 book. He never changed one of his "thoughts" in that 1912 little "gem", either, and continued to make money off of its republication until the day of his death.

Meanwhile, just about everything he wrote was refuted by modern PHILOSOPHERS OF NATURE --- known as SCIENTISTS to you --- and which Aristotle argued would make progress "ad infinitum" because there are an infinite (in the sense of immeasureable) number of things to learn and TO KNOW.

RICHARD:
Hardcore believers are one of the primary reasons why Philosophy has developed little if any in twenty-five centuries.

REBUTTAL:
And you won't make any progress in philosophy over the next 25 minutes or the next 25 years, Richard, with your arguably "Russelian" regurgitated BELIEFS! But I'll "bite" at your thesis, requote:

ARGUMENT:
According to you, and your constant repetition of NO PROGRESS IN 25 CENTURIES, but also in LIGHT of Aristotle's clearly stated TEACHING that the 3 "philosophical SCIENCES" are (1) Abstract Mathematics, (2) PHYSICS and (3) Natural Theology, there has been "little development" in mathematics and Physics in 25 centuries!!!

Hence, according to Aristotle, and modern mathematics and Physics, Richard, you really don't KNOW what you are talking about. Admittedly there is almost NO PROGRESS in either natural or revealed THEOLOGY for the simple reason that God isn't as boringly repetitive as some people with whom I have very slight acquaintance.

RICHARD:
Do you really believe that Socrates, if he were living today, and aware of the enormous knowledge developed to date, would still claim the nature of Knowledge can not be understood?

ANSWER:
Socrates was aware of the ENORMOUS KNOWLEDGE of all kinds of people. But all those enormously KNOWLEDGABLE people CONTRADICTED each other. Sophist vs. Sophist. Poet vs. Poet. Physicist vs. Physicist. Politician vs. Politician. Even, which Socrates refused to believe "god" vs. "god"!

Socrates never claimed that "the nature of knowledge cannot be understood", Richard.

Socrates simply refuted Theatetus's 3 attampts at defining Knowledge. He refuted (1) KNOWLEDGE is Perception; (2) KNOWLEDGE is TRUE BELIEF and (3) KNOWLEDGE is TRUE BELIEF with an "account" or a "justification".

"(3)" was your definition of what philosophers have "always believed" to be the definition of knowledge, which they have NOT "always believed". If Socrates was alive today, he would merely prove to you that you DON'T KNOW what you merely "think" you KNOW. It's what he DID.

RICHARD:
Get real man, unshackle your thinking from the senseless ideas of Traditional Academic Philosophy, and do your own thinking.

REPLY:
Not a chance, Richard. If I "unshackled" my thinking from that of either Aristotle or Socrates, I'd be exactly like you --- OPINIONATED without being able to give either TRUE or REASONABLE accounts or justifications for my IRRATIONAL OPINIONS. I'm "shackled" to Aristotle and to Socrates. They always GAVE REASONS for their thinking and WHY they thought what they thought.

I always do my own thinking! Nobody else can do it for me. You always do your own thinking too. But your "thinking" consists of repeating yourself and the 2 or 3 "ideas" you have, which lack both RATIONAL ARGUMENT and FACTUAL justification to back them up. Who's doing your thinking for you? Bertie and his BELIEFS? Unshackle YOURSELF!

KB

Richard

Dec 31st, 2007 - 4:43 PM

Re: Richard's latest Advice

Kevin,

The fact that ideas about the nature of knowledge are radically different from philosopher to philosopher makes it absolutely hilarious when anyone demands that discussing the nature of knowledge should be bound by the ideas of one's ’ favorite philosopher. I have long held the belief that an education in Philosophy destroys ones’ ability to think rationally and your demand supports this belief. Socrates is my favorite philosopher but how rational would I be to shackle my thinking to his ideas, about knowledge, when I know he would have different ideas if he were still living. Get Real!

The reason I harp continually about understanding the nature of knowledge is because knowledge is the one abstract universal that must have a definition engraved in stone for Philosophy to be grounded on logic. Without a realistic comprehensive universal definition of knowledge it is impossible to understand how knowledge is constructed and no degree of certainty that the writings of philosophers will have any relevance to the reality of what their writing are about.

Richard

Jan 1st, 2008 - 5:46 AM

Re: Richard's latest Advice

Kevin,

For twenty-five centuries, philosophers have written to explain the philosophical subjects (abstract universals) without understanding how knowledge is constructed. It would take another twenty-five centuries, or more, to construct arguments to refute each of their senseless ideas. Still, the best argument is the one that 'the proof is in the pudding'. Arguably, the most prominent characteristic of their writing is the ENORMOUS CONFUSION resulting in many radically different Philosophical Schools of thought each attempting to explain the same philosophical universals in radically different ways.

When knowledge is constructed to understand a subject, the effort involved constructing the knowledge ceases. Senseless ideas support a robust Philosophy if philosopher never accomplishes the realistic understandings for they can spend centuries causing confusion.

Richard

Jan 1st, 2008 - 1:42 PM

Re: Richard's latest Advice

Kevin,

The potential of humans to satisfy our needs to exist in ways that do not cause serious problems and threaten our existence is our ability to think rationally and realistically. There is nothing we can do voluntarily without thinking and nothing rational we can do without thinking in a rational way. Humans who do not think rationally cause most problems. Thus, it is imperative to a satisfying existence without serious problems that we understand the mechanics of rational thinking.

Understanding of the nature of Knowledge and how Realistic Knowledge is constructed IS THE PROCESS OF RATIONAL THINKING. Knowledge is a philosophical subject and philosophers have failed for twenty-five centuries to construct the realistic ideas mankind needs to understand the Nature and Construct of Knowledge. Thus, we can reasonably argue that, “the Methodology of Doing Philosophy by shackling our thinking to the ideas of early philosophers that have failed to reflect the Nature of Knowledge is the reason for our irrational thinking resulting in our serious human, social, economic and environmental problems that threaten our existence”.

	The Radical Academy Discussion Forum Philosophy, Politics, and the Human Condition
Search For Similar Forums · Return to Website

Author	Comment
Kevin Dec 31, 07 - 10:19 AM	Richard's latest Advice Re: LOGIC CORRECTION & Richard's REFUTED "definition" of KNOWLEDGE Kevin, You demonstrate that you can only think about the subject of Knowledge according to the ideas of long dead philosophers who, would arguable, have different ideas if they were still living. REPLY: Richard! All that you demonstrate is the dubiously "wondrous" ability to REPEAT YOURSELF without ever once giving anything like a CREDIBLE reason for holding the same BELIEFS you simply and repetitively regurgitate. Aristotle would not have a "different idea" of the basic LAW OF THOUGHT were he alive today, since everybody who has ever done any intelligent thinking on any SUBJECT has always used that LAW. You were the guy who challenged me to give you a so-called "idea" from one of those ancient philosophers. So I gave you Aristotle's "idea" on THOUGHT from the Metaphysics. You don't like it. Big deal! You can't even fix your own car, let alone your own mind. But you KNOW when your car isn't working. Good! I know why your own mind doesn't work very well. You have absolutely NO LOGICAL REASONS for your thoughts. RICHARD: Considering that philosophers have never solved the problems of Philosophy should give one cause, except hardcore believers, to suspect there is something terribly wrong with the way philosophers think. REPLY: You seem to be simply a "hardcore believer" in Bertrand Russell's WRITTEN ramblings. He is the only guy, that I recall, who has ever asserted that philosophers have never solved THE PROBLEMS OF PHILOSOPHY, which is the title of his 1912 book. He never changed one of his "thoughts" in that 1912 little "gem", either, and continued to make money off of its republication until the day of his death. Meanwhile, just about everything he wrote was refuted by modern PHILOSOPHERS OF NATURE --- known as SCIENTISTS to you --- and which Aristotle argued would make progress "ad infinitum" because there are an infinite (in the sense of immeasureable) number of things to learn and TO KNOW. RICHARD: Hardcore believers are one of the primary reasons why Philosophy has developed little if any in twenty-five centuries. REBUTTAL: And you won't make any progress in philosophy over the next 25 minutes or the next 25 years, Richard, with your arguably "Russelian" regurgitated BELIEFS! But I'll "bite" at your thesis, requote: ARGUMENT: According to you, and your constant repetition of NO PROGRESS IN 25 CENTURIES, but also in LIGHT of Aristotle's clearly stated TEACHING that the 3 "philosophical SCIENCES" are (1) Abstract Mathematics, (2) PHYSICS and (3) Natural Theology, there has been "little development" in mathematics and Physics in 25 centuries!!! Hence, according to Aristotle, and modern mathematics and Physics, Richard, you really don't KNOW what you are talking about. Admittedly there is almost NO PROGRESS in either natural or revealed THEOLOGY for the simple reason that God isn't as boringly repetitive as some people with whom I have very slight acquaintance. RICHARD: Do you really believe that Socrates, if he were living today, and aware of the enormous knowledge developed to date, would still claim the nature of Knowledge can not be understood? ANSWER: Socrates was aware of the ENORMOUS KNOWLEDGE of all kinds of people. But all those enormously KNOWLEDGABLE people CONTRADICTED each other. Sophist vs. Sophist. Poet vs. Poet. Physicist vs. Physicist. Politician vs. Politician. Even, which Socrates refused to believe "god" vs. "god"! Socrates never claimed that "the nature of knowledge cannot be understood", Richard. Socrates simply refuted Theatetus's 3 attampts at defining Knowledge. He refuted (1) KNOWLEDGE is Perception; (2) KNOWLEDGE is TRUE BELIEF and (3) KNOWLEDGE is TRUE BELIEF with an "account" or a "justification". "(3)" was your definition of what philosophers have "always believed" to be the definition of knowledge, which they have NOT "always believed". If Socrates was alive today, he would merely prove to you that you DON'T KNOW what you merely "think" you KNOW. It's what he DID. RICHARD: Get real man, unshackle your thinking from the senseless ideas of Traditional Academic Philosophy, and do your own thinking. REPLY: Not a chance, Richard. If I "unshackled" my thinking from that of either Aristotle or Socrates, I'd be exactly like you --- OPINIONATED without being able to give either TRUE or REASONABLE accounts or justifications for my IRRATIONAL OPINIONS. I'm "shackled" to Aristotle and to Socrates. They always GAVE REASONS for their thinking and WHY they thought what they thought. I always do my own thinking! Nobody else can do it for me. You always do your own thinking too. But your "thinking" consists of repeating yourself and the 2 or 3 "ideas" you have, which lack both RATIONAL ARGUMENT and FACTUAL justification to back them up. Who's doing your thinking for you? Bertie and his BELIEFS? Unshackle YOURSELF! KB Email: PaedoSocrates@aol.com
Richard Dec 31st, 2007 - 4:43 PM	Re: Richard's latest Advice Kevin, The fact that ideas about the nature of knowledge are radically different from philosopher to philosopher makes it absolutely hilarious when anyone demands that discussing the nature of knowledge should be bound by the ideas of one's ’ favorite philosopher. I have long held the belief that an education in Philosophy destroys ones’ ability to think rationally and your demand supports this belief. Socrates is my favorite philosopher but how rational would I be to shackle my thinking to his ideas, about knowledge, when I know he would have different ideas if he were still living. Get Real! The reason I harp continually about understanding the nature of knowledge is because knowledge is the one abstract universal that must have a definition engraved in stone for Philosophy to be grounded on logic. Without a realistic comprehensive universal definition of knowledge it is impossible to understand how knowledge is constructed and no degree of certainty that the writings of philosophers will have any relevance to the reality of what their writing are about.
Richard Jan 1st, 2008 - 5:46 AM	Re: Richard's latest Advice Kevin, For twenty-five centuries, philosophers have written to explain the philosophical subjects (abstract universals) without understanding how knowledge is constructed. It would take another twenty-five centuries, or more, to construct arguments to refute each of their senseless ideas. Still, the best argument is the one that 'the proof is in the pudding'. Arguably, the most prominent characteristic of their writing is the ENORMOUS CONFUSION resulting in many radically different Philosophical Schools of thought each attempting to explain the same philosophical universals in radically different ways. When knowledge is constructed to understand a subject, the effort involved constructing the knowledge ceases. Senseless ideas support a robust Philosophy if philosopher never accomplishes the realistic understandings for they can spend centuries causing confusion.
Richard Jan 1st, 2008 - 1:42 PM	Re: Richard's latest Advice Kevin, The potential of humans to satisfy our needs to exist in ways that do not cause serious problems and threaten our existence is our ability to think rationally and realistically. There is nothing we can do voluntarily without thinking and nothing rational we can do without thinking in a rational way. Humans who do not think rationally cause most problems. Thus, it is imperative to a satisfying existence without serious problems that we understand the mechanics of rational thinking. Understanding of the nature of Knowledge and how Realistic Knowledge is constructed IS THE PROCESS OF RATIONAL THINKING. Knowledge is a philosophical subject and philosophers have failed for twenty-five centuries to construct the realistic ideas mankind needs to understand the Nature and Construct of Knowledge. Thus, we can reasonably argue that, “the Methodology of Doing Philosophy by shackling our thinking to the ideas of early philosophers that have failed to reflect the Nature of Knowledge is the reason for our irrational thinking resulting in our serious human, social, economic and environmental problems that threaten our existence”.