The Radical Academy Discussion Forum

Kevin

Jan 2, 08 - 5:39 AM

Richard on Rational & Realistic Thought and "On Problems"

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.

REPLY:
Yes Richard. Babies who can't think rationally, idiot savantes, who don't think rationally, and mad persons locked up in loonie bins CAUSE most problems, along with those FLYING PIGS, who are satisfied, but who are not as dissatisfied as Socrates was (when he knew he did not know something) "CAUSE" most problems!!!

RICHARD:
Thus, it is imperative to a satisfying existence without serious problems that we understand the mechanics of rational thinking.

REPLY:
Go for it, big guy. Explain the MECHANICS of rational thinking and thereby satisfy our needs.

RICHARD:
Understanding of the nature of Knowledge and how Realistic Knowledge is constructed IS THE PROCESS OF RATIONAL THINKING.

REPLY:
Wow!!!

RICHARD:
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.

REPLY:
Darn philosophers! I wonder why they are called philosophers instead of brigands or simple failures. Richard's thesis is, in short: "EVERY ancient philosopher is/was a failure."

RICHARD:
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”.

REPLY:
Speak for yourself when you attribute IRRATIONAL THINKING to "us", Richard, as in "OUR IRRATIONAL THINKING". My thinking is NOT irrational because (1) I am a trained SCIENTIST and (2) I am a huge fan of Aristotle and actually KNOW lots of his thinking, which is always RATIONAL and never IRRATIONAL, even though some of his conclusions were actually wrong --- but never his thinking.

Anyway, what you have TAUGHT "us", Richard, is that Aristotle, Plato and Socrates are responsible for the perilous condition of our modern existences, given "our" slavish-SHACKLING to their IGNORANCE about KNOWLEDGE and how knowledge is "constructed".

But there is one small problem, Richard! Name me 6 people on this planet who have actually read ALL of Aristotle's enormous IGNORANCE and actually believe any, most or even some of his IGNORANCE! I'll give you one name, to start with, MORTIMER JEROME ADLER, but he is too dead to CAUSE anybody any "problem" what-so-ever, much like Aristotle.

However if you actually read Adler, some time, you might begin to UNDERSTAND one or two things which Aristotle actually said/wrote, which won't solve one of mankind's numerous problems --- but might help with your HORRIBLY EGREGIOUS IGNORANCE.

Plato wrote about you and Ivo, Richard. I bet you didn't know that. But he did. Plato wrote that there are 2 sorts of people who don't get WRITTEN PHILOSOPHY. One sort of person thinks he has learned something "HIGH AND MIGHTY" beyond the ken of average mortals. That would be Ivo. The other sort of person who reads WRITTEN treatises on philosophy is filled with CONTEMPT. That's you Richard. I quote:

PLATO:
Yet this much I know---that if the things were WRITTEN or put into WORDS, it would be done best by me, and that, if they were WRITTEN badly, I should be the person most pained.

Again, IF they had appeared to me to admit adequately of WRITING and exposition, what task in life could I have performed nobler than this, to WRITE what is of great service to mankind and to bring the nature of things into the light for all to see? But I do not think it a good thing for men that there should be a disquisition, as it is called, on this topic (philosophy) except for some few, who are able with a little teaching to find it out for themselves.

As for the rest, it would fill SOME OF THEM quite ILLOGICALLY with a mistaken feeling of CONTEMPT, and others with lofty and vain-glorious expectations, as though they had learnt something high and mighty.

***********(Plato; 7th Letter; 341d - 342a)********

You are the "CONTEMPT" guy, Richard! Ivo is the lofty and vain glorious expectation sort of guy. You 2 guys are actual and exemplary PLATITUDES, from, and of, his 7th letter! WONDROUS! Plato predicted YOU, Richard, 25 centuries ago. And that is what we SCIENCE-guys call a VERIFIED HYPOTHESIS --- perfectly verified in your case.

KEVIN

Richard

Jan 2nd, 2008 - 5:18 PM

Re: Richard on Rational & Realistic Thought and "On Problems"

Kevin,

Would you agree that, Science develops knowledge to understand the nature of concrete/material things and the conditions that relate to these things? And that, Philosophy attempts to develop knowledge to understand the nature of abstract universals i.e. Existence, Reality, Ideas, Truth, Need, Right, Good, Purpose, Meaning, Value, Experience, Perception, Equal, Different, Consciousness, Sense, Concept, Thought, Logic, Reason, Belief, Behavior, Problems, Knowledge, etc.? And, shouldn’t we be able to agree that, if there were not concrete/material things and no abstract universals there would not be Science and Philosophy. Would you not also agree that Science has constructed enormous knowledge to understand concrete things and continues to do so century after century? And, would you also agree that the knowledge that Science develops does not cause confusion? What then can we agree about Philosophy, can we agree that philosophers have pondered the nature of the abstract universals for twenty-five centuries and have not constructed a single realistic definition of a single one? And isn’t it obvious that, unlike Science, the most prominent characteristic of Philosophy is the enormous confusion and disagreement caused by the writing of philosophers attempting to explain the nature of the universals? And shouldn’t we also be able to agree that, if the writings of philosophers reflected the reality of the universals that there would not be confusion and disagreement? Therefore, we might both agree that, because philosophers have not constructed a single realistic definition of even one universal, there must be something terrible wrong with the way philosophers think. Do you agree?

Kevin

Jan 2nd, 2008 - 8:31 PM

Re: Re: Richard on Rational & Realistic Thought and "On Problems"

Kevin,

Would you agree that, Science develops knowledge to understand the nature of concrete/material things and the conditions that relate to these things?

ANSWER:
No. There is nothing "material" about light and both using and understanding LIGHT has helped scientists understand more about matter.

RICHARD:
And that, Philosophy attempts to develop knowledge to understand the nature of abstract universals i.e. Existence, Reality, Ideas, Truth, Need, Right, Good, Purpose, Meaning, Value, Experience, Perception, Equal, Different, Consciousness, Sense, Concept, Thought, Logic, Reason, Belief, Behavior, Problems, Knowledge, etc.?

ANSWER:
No. Philosophers and scientists are similar. You still haven't heard Aristotle tell you that Mathematics and Physics are the "philosophical sciences." You confuse SCIENTISTS and PHILOSOPHERS with "science and philosophy". You seem to be talking about GRAMMARIANS and grammar above, without mentioning a very significant term to both actual scientists and philosophers, which is CAUSE.

RICHARD:
And, shouldn’t we be able to agree that, if there were not concrete/material things and no abstract universals there would not be Science and Philosophy.

ANSWER:
If there was no light from the sun, there wouldn't even be human beings. No human beings---> then no science and philosophy. Light is not material, Richard, and you are just saying the same dumb things with questions, instead of assertions. Every question is convertible into a proposition with a "turn of the phrase"; ARISTOTE (Topics).

RICHARD:
Would you not also agree that Science has constructed enormous knowledge to understand concrete things and continues to do so century after century?

ANSWER:
No, I wouldn't agree. There is no such thing as "SCIENCE" independent of human scientists. And light is NOT CONCRETE. Individual scientists have made enormous progress, collectively, at undertanding material and efficient CAUSATION, despite people, like you, Richard, who simply KNOW how to say the SAME THING over and over and over and over and over and over again, even when what they say over and over reveals their IGNORANCE of both SCIENCE and PHILOSOPHY --- especially your ignorance of individual philosophers and individual scientists.

RICHARD:
And, would you also agree that the knowledge that Science develops does not cause confusion?

ANSWER:
Oh heartily! Einstein never confused Newtonians, who didn't understand either Newton or Einstein. That's why "EVERYTHING is RELATIVE"! That is "because" RELATIVE is a word and anyone can use any word they want "to describe" things they don't know, such as CORRELATIVE. That is why "Chimps" are "our" nearest "RELATIVES" according to "Darwinians" who have forgotten their mothers, their fathers and their own children. Nobody has been confused by MODERN SCIENCE and everybody UNDERSTANDS modern scientists --- except the modern scientists who are CONTRADICTING each other!

RICHARD:
What then can we agree about Philosophy?

ANSWER:
We can't agree on anything about "Philosophy", Richard, because your own PERFECT REFUTATION isn't good enough for you. And you like to say the same 3 things over and over again --- no matter how many of your individual STATEMENTS are false.

RICHARD:
can we agree that philosophers have pondered the nature of the abstract universals for twenty-five centuries and have not constructed a single realistic definition of a single one?

ANSWER:
Nope! We can't agree on that, since no philosopher ever lived more than 1 century (less in most cases) and most so-called "philosophers" aren't philosophers at all! They were just "guys" with irrational "axes to grind" against one another, Socrates, Plato or, mostly, Aristotle.

RICHARD:
And isn’t it obvious that, unlike Science, the most prominent characteristic of Philosophy is the enormous confusion and disagreement caused by the WRITING of philosophers attempting to explain the nature of the universals?

ANSWER:
No! That isn't obvious. Speculative Mathematics is MATHEMATICAL PHILOSOPHY or THEORETICAL mathematics. Same thing with THEORETICAL PHYSICS, otherwise known as PHYSICAL PHILOSOPHY --- "Phusike", to Aristotle, and "Physics" to moderns. So called "NOMINALIST PHILOSOPHERS" deny universals such as MAN. For Aristotle, Socrates or even Richard symbolizes an individual. "MAN" as in "Socrates/Richard is a MAN." symbolizes a UNIVERSAL.

The "thing" that causes most confusion is, as Socrates proved so long ago, "jerks" who THINK THEY KNOW what they DON'T KNOW.

RICHARD:
And shouldn’t we also be able to agree that, if the writings of philosophers reflected the reality of the universals that there would not be confusion and disagreement?

ANSWER:
Still "blathering" about WRITING, Richard? Socrates WROTE nothing. Plato WROTE nothing about philosophy. So we can't agree on anything except that you WRITE the same thing over and over...

Kevin

Kevin

Jan 2nd, 2008 - 9:23 PM

Re: Richard on Rational & Realistic Thought and "On Problems"

RICHARD:
"Therefore", we might both agree that, because philosophers have not constructed a single realistic definition of even ONE UNIVERSAL, there must be something terrible wrong with the way philosophers think. Do you agree?

ANSWER:
No, I don't agree. Most philosophers THINK VERY WELL, right into BLACK HOLES, according to C.S. Peirce, if they employ one FALSE premise in their usually LOGICAL thinking (Russell excepted. He was a bagful of continuing CONTRADICTIONS, with one or two MAJOR THESES). I can only NOTICE that you are bad at GRAMMAR too!!! There is no such thing as "one universal", Richard.

You really could use a copy of the Oxford Concise ---Any term or idea predicable of MANY INDIVIDUALS is the DEFINITION of a UNIVERSAL. Thus MAN is a universal, but Callias (or Socrates or Richard) is an individual (Aristotle; CATEGORIES).

"Everywhere and always the SAME!" is another description of a UNIVERSAL, such as, for example, FOLLY and WISDOM will never "agree" on anything, or CONTRADICTORY propositions are opposed as TRUE vs. FALSE propositions, FOREVER AND EVER "Amen!"

That is WHY you were hostile to a PERFECT REFUTATION and used it as a UNIVERSAL CONDEMNATION of all ancient philosophers. But you really meant ALL PHILOSOPHERS either ancient or modern. That is because you are so "up" on SCIENCE.

Who's your favorite SCIENTIST, Richard, since we KNOW that your favorite ancient philosopher was Socrates. He asked QUESTIONS, so you "thought" that putting your 3 boring assertions into INTERROGATIVE FORM, or in other words as QUESTIONS, was some sort of way of "showing" that you are a "Socratic"!

Far from it. Socrates had no argument against the men of SCIENCE in his day and time, such as potters, tanners, harness-makers, wrestling coaches, horse trainers, trireme builders, navigators, or even exceptional politicians, like Solon. He only had arguments with people who thought they KNEW what they DID NOT KNOW, such as yourself, Richard.

Even the Oxford Grammarians haven't "screwed up" the definition of the ancient Latin term UNIVERSAL which is spelled something like "Kath Houlou", in ancient Greek, or CATHOLIC in modern English and is defined as PREDICABLE OF MANY individuals. You seem to be confusing UNIQUE with UNIVERSAL. A definition of "ONE UNIVERSAL" is a contradiction-in-terms. So, perhaps, you are bad at GRAMMAR too.

Functional illiteracy is a severe problem, these days, ever since people switched from teaching GRAMMAR to "teaching" so-called LANGUAGE ARTS.

How old are you, Richard?

IN SUM:
2 Questions, which you can't possibly answer wrong:

(1) Which is your favorite scientist who has "constructed KNOWLEDGE" and never "confused" anyone?
(2) How old are you?

Kevin

Richard

Jan 3rd, 2008 - 12:59 PM

Re: Richard on Rational & Realistic Thought and "On Problems"

Kevin,

"Would you agree that, Science develops knowledge to understand the nature of concrete/material things and the conditions that relate to these things?"

Your ANSWER:
"No. There is nothing "material" about light and both using and understanding LIGHT has helped scientists understand more about matter."

chuckle,,,, I believe that most, who understand the difference between concrete and abstract, will recognize the sun is a concrete thing composed of hot gases and that light is a condition related to the hot gases.

I know there must be something we can agree about in-spite of your obvious education in Philosophy. Would you agree that the light from a candle is a condition of the burning concrete/material candle?

If you agree, would you now agree that the abstract universal we refer to as KNOWLEDGE must be a condition of some other thing or another condition? What do you believe that thing or other condition is? IOW, what other thing or condition, if it does not exist, KNOWLEDGE can not exist?

Kevin

Jan 3rd, 2008 - 11:29 PM

Re: Re: Richard on Rational & Realistic Thought and "On Problems"

RICHARD (requotes):
Kevin,
"Would you agree that, Science develops knowledge to understand the nature of concrete/material things and the conditions that relate to these things?"

Your ANSWER:
"No. There is nothing "material" about light and both using and understanding LIGHT has helped scientists understand more about matter."

RICHARD:
chuckle,,,, I believe that most, who understand the difference between concrete and abstract, will recognize the sun is a concrete thing composed of hot gases and that light is a condition related to the hot gases.

REPLY:
chuckle...then why do astronomers call the SUN a "black body", Richard? Light is a condition related to both hot gases and cool eyes, I suppose. But THAT still doesn't make light MATERIAL.

RICHARD:
I know there must be something we can agree about in-spite of your obvious education in Philosophy.

REPLY:
I told you before, Richard. My formal education is in SCIENCE, which is the same thing as NATURAL PHILOSOPHY. When I actually studied PHILOSOPHY in a formal setting, I met you and people like you.

RICHARD:
Would you agree that the light from a candle is a condition of the burning concrete/material candle?

REPLY:
Not without some cool eyes to actually react to the light from the burning candle --- a relationship between eyes, the condition you describe (which is a consequence of the relatively rapid oxidation of candle hydrocarbons) and a brain, with an optical centre that doesn't respond to light, but, rather, to waves of localized depolarization, which do not emit light). Very complex --- a version of the "saw" about trees falling in forests making SOUNDS; or NOT(?); if there is no one to hear the sound. But none of this has anything to do with whether or not LIGHT is material. Light isn't, or else it would weigh something, which light doesn't and would move a lot slower in a vacuum.

Anyway you have focussed on one answer to one of your several questions, without answering either of my questions as to (1) WHO IS YOUR FAVORITE SCIENTIST? and (2) HOW OLD ARE YOU?

I should have said that the sun is a "black body radiator", according to astronomers. So I was using a little SOPHISTRY trick by omitting a word.

RICHARD:
If you agree, would you now agree that the abstract universal we refer to as KNOWLEDGE must be a condition of some other thing or another condition?

ANSWER:
I have already told you that KNOWLEDGE is a RELATION between a KNOWER and a KNOWN THING, that is, according to Aristotle.

RICHARD:
What do you believe that thing or other condition is? IOW, what other thing or condition, if it does not exist, KNOWLEDGE can not exist?

ANSWER:
I don't KNOW, Richard! You've flummoxed me! You have refuted me. I am devastated. You have reduced all my knowledge of both science and philosophy to NOTHING. Now I must go into my closet and weep inconsolably without ever KNOWING either (1) Who your favorite scientist is who has "constructed knowledge", nor, (2) How old you are --- which you have not answered for me. I am in a terrible CONDITION as a consequence of the aforementioned CONDITION which is --- utter ignorance of your SCIENCE TEACHER and your AGE.

No wonder Ivo refused to talk to you! CONTRARY opinions utterly destroy each other. However, since no 2 individual humans can be CONTRARIES, as individual human beings, I will avidly watch this list for further PROOFS as to WHY Science/Knowledge is NOT philosophy --- having been utterly refuted for a 2nd time, this time by a burning candle.

Weep, moan, sigh ..... ZZZZZZZZZZZ.

Kevin

Richard

Jan 4th, 2008 - 1:26 PM

Re: Richard on Rational & Realistic Thought and "On Problems"

Kevin,

The subject of light was injected by you to demonstrate an error in my proposition that "Science develops knowledge of material/concrete things and the CONDITIONS related to things". Even after I pointed out that I consider LIGHT to be a CONDITION of the concrete/material SUN, you continue to ground your refutal argument on your claim that I am thinking of LIGHT as a material thing. I have noticed (as Ivo also noted) this tactic of yours of injecting erroneous assumptions to support arguments. Usually, I just ignore such tactics but maybe it would help you to recognize how frivolously you construct your arguments.

Another erroneous assumption of your is that Ivo refused to talk to me? Quite the opposite, Ivo and I were engaged with each other long before you showed up, but, like you, Ivo is a hardcore believer and that got old after awhile. Another erroneous assumption is that I am young about sixteen. Wrong again, I am seventy-two. As far as my favorite scientist goes, I don’t have one but why you must think having one or not having one has anything to do with anything only you can know. Your eagerness to win an argument by ejecting erroneous assumptions is beginning to get old too. Now that I understand you better, I am losing hope that we can engage in a logical dialogue with be purpose of furthering philosophical knowledge. You demonstrate an excellent example to support my belief that “An education in Philosophy destroys a persons potential ability to think rationally”.

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