The Philosophy theory thread

[Vince_Fiero]

Cogito ergo sum or "I think, therefore I am" (René Descartes)

Wikipedia:

Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. It is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument.

This thread came to mind as reaction on this statement:

... But viewed historically, aren't we really on the same steady path of "might makes right" and "the ends justify the means", as championed by Sun Tzu and Machiavelli?
...

I also personally have quoted the "Uebermensch" theory of Nietsche several times, and the "God is dead" theory.

Although the theories can be used in other arguments, I think of Spinoza and his ideas of God (as a strong believer in an alternative way) for the do you believe in God thread; I believed that in this thread we could do Philosophy for the sake of Philosophy.

My idea is not to start from a problem in society (they need their own thread and maybe new philosophy), but to start from a philosophical theory and discuss the pros and cons of that theory.

To start on the limit:
"Are forums the ultimate implementation of the Lyceum (Aristotle)?

* start from the facts given by experience.
* Philosophy is science, and its aim was the recognition of the "why" in all things.
* endeavour to attain to the ultimate grounds of things by induction; that is to say, by a posteriori conclusions from a number of facts to a universal Logic either deals with appearances, and is then called dialectics; or of truth, and is then called analytics.
* The soul is the principle of life in the organic body, and is inseparable from the body. As faculties of the soul, Aristotle enumerates the faculty of reproduction and nutrition; of sensation, memory and recollection; the faculty of reason, or understanding; and the faculty of desiring, which is divided into appetition and volition. By the use of reason conceptions, which are formed in the soul by external sense-impressions, and may be true or false, are converted into knowledge. For reason alone can attain to truth either in understanding or action.
* The best and highest goal is the happiness which originates from virtuous actions. Aristotle did not, with Plato, regard virtue as knowledge pure and simple, but as founded on nature, habit, and reason. Virtue consists in acting according to nature: that is, keeping the mean between the two extremes of the too much and the too little. Thus valor, in his view the first of virtues, is a mean between cowardice and recklessness; temperance is the mean in respect to sensual enjoyments and the total avoidance of them.

Certainly not current anymore of the Lyceum doctrines:
* All change or motion takes place in regard to substance, quantity, quality and place. There are three kinds of substances - those alternately in motion and at rest, as the animals; those perpetually in motion, as the sky; and those eternally stationary. The last, in themselves immovable and imperishable, are the source and origin of all motion. Among them there must be one first being, unchangeable, which acts without the intervention of any other being. All that is proceeds from it; it is the most perfect intelligence - God. The immediate action of this prime mover - happy in the contemplation of itself - extends only to the heavens; the other inferior spheres are moved by other incorporeal and eternal substances, which the popular belief adores as gods. The heavens are of a more perfect and divine nature than other bodies. In the centre of the universe is the Earth, round and stationary. The stars, like the sky, beings of a higher nature, but of grosser matter, move by the impulse of the prime mover.

First comments:
* As in the Lyceum a Forum needs Moderators to keep to a certain logic.
* In the "Space in general" thread we have been discussing that in stead of using logic to explain what we see, modern ways are first using logic (mathematics) and trying to see what we have logically found (e.g. CERN experiments). Which is a different angle.
* keeping the mean between the two extremes of the too much and the too little: is something quite recently hot in the "Global warming" thread.
* the centre of the universe is the Earth: what can I say, we need to question everthing all the time, since the logic of one era later seems to be based on a wrong frame of reference. Also discussed in the "Space in general thread" is that the logic coming from the wrong frame of reference mostly remains valid using that wrong frame of reference.

P.S.: used GTPlanet search did not find a lot of relevant threads, but afterwards google gave this: Dueling Philosophers !

 

[Krog]

I like philosophy, so I'm cool.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

My philosophy? Life sucks. Deal with it.

 

[dhandeh]

Life is like a toilet roll, the closer you get to the end, the faster it goes.

 

[lbsf1]

I'm doing an AS in Philosophy, its great. Really interesting. It helps having a good teacher though, if you had a boring one then I could see it being hell. It helps you have a different perspective on everything, every other subject depends on philosophy, philosophy is the oldest subject, and in its purest eccence is just thinking.

A slightly confusing mathematical problem here that makes you question how abstract is maths fact's from reality.

x = 0.999(recurring)
10x = 9.999(recurring)
9x = 9
thefore x should be 1, but it isn't its 9.999(recurring).

Most facts that we think are definate are actually based on a supprising amout of abstract idea's.

 

[BobK]

One of your assertions (9x = 9) is invalid.

 

[Danoff]

I'm doing an AS in Philosophy, its great. Really interesting. It helps having a good teacher though, if you had a boring one then I could see it being hell. It helps you have a different perspective on everything, every other subject depends on philosophy, philosophy is the oldest subject, and in its purest eccence is just thinking.

A slightly confusing mathematical problem here that makes you question how abstract is maths fact's from reality.

x = 0.999(recurring)
10x = 9.999(recurring)
9x = 9
thefore x should be 1, but it isn't its 9.999(recurring).

Most facts that we think are definate are actually based on a supprising amout of abstract idea's.

Yea, my university metaphysics class tried this one on me and I went to explain it to the instructor after class. She didn't understand what I was saying.

She presented as follows:

In order to walk to the door you first have to walk halfway to the door.
From there, you still have to walk halfway to the door.
From there, you still have to walk halfway to the door.

No matter how far you get, you still have to walk halfway to the door, and so you can never reach the door. And yet we do.

She presented this as some sort of unexplained paradox between logic and reality. I tried to explain to her that as you half the distance, you have to half the time, and soon you're talking about an infinitesimal amount of space AND time. She didn't follow.

(also 9x is not 9 if x = 0.999999)

 

[Famine]

That's one of Zeno's Paradoxes of Motion:

"In a race, the quickest runner can never overtake the slowest, since the pursuer must first reach the point whence the pursued started, so that the slower must always hold a lead."

Terry Pratchett had a neat twist on this by invoking, on Discworld, the "Axiom Testing Station" (Caution - Unresolved Postulates) in his book Pyramids. He combined that paradox with another of Zeno's paradoxes of motion:

"If everything when it occupies an equal space is at rest, and if that which is in locomotion is always occupying such a space at any moment, the flying arrow is therefore motionless."

and had his philosophers (amongst them Xeno) shooting tortoises with arrows:

'Give in?'
'We simply haven't got all the parameters right.'
'I know what we haven't got all right.'
'What is that, pray?'
'We haven't got any more bloody tortoises. That's what we haven't got.'
Teppic carefully poked his head over the top of the dune. He saw a large cleared area, surrounded by complicated ranks of markers and flags. There were one or two buildings in it, mostly consisting of cages, and several other intricate constructions he could not recognise. In the middle of it all were two men - one small, fat and florid, the other tall and willowy and with an indefinable air of authority. They were wearing sheets. Clustered around them, and not wearing very much at all, was a group of slaves. One of them was holding a bow. Several of them were holding tortoises on sticks. They looked a bit pathetic, like tortoise lollies.
'Anyway, it's cruel,' said the tall man. 'Poor little things. They look so sad
with their little legs waggling.'
'It's logically impossible for the arrow to hit them!' The fat man threw up his hands. 'It shouldn't do it! You must be giving me the wrong type of tortoise,' he added accusingly.
'We ough to try again with faster tortoises.'
'Or slower arrows?'
'Possibly, possibly.'
Teppic was aware of a faint scuffling by his chin. There was a small tortoise scurrying past him. It had several ricochet marks on its shell.
'We'll have one last try,' said the fat man. He turned to the slaves. 'You lot - go and find that tortoise.'
The little reptile gave Teppic a look of mingled pleading and hope. He stared at it, and then lifted it up carefully and tucked it behind a rock.
He slid back down the dune to Ptraci.
'There's something really weird going on over there,' he said. 'They're shooting tortoises.'
'Why?'
'Search me. They seem to think the tortoise ought to be able to run away.'
'What, from an arrow?'
'Like I said. Really weird.'

 

[Danoff]

Nice ^^

Perhaps I miss the point of the paradox, but it just seems like someone who doesn't understand physics.

 

[lbsf1]

I have seen that paradox many times, it really is confusing because you know it isn't true however makes perfect logical sense.

 

[Public'sTwin]

Can we move this discussion to my couch, and start it with a few bottles of wine?

Thanks,

—P.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

I'm sorry to say this was not the point of the thread.

I like philosophy, so I'm cool.

Life sucks. Deal with it.

Life is like a toilet roll, the closer you get to the end, the faster it goes.

I would consider a philosophical statement; but not a "Philosophy theory".

I'm doing an AS in Philosophy

Great, when a theory surprises you, bring it up and give some references, basic principle of it.

 

[PureAwesomeness]

Read "Do Llamas Fall in Love?". It's a great little book with some classic philosophical puzzles explained.

 

[dhandeh]

To learn something new, take the path that you took yesterday.

Its easier to look back and say you would have done something different. What you were doing yesterday, many other things were occurring at the same time, but as there were of no relevance to what you were doing at that time, you did not realise their existence. If you did you, would have learnt, but as you didn't, you haven't learnt.

And that is just touching the surface.

 

[W3H5]

This thread is something I could really sink my teeth into, yet I only have an hour left at work so.....

Cogito ergo sum or "I think, therefore I am" (René Descartes)

Good call. Let's start with Descartes.

This statement came from Descartes trying to decide if, in fact, we lived in a dream, a Matrix scenario if you like.

He arrived at this conclusion by actively doubting everything around him before realising that his doubt is what was the defining feature. The ability of free thinking and will. (Nutshell version)

What he failed to doubt was his own doubt.

The slightest over looked factor can mean the making or crumbling of a theory and as theory is all about speculation because it's fact once proven, there is no definitive philosophy theory that will stand the test of time.

Minds advance and as you can see by what, in a nut shell, is me providing a fairly good argument against the longest standing philosophical phrase which is know by the masses. Philosophy can depend on so many factors.

I find now days that the question (life, the universe and everything) is being largely avoided because it's so far out of reach in modern times. (Watch this space)
Modern philosophers are now more focusing along the lines on economic philosophies and the like.

My background is largely metaphysic and physiological philosophy (part-self taught of course. ) and I'm lucky enough that I can converse with my father on such matters as he (was a few years back) on of the top 20 in his field of philosophy theism and metaphysics in the world. (Really!)

I expect much of what I say will be contested throughout this thread as my main thesis work is based largely on out-side-of-the-box thinking. I'll let some of you know about it if I feel you'll comprehend what it's about. I've no doubt that there will be only a few.

Times up for me know. Works over and I'm going home. More to follow.

I have seen that paradox many times, it really is confusing because you know it isn't true however makes perfect logical sense.

Sure about that? Here's a famous paradox -

"Everything I say is a lie."

True or not?

 

[PureAwesomeness]

"Everything I say is a lie."

True or not?

Has to be false.

 

[dhandeh]

"Everything I say is a lie."

If this statement is true, then its a lie. So then, it can't be true as its a lie. It's one of those statements, that counters itself. Good one though. Certainly makes you think, which is the truth... or was it false.

 

[Keef]

"In a race, the quickest runner can never overtake the slowest, since the pursuer must first reach the point whence the pursued started, so that the slower must always hold a lead."

Is this supposed to be dumb logic? Just curious because it sort of makes sense, but then it doesn't.

What if the race course is infinitely long? There is no defined beginning or end. Obviously then there would be no defined finish line either, but you could infer from the participants' direction of travel (assuming you didn't watch the start) the direction of the race. It's physically impossible for the slower, the loser, to have the lead. That's not how number lines work.

Plus, what does he mean by "overtake"? Does that mean pass (as you Brits use the word on the highway) or does it mean pass for race position (as you Brits use the word on the track)?

Why am I arguing against logic which we can all see the flaw in?

 

[Public'sTwin]

Minds advance and as you can see by what, in a nut shell, is me providing a fairly good argument against the longest standing philosophical phrase which is know by the masses. Philosophy can depend on so many factors.

I find now days that the question (life, the universe and everything) is being largely avoided because it's so far out of reach in modern times. (Watch this space)
Modern philosophers are now more focusing along the lines on economic philosophies and the like.

I expect much of what I say will be contested throughout this thread as my main thesis work is based largely on out-side-of-the-box thinking. I'll let some of you know about it if I feel you'll comprehend what it's about. I've no doubt that there will be only a few.

Can we save the condescending speculation for one of these threads, please?

Abstruse complexity doesn't indicate cogency or validity. (And I might point out you're hardly the first person to challenge Descartes' doubt with doubt.)

Preliminary Criticisms (these are by no means exhaustive; they should be taken as only very schematical observations):

I think of Spinoza and his ideas of God for the 'Do you believe in God' thread; I believe, in this thread, we could do 'Philosophy for the sake of Philosophy'.

My idea is not to start from a problem in society, but to start from a philosophical theory and discuss the pros and cons of that theory.

This isn't wholly contradictory, but it's vague—"pros"? "Cons"? Qualified in what sense, and where? How does one establish a "pro", and even worse, a "con", of something like Derrida's Deconstruction, or even Hegelian dialectics, which, like all theories that have some measure of practicability, are indeed generally only practiced insofar as they are useful?

To start on the limit:
"Are forums the ultimate implementation of the Lyceum (Aristotle)"?

Is this a question you would like to see legitimately undertaken? If so, it's hardly the job of philosophy to entertain, and if our forums—these electronic ones—are any indication, the answer is practically self-evident.

* The soul is the principle of life in the organic body, and is inseparable from the body. As faculties of the soul, Aristotle enumerates the faculty of reproduction and nutrition; of sensation, memory and recollection; the faculty of reason, or understanding; and the faculty of desiring, which is divided into appetition and volition. By the use of reason conceptions, which are formed in the soul by external sense-impressions, and may be true or false, are converted into knowledge. For reason alone can attain to truth either in understanding or action.

Without addressing any of the numerous presuppositions and assumptions, I should like to ask, How, or in what way, is this at all relevant?

* The best and highest goal is the happiness which originates from virtuous actions. Aristotle did not, with Plato, regard virtue as knowledge pure and simple, but as founded on nature, habit, and reason. Virtue consists in acting according to nature: that is, keeping the mean between the two extremes of the too much and the too little. Thus valor, in his view the first of virtues, is a mean between cowardice and recklessness; temperance is the mean in respect to sensual enjoyments and the total avoidance of them.

(As before.)

Certainly not current anymore of the Lyceum doctrines:

(Nor were most of your statements prior.) What are we to infer from that statement? Disregard or exclude them from our discourse? They are invalid?

First comments:
* As in the Lyceum a Forum needs Moderators to keep to a certain logic.

(Which? Who? How? Always the same logic? What topics of what logic? etc)

* In the "Space in general" thread we have been discussing that instead of using logic to explain what we see, modern ways are first using logic (mathematics) and trying to see what we have logically found (e.g. CERN experiments). Which is a different angle.

(Albeit a very old one). Are we to infer from this that you intend us to somehow contrive logic (or whatever possible analogue can be derived within those limits), and then run out and test it? Are we supposed to mimic the methods of the composure of quantum theories? I hardly see how this relates to the criticism or analysis of, err, "logic", or "philosophy".

* keeping the mean between the two extremes of the too much and the too little: is something quite recently hot in the "Global warming" thread.

(What?/cool story, bro.)

* "the centre of the universe is the Earth": we need to question everthing all the time, since the logic of one era later seems to be based on a wrong frame of reference. Also discussed in the "Space in general thread" is that the logic coming from the wrong frame of reference mostly remains valid using that wrong frame of reference.

Again, the suppositions in this are almost entirely unrelated to current philosophic debate, and the equation of philosophy with the speculations of empirical science is enough to, oh I dunno, make every dead philosopher and scientist from the 1600s on roll in their grave.

Now, pardoning some my admittedly harsh, scanty, criticism, may we compose some sort of purpose to this thread?

 

[Danoff]

This thread is something I could really sink my teeth into, yet I only have an hour left at work so.....


Good call. Let's start with Descartes.

This statement came from Descartes trying to decide if, in fact, we lived in a dream, a Matrix scenario if you like.

He arrived at this conclusion by actively doubting everything around him before realising that his doubt is what was the defining feature. The ability of free thinking and will. (Nutshell version)

What he failed to doubt was his own doubt.

The argument that Descartes was not the thinker of his thoughts is not original. It's been posed before, and it never holds any water. Descartes defined himself as the thinker of his thoughts. So there was no need to prove that he was, no need to doubt the doubt.

Edit:

I'll invoke the philosopher group SpaceHog here as a contemporary example of Descartes challengers.

Don't think you're even thinking, even though you're thinking. Keep it on the ground.

 

[Famine]

Is this supposed to be dumb logic? Just curious because it sort of makes sense, but then it doesn't.

What if the race course is infinitely long? There is no defined beginning or end. Obviously then there would be no defined finish line either, but you could infer from the participants' direction of travel (assuming you didn't watch the start) the direction of the race. It's physically impossible for the slower, the loser, to have the lead. That's not how number lines work.

Plus, what does he mean by "overtake"? Does that mean pass (as you Brits use the word on the highway) or does it mean pass for race position (as you Brits use the word on the track)?

Why am I arguing against logic which we can all see the flaw in?

You do know that Zeno was a Greek philosopher who died nearly 2,500 years since, right?

Zeno's paradoxes of motion were Achilles and the Tortoise (Achilles could never pass a tortoise in a race as, whenever he reached where the tortoise had just been, it had moved on to a further point), the Dichotomy Paradox (something travelling must reach halfway to its goal before its goal - and halfway to halfway before halfway, and so on) and the Arrow Paradox (at any given instant of time, an arrow in flight is motionless and thus it's always motionless).

Or, as Terry Pratchett put it, tortoise lollipops.

 

[lbsf1]

Great, when a theory surprises you, bring it up and give some references, basic principle of it.

Will do, we have 2 teachers, each one does half the lessons, one of them is much more into these mind boggling idea's and the other does the more logical stuff (evolution vs creationism).

Here is something that I found quite amazing, its not exactly philosophy, but still confusing and makes you think in the same way.


and

 

[BobK]

I believe this is from the Moody Blues, but I could well be wrong:

I think I am, therefore I am, I think.

 

[Danoff]

You do know that Zeno was a Greek philosopher who died nearly 2,500 years since, right?

Zeno's paradoxes of motion were Achilles and the Tortoise (Achilles could never pass a tortoise in a race as, whenever he reached where the tortoise had just been, it had moved on to a further point), the Dichotomy Paradox (something travelling must reach halfway to its goal before its goal - and halfway to halfway before halfway, and so on) and the Arrow Paradox (at any given instant of time, an arrow in flight is motionless and thus it's always motionless).

Or, as Terry Pratchett put it, tortoise lollipops.

All of these paradoxes fail to account for the passage of time. It really just strikes me as the problems of people who have no concept of physics (which, given how long ago these originated, is a certainty). What amazes me is that they still stump people today.

 

[F1GTR]

This isn't wholly contradictory, but it's vague—"pros"? "Cons"? Qualified in what sense, and where? How does one establish a "pro", and even worse, a "con", of something like Derrida's Deconstruction, or even Hegelian dialectics, which, like all theories that have some measure of practicability, are indeed generally only practiced insofar as they are useful?

Marx and Engels did a pretty good job of coming up with a criticism of Hegelian dialectics. I'm sure you already know about it, but I found their inversion (with respect to Hegel) of how consciousness is formed quite interesting as it brings into question a lot ideologies.

 

[Keef]

You do know that Zeno was a Greek philosopher who died nearly 2,500 years since, right?

Zeno's paradoxes of motion were Achilles and the Tortoise (Achilles could never pass a tortoise in a race as, whenever he reached where the tortoise had just been, it had moved on to a further point), the Dichotomy Paradox (something travelling must reach halfway to its goal before its goal - and halfway to halfway before halfway, and so on) and the Arrow Paradox (at any given instant of time, an arrow in flight is motionless and thus it's always motionless).

Or, as Terry Pratchett put it, tortoise lollipops.

Very interesting how things have changed over time. It almost seems like Zeno predicted today's digital systems with his Arrow Paradox...

 

[AOS-]

Here is something that I found quite amazing, its not exactly philosophy, but still confusing and makes you think in the same way.

I was having a bit of trouble imagining the 8th or 9th dimension where you take the universal scale world line and then branch off to a different one (the same way the 2nd dimension was illustrated with a diagonal line segment). I think I took that a little to literally...

 

[Public'sTwin]

Marx and Engels did a pretty good job of coming up with a criticism of Hegelian dialectics. I'm sure you already know about it, but I found their inversion (with respect to Hegel) of how consciousness is formed quite interesting as it brings into question a lot ideologies.

Yes, and this is strange, since Marx's ideas on matters not particular to economics were often borderline-ridiculous.

As a side-note, I also seem to recall him getting into a letter argument-by-proxy over something Edmund Burke once wrote relating to ethics, and later also an argument over something a young Nietzsche said regarding Prussian culture (probably not flattering). He really would just say whatever popped into his head, I think.

 

[bonobo4]

Yea, my university metaphysics class tried this one on me and I went to explain it to the instructor after class. She didn't understand what I was saying.

She presented as follows:

In order to walk to the door you first have to walk halfway to the door.
From there, you still have to walk halfway to the door.
From there, you still have to walk halfway to the door.

No matter how far you get, you still have to walk halfway to the door, and so you can never reach the door. And yet we do.

She presented this as some sort of unexplained paradox between logic and reality. I tried to explain to her that as you half the distance, you have to half the time, and soon you're talking about an infinitesimal amount of space AND time. She didn't follow.

(also 9x is not 9 if x = 0.999999)

Taking you and the door as fixed particles of infinitely small mass in space at x metres apart, with the door being D and you being A, D being stationary, then after y seconds you'd be 1/2x away, after 2y 1/4x, 4y 1/8x, assuming constant velocity. However, due to the laws of indices, in order for the distance to be zero you'd have to move for infinite seconds in order to touch.

In a more logical way, look at the curve y=1/x. The graph never crosses x or y axis, since either would have to be infinite for the other to be zero.

So, you can never actually "touch" a particle, only ever remain x distance away. Weird isn't it?

As an aside, I too am doing AS-Level Philosophy and am loving it.

 

[Famine]

Taking you and the door as fixed particles of infinitely small mass in space at x metres apart, with the door being D and you being A, D being stationary, then after y seconds you'd be 1/2x away, after 2y 1/4x, 4y 1/8x, assuming constant velocity.

Mmm... if after y seconds you're at 0.5x, after 2y seconds you'd be at x if at constant velocity.

The Dichotomy Paradox is that if it takes y seconds to reach x, for every half of the remaining time you cover only half the remaining distance:

0y = 0x
0.5y = 0.5x
0.75y = 0.75x
0.875y = 0.875x
0.9375y = 0.9375x
0.96875y = 0.96875x

and so on until 0.9 recurring y = 0.9 recurring x.

Problem is that space isn't infinitely divisible - even assuming you can move in infinitessimal quantites given your size - and you will run out of half distances and reach 1x at 1y seconds.