James,

I have a question.

Sometimes I arrive at a conclusion, I have no idea that I was even thinking about it, I have therefore no idea how I got there.

I would find it difficult to retrace my steps because I don't know what steps they where, how then do I get to the primal premise that must have been there in order to come to any conclusion?

This might sound confusing, but at this time I have no other way to explain myself.

I understand the problem. I too, would find it difficult to nail down why a believe some things. It is a combination of all information I have been exposed to.

I have an inner skeptic who disagrees with most of what I have concluded. So I don't always agree with myself.

There is a lot of conflicting information floating around.

Yes, I do argue with myself a lot, too.

But the odd time I just seem to know that I'm right.
It's a gut feeling, but at the same time it's it seems to be a certainty.

For example:

Who really killed JFK? Was it a lone gunman, or a conspiracy?

Is there any truth to the Philadelphia experiment stories or is it just a fraud as some say?

Does MK Ultra mind control exist?

Do aliens (non human intelligent humanoid life forms) exist?

Is there a plot to take over the world and create a one world government?

etc etc.

Is rejection of this information sticking our head in the sand or a belief in a lie or fantasy?

Is acceptance or consideration of these ideas ridiculous?

What is a lie and what is the truth?

Does the government ever lie to us. Fact: Yes they do!!!

So why should we believe them?

Do people make up stuff? Fact: Yes some do.

So why should we believe anything?

Can the truth be hidden forever? I don't think so.

Can people be fooled by the masses? Probably.

Can sufficient proof be manufactured to support a lie? Probably.

Can propaganda cause people to believe untruths? Yes.

What shall we believe?

Absolutely. This is precisely how professional philosophy is done.

It can't work the way Michael suggests. He's working entirely backwards and trying to demand that everyone else adopt his method.

Either that or he lacks communication skills to the point where he's utterly impossible to understand.

Or he's attempting to be so totally vague that he can't be held accountable for anything he says by simply claiming that he never said any such thing.

It's a totally fruitless endeavor to try to dicuss anything with him. From my point of view he continually hides behind vagueness, semantic confusion, and an utter refusal to even own up to what he actaully says.

Like his following post:



I'm trying to claim that you have clearly demanded a new forum rule that there be no 'groundless thoughts' in the philosophy forum.

I'm trying to claim that you said, in this very thread, that this forum is a disgrace to philosophy.

I'm tring to claim that you said just a few pages back,...



I'm saying that based on what you are actually posting you are out to prove things or disprove them in an absolute way via logic.

If you aren't saying this then why do you keep demanding it?

Like JB says, quit hiding behind the idea that you're being misunderstood all the time. Either take responsibility for the position you're attemtping to assert, or give it up.

But don't be pulling the crap, "What are you attempting to claim about me?", like as if someone is making personal comments about your position out of thin air.

I'm responding directly to the very things you are posting.

You're demanding that all thoughts be proved via logic. But you're totally ignoring the fact that fundamental premises can neither be proved nor disproved. Accepting those as being 'self-evident' is entirely a matter of personal taste.

So you're demand that all thoughts be scrutinized with logic and must stand up to logical analysis is hogwash.

That would only be true within a given specific philosophy that already has a definite set of premises. Then all logical analysis can be measured back to those premises.

But on an open discussion forum everyone isn't working under the saem fundamental premises. So your demand that they be supported by logical analysis is an empty demand.

You can't work backward from the top down, when everyone has their own fundamental premises.

It's always just going to end up in an endless arguments over those unproveable premises at the bottom of the heap.

The only think I can imagine is that you not able to comprehend this basic idea of philosophy. This is like philosophy 101 Micheal. Premises can neither be proved or disproved.

You need to get that under your belt first if you're going to deal in philosophy.

Adventurebegins:



I totally agree with you. In fact, I find that the possession of a degree (that is touted as proof of intelligence or worthiness) is sometimes a clue of an insecure person who feels he would not be successful without it.

People without degrees succeed in life and business all the time. People with degrees fail just as often. I once delivered pizza's next to a CPA with a master's degree, and a lawyer who couldn't find a job.

(I asked the lawyer why he did not just open his own practice but he did not have the confidence or vision for that, he wanted a guaranteed paycheck.) I do understand that too, being self employed is a challenge.

I had a good friend who had a degree in Art who was jealous of me because I could paint a pretty picture, which is what she really wanted to do. She told me her degree looked good on a job application, but it did not teach her a thing about being an artist. Very strange indeed I think.

Well, join the club called "Humanity".

Your reasoning may be entirely intuitive and not necessarily based on logic at all.

There's nothing wrong with that. Your intuition may very well be perfectly correct.

You could become logically analytical about it if you want to and try to pin it down. However, I personally feel that to attempt to do so would only lead you to some foundational unprovable premises that you'll finally need to just accept or reject based on pure intuition anyway.

This is why I gave up on trying to build any absolute philosophical construct. The premises that it must start with ultimate must be guesses.

For example, I can begin by choosing the premise that I am nothing more than the form of my physical body and all that entails.

That premise ultimately leads logically to atheism basically.

If I begin by choosing the premise that I am the thing taking the form. That premise logically leads to pantheisic views.

But utlimately I can't prove or disprove either premise.

So now, let's say that at some high-level of thought you intuitively understand that you and nature are one?

What good would it do for you to dig back logically to see if you can find a founding premise to support this?

You'll never be able to do it anyway. So you may as well just go with your high-level intuition.

Michael seems to think that we can work backwards to logically prove or disprove some high-level thought ("view" or "claim").

But it can't be done. If it could be done philosophy would have absolute answers for us. As it stands philosophers can't really say a damn thing about anything. They are just as lost today as the ancient Greeks were.

Philosophy is nothing more than sophisticating guessing.

If you do it right and start with seemingly sound premises you can appear to be wearing a tuxedo. But in truth, you're just renting the tux from the 'empty premise store'.

All those philsophers have done is start with unproven premises and then build up very impressive logical cathedrals based on their unproven premises.

In the end they have nothing but a fairytale.

It's not unlike writing a fiction story that begins with imaginary characters (the premises) and then unfolds 'logically' from that point forward. But all the while the original characters are fictional.

So your high-level intuitive knowledge of life may be right on.

Therefore any logical nit-picker who wants to pick it apart using logic is only kidding himself.

James, I now know what is going on with Creative. He implied (he did not commit or admit anything for certain and as always he was vague and ambiguous..) but he implied or suggested that his threads are just a way that he contemplates and that they may have no point at all.

They are pointless.

Therefore they are simply ramblings with no purpose or agenda at all except to serve as his own personal comtemplations. To him, we are just subjects who serve as feedback. In short, he is simply talking to himself and mulling over his point of view.

This is so true. People who have no clue about their profession are handed degrees in those fields all the time. And this is particularly true in the arts and music. But sadly it's also true in the more technical subjects of study as well.

Thank you James.

I think deep inside I knew that this is the answer all along.

But you know this thing about curiosity and the cat.

Sometimes it just kills me not to know why I know things that I logically can't know.

Confusion reigns again.

Here is where Creative confuses his opinion with what he calls "fact."




That is just not the case. "Allowing" someone to draw their own conclusions, whether they are right or wrong, is not being intentionally or deliberately "misleading."

Even if it is intentional and even if the person withholding the truth knows it "might" lead to a conclusion, (right or wrong) intent cannot be known or proven, hence should never be assumed. That itself is jumping to a conclusion.

However, in this case, I assessed that Creative was being vague and was veiling the truth (of his point or agenda) and he took that as my assessing his character as being deliberately misleading and was offended. To him, that was equal to me calling him a liar.

With this scope of misunderstanding, its no wonder he keeps thinking people are attacking his character. Me thinks he thinks too much.

Truly.

He starts a thread asking the question, "Is thought unspoken language?"

Then he demands that it must be.

He rejects all other views as being 'groundless'.

And then he acts like he never did any such thing.

wtf?

He even demanded that it's a 'grave human error' that humanity hasn't recognize this profound truth that he appered to be asserting must be true and cannot he refuted.

Then he starts a thread demanding a new forum rule be made that no 'groundless thoughts' be permitted in the philosophy forums.

Now he's going to try to claim that he was just fishing for ideas?

That's just not consistent with his actual behavior and posts.

There's no need to demand a rule that no 'groundless thoughts' be permitted in the philosophy forum if all a person is doing is fishing for ideas.

JB said:



This is exactly what I got out of his answers (or are they un-answers?) too.

For me it just means he is using people as scapegoats for his inability to think things through.

I will willingly be a sounding board....lol I can't promise the intelligence of the sounds back though...lol

We are all just sounding boards to each other.

That is what should make a real discussion if it is done rightly.

But you can't use a sounding board when you are not willing to listen to what is coming back from it.

Philosphy...

From what I have read and heard is still where it was at the time of aristotle.

The ideas are bandied about in grand circular logic but nothing has changed in a thousand years.

We still quote the same small set of people(all of which are dead now). We still ask the same questions that were asked around campfires by cave men.

AND WE STILL HAVE NO ANSWERS.

Might as well be in a bar, sittin back and sippin a beer and just listenin to the foolish conversation.

I think there are many new philosophers. Today they are just called 'crackpots'

Honestly I think this whole thread should be deleted.

Its based on misunderstanding that is clear to me if no one else.

I think we should give people the benefit of the doubt, when someone says that they meant A when they said ____ then we should not sit here and tell them they meant something else.

In fact this whole thread is against forum policy and talking about another forum member like this can result in suspension or banning.

I think it should end.

I think that if we or science ever do find the real answers to the nature of truth and reality, they are not going to want to spread them around.

Like in the movie "Matrix" after one guy discovered the truth about the matrix he had been rescued from.... he wanted to go back. He wanted to go back and have his memory of the truth erased.

We love our virtual reality. Leave us alone!