Twitter is quite handy and good for getting the up-to-date news, links and information on all the different topics coming out from the universities and organisations.

However, we are left with another question: what is mind exactly? Most philosophers don't view mind as a category of disembodied 'mind' in an idealist way. But, I think that philosophy is more about the thinking about the concepts, such as how self is figured out, in relation to other ideas, such as mind and body. — Jack Cummins

I do realise the importance of the concepts and definitions in philosophy, - clarifying and reflecting analysing, and inventing the new (if needed). I was reading about Jung last night, and it said "Ultimately Jung claims, the Self is fully realised in death." I thought it is a kind of mystic way of description, rather than scientific, which sounds subjective and impossible to prove or falsify with scientific methods.

Some classic psychology such as Jung's, is almost a mysticism, not science. I think psychology is useful for philosophy for looking at the concepts and definitions from different aspects.

Bad Eliza. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Funny terablachiomera.

Are you good?

Now you seem more like an Eliza machine than anything. — TonesInDeepFreeze

No more your personal private feelings please. Not even funny anymore.

Ridiculously coy sophistry. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Did you forget already? I am just responding with common sense to your emotionally charged illogical anti philosophical degrading comments.

That is itself a groundless claim about my mental states.

And you skipped again that I did give specific grounds for claiming that her posts are stupid. — TonesInDeepFreeze

I was stating a general principle of psychology. It seems you who links the principle to yourself.

A splendid description of your postings here. — TonesInDeepFreeze

One couldn't be mistaken him for himself, and others. Please read the post again.

I am not suggesting that you need to be interested in it. But your arguments about it and your claims about its inferiority and lack of application are based in sheer ignorance. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Mother of all inferiority complex is from someone who describes other people or other peoples' writings as stupid on the basis of solely groundless personal feelings.

Your level of thinking is not much better than someone who never heard of written language and said, "What good are these letter shapes? They don't make sounds come out of my mouth," — TonesInDeepFreeze

Again, your private feelings and mental states, utterly groundless and unfounded. Rejected and committed to the bin, just like your 1st statement.

This is the limitation of the symbolic logic.  They dictate that every argument must fit into some set forms.   But most arguments in real life do not fit into any forms.  You must infer the premises and arguments from the dialogues between the protagonists. You can make up premises, arguments and conclusions from even newspaper articles, poems and simple daily conversations ... etc etc in informal logic.

Because of those limitations, many people think that symbolic logic is not practical for real life applications, to which I agree.

Obviously it's my opinion that what she said is stupid. But I gave ample explanation supporting that opinion. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Sure. You can say whatever you want. You are a grown up adult responsible for your own acts and sayings and decisions. Only thing I was saying is that, it is not a philosophically justifiable, acceptable or meaningful statement. (1st conclusion) That's all.

So from that premise (subsequent premise from the 1st conclusion), whatever you put down as your arguments (even if they were true), the whole of your arguments and the conclusion was inconsistent and invalid from the theories of the Informal Logic. A very practical and useful theory and logic I would day :)

Now please stop saying that I said the poster is stupid. And please do not further perpetuate the strawmen you've set up. And please stop making things up about me. — TonesInDeepFreeze

You started this argument, not me. I am just responding to your arguments.

It doesn't matter whether you said she was stupid or what she said was stupid. The point was that your statement was your private mental feeling or judgement or state, not the external worldly fact or object. That is the only point.

oh, you misunderstood again.
I never said that is ontology. Please read the post again.

I said, if you said X is a book, then it is possible to find the ontological ground for it.
X is stupid? It can be also argued that the statement existed inside your mind only - so depending on what your ontological stand is, it is also possible. Are you an idealist or materialist? See your old little symbolic logic has been confusing and muddling your thoughts.

talking about throwing around jargon. 'ontological'. Oh come on, descriptions about people aren't ontology. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Ontology just means the study of the way things exist either in material or mental world, nothing sophisticated or complicated. Have you read any philosophy books? Could you please list what philosophy books you have read in your life?

It is not strawman at all. Again your private psychological judgement from your closed point of view. I am just responding to the parts which I feel I have things to say in the shortest time I can afford. I could sit down here, and go through all the points you put down in the posts, and reply to every point if I want to, and if I have time to. But I don't have time to do that. I must also work to make some living too.

Anyways, your argument points are all from the books, and anyone can read the books and learn. But it is up to the reader either to accept the book's points or go his own way and establish his own logic too. You seem to be denying the latter case, just blindly following the books and what those authors said. If I thought your argumental points are worth reading carefully with time and effort dropping the other tasks in daily life, then I would do so.

All your points from some old logic books, are not really practical or useful in real applications such as debating or clarifying philosophical problems. I do read books not to accept them blindly just because it says so, but my readings are always with a critical mind that if I agree I will accept, if not will abandon anyway.

That essentially is a HUGE strawman. I have never written anything that remotely suggests that "the world should exist for symbolic logic" You are ridiculous to say that my arguments even "sound like" that. — TonesInDeepFreeze

The inference was drawn from your comment about the Informal Logic and Critical Thinking books. The books cover wide range of topics to be dealt by the critical thinking system - philosophy, the world and arguments and debates and daily lives. It is far more interesting reads than the symbolic logic books. They are not some mixed up ideas, as you suggested.

Generally, I am trying to think about the idea of self as a philosophical rather than psychological problem — Jack Cummins

Could it be the case that Philosophy asks and seeks - what is it? how can we know about it?, while Psychology asks, and explains how it affects us, and what it does for us?

There is a huge philosophical and logical difference when you say,

X is stupid.
and
X is a book.

X is stupid means your feeling about X, not factual or logical statement. (one could be stupid on something, but genius in other subjects, and vice versa. I can give hundreds of real life examples on this. )

You heard, saw or read something about X, (or as you insist, you said it was what said about logic, not herself - by which some people might feel even more insulted getting her own writing described stupid by someone who doesn't really know anything about her) and made some private judgement inside your head, that X is stupid.

It is not an objective worldly fact, but your psychological state inside your head.
Why should you suppose that other people will agree with a psychological reflection of someone without critical objective ontological infallible evidence?

But if you say, X is a book, then that could be an objective worldly statement, which can be proved objectively by anyone by looking at it, hearing the description about it.

I wouldn't spit out my own psychological statements which are private to me in the public, if it sounds unfair and groundless, because I know it will not be accepted as an objective and infallible statement by others, and it would be unfair insult to X, which could be even immoral act for anyone to impose on X.

That is the first and most basic criteria of not being mixed up in philosophical logic.

If you read a couple of old symbolic logic books, and take all the narrow concepts from there, judge other people based on the symbolic logic book authors world concept, then of course everyone will look stupid and mixed up.

But if you read any other philosophical books with an open critical mind, then you will realise that philosophy is far more than dog fighting with symbolic logic jargons.

You must try to look at the problems with your own reasoning first, and if needed, create your own definitions, if the book definitions are not adequate, and apply them to the real philosophical issue in the world.   I mean really, there must be more in life and philosophy, the world than those symbols and concepts in the books?  Logic must exist to assist in representing and clarifying the world and arguments, not the other way around. Your arguments sound to me the whole world should exist for symbolic logic and its traditional concepts.

I'll stand corrected, but I think I said she is stupid. I said that what she wrote it stupid. And I said she is an ignoramus and a nutjob* (also see her list of conspiracy theory sources).

* That she is a nutjob doesn't in and of itself entail that her comments about logic are incorrect. Her comments about logic are incorrect anyway. Pointing out that she is a nutjob is just to anecdotally celebrate the great comedy of life. — TonesInDeepFreeze

If you had read anything philosophical in your life, should you not allow that other people could have different opinions about anything of their own? Not just logic? Just because she had different opinion about logic, that doesn't mean what she wrote is stupid, or she herself is stupid. When someone describes other people as stupid without justified ground, it reveals more about the describer and his psychological state and motives, than the other people who were described as stupid.

There are books that are as mixed up about the concepts as you are? — TonesInDeepFreeze

I feel that the Informal Arguments books have far more practical ideas than the simple traditional or symbolic logic. If you read the symbolic logic books again, then you will notice those books are full of boring dry useless contents, which naturally make normal people feel logic itself is just an useless boring dry subject, which makes people more confused, when trying to apply it to real world situations.

It sounds too harsh to describe someone stupid just by reading her few lines of the book reviews.
There could be just differences in opinions. There were certainly parts that resonated with my ideas about logic in the reviews.

If you looked at the new argument example given, I would have thought everything is clear on the sufficient and necessary conditions for the premises.

True definition, you asked. I was meaning the right and proper definition that fits for the better premise. So it could even qualify as a conclusion if it is self-evident enough, in which case, no further arguments are needed. But it is not possible to have a 100% true definition in many cases. One could only try to come up with the best true definitions.

The example arguments given in the OP and in the thread are simple enough to see the reasons how the premises could become a more sufficient definition by adding another definition i.e. dogs bark, and cats meow into the original definition which was a very wide definition (dogs are animals.)
I would have thought anyone would know what sufficient and necessary definitions as better premises are like.

True definitions are what philosophers are seeking to find and come up with in their thinking and debates process. Sometimes it can be found from defining the concepts, or when the definitions are not self evident enough such as God and God existence problems, then they make up the premises and go through the arguments supporting the premises to arrive at the conclusions.

OK - your comment on Valid arguments doesn't have to have false conclusions. But it would be judged as an inconsistent argument, if the supporting arguments are false or the premises way too loose, false or have no ground, even if valid. Due to that belief many logical debates seem to fall into quarrels rather than carrying on with the debating.

What I wrote here is mostly the points from Critical Thinking and Informal Arguments books, which look more practical and useful than the old traditional logic or symbolic logic in real life arguments and debate usage.

:up: :smile:

Forget I even mentioned it. It was irrelevant to the discussion. — TheMadFool

I opened the thread, but immediately realised the topic is one of the subjects, that I am not familiar with. Time permitting and the background reading done, I am inclined to have another go.

Dangerous is not the word I would use. Strict and uncompromising are terms that I think of when reflecting on logic. — Harry Hindu

Deconstructive use of the word :D (All uses of the problematic and unclear words have been contributed or excused to that term by me recently - xD how convenient )
I tend to be sarcastic to my own writings often - never mind.

Did you read this :point: [url=https://thephilosohttps://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/566809phyforum.com/discussion/comment/566809]New Caledanian Crow[/url] — TheMadFool

No I haven't. I have no much knowledge on the medieval time religious topics. I must go back to Russell's History of Philosophy and do some more readings on the chapter to be able to follow the thread, I think.

I like to solve these types of problems using a computer programming language. In every language, the variables need to be defined in order to use them. In every logical process the variables used refer to something in the world. — Harry Hindu

Sure. I used to do some computer programming myself, and used to use, WHILE .... DO, For x> y DO,
or IF ... THEN and write up FUNCTIONS a lot to carry out checking the conditions.

You know fine well, that to check some complicated conditions, the statements needs many lines of coding to check for all the possible conditions. The use of the variables are essential in the programmings. One condition out of many in the loop or IF THEN sections fails, the whole program fails and comes to halt (if the input is out of boundary set in the variables and error handling code is not implemented), or it will return FALSE value from the functions or routines to the calling modules straight, not even bothering going on checking for the next conditions.

Also, if you find that some logical proposition produces a false conclusion, its because so other logical fallacy was made. All logical rules have to be followed - no cherry-picking. — Harry Hindu

Yeah, that was what I have been saying all along. If you get your staring definitions and also any of t he premises wrong, then you can end up with some crazy conclusions as Truth. Dangerous things for sure.

I was not aware of Agrippa before, but it seems also interesting topic to read and learn about. Thanks for the info.
https://ideasinhat.com/2018/11/16/what-is-the-munchhausen-trilemma/

I see.  It was a demonstration OP for showing that logical arguments in philosophical debates do need solid sufficient definitions and premises so that they will arrive at infallible True conclusions.
Truth tables and Venn diagrams are great tools too. But more for the educational purpose, I feel.

Had a quick look at the Venn Diagram section of the Gensler book, and it looks OK.
But I was wondering whether the diagram method is only OK for simple arguments with just 1 or 2 premises.

There are often cases of arguments with 10 - 20 premises in the real life arguments. In this case, I wonder if the diagrams could serve as a practical tool for the arguments at all.

Yes. You do not need extra definitions. The original definitions are quite sufficient. Dogs are animals. Cats are animals. Cats are not dogs. Those last three statements are consistent. You need the diagram and the truth table. — Cuthbert

Hmmm I would have thought you don't need the diagram, but you just need to add more definitions into the premise making it sufficient and necessary condition. Wouldn't it be more convenient and practical than drawing diagrams in the debates? (if it were debate situations) :)

The problem is not in the definitions. The problem is that you say a conclusion follows when it does not follow. — Cuthbert

But did you read the new argument with the extra (sufficient) definitions added in the premises then produces the new true conclusion? = cats are not dogs.

I can see why Hume questions the existence of self. — Jack Cummins

I find Hume's account on Self Identity interesting too. His denial of self identity has brought the speculations that could Hume had been into Buddhism's No Self philosophy? I was being sceptical about the speculations, but then why not.

Freud and Jung's idea of subconsciousness being integral part of self is also very interesting. I wonder if they were meaning the link between the self hidden in the subconsciousness and past and after life alchemy.

The Gensler Logic book has good explanation on the Venn Diagram.
Will have a look.

But I also thought the OP argument problem stems from the premise that there is limited scope for the definition of dogs and cats. Simply saying "are animals" is not sufficient definition for them.
So, dogs are animals and dogs bark.
Cats are animals and cats meow.

from more definitions given in the premises, it would have had a true conclusion.
cats are not dogs (they are both animals, but cats don't bark, dogs don't meow)

So, it demonstrates how insufficient premises render wrong conclusions in the argument, even if they look valid.

In God debates, often the premises they start are either wrong and insufficient, hence the argument arrives at the wrong conclusion, or / and it falls into confusion in the middle of reaching the conclusion.

For instance, the wrong and insufficient definition "God is omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient" or "God is a necessary being" as the premises of the arguments will not only confuse the following arguments but also arrive at the wrong conclusion.

Because if one start ask and analyse all those concepts of God, then it will be clear there is no ground to assert them as true definitions, and even if we infer them as true definitions, the scope of the premises is limited for the arguments and conclusion.

psychological aspects of identity — Jack Cummins

For psychological aspect of self identity, I would presume Freud and Jung has something to say about it?

I think that we define ourselves as human individuals on the basis of past history, but who we are in terms of ego identity and connection with reality is far more complex. — Jack Cummins

I was under impression that David Hume, being the champion of scepticism, denies idea of self identity, because one cannot grasp the impressions and ideas of the corresponding self in perception ??? ... something like that. What did you think of it after reading Hume?

My criticism of the rants (those are not reviews) is independent of the books. What she said about logic is stupid, no matter what is in the books. — TonesInDeepFreeze

I thought she was not saying Logic is stupid. Rather, she was saying that the books don't mention some important points in Logic. She quotes a few philosophical texts from the other authors and philosophers about logic and how general people study and practice Logic, and why those missed points in the books are critically important.

I have never studied Logic as such in serious manner. Everything I said and wrote about logic was from my common sense and reasoning. Then I thought it couldn't do any harm if I do some reading on logic.
I was then looking for some logic books. There were so many logic books on the market, I could not tell which one is good or bad.

I got the 2x which were randomly chosen, but when I scanned them, thought they are not that great.
I didn't find the writing style interesting or clear.

Then I worked through an introductory book on symbolic logic, and I learned a lot. — TonesInDeepFreeze

But I will say that I just don't know whether I would have done as well with Kalish/Montague if I hadn't previously read that other symbolic logic book that gave me some good chops with symbolization and symbolic deduction — TonesInDeepFreeze

What is your the other symbolic logic book before the K/M which gave you some good chops with symbolization and symbolic deduction?

They're not. They reveal fundamental misunderstanding, confusions, and ignorance of the writer. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Do you, then think both books are good books contrary to the negative review details? How would you compare my 2 books to the one you recommended?

You just quoted her about the ill-effects of emotion in arguments. Your feelings about the books don't make her arguments about them sound. — TonesInDeepFreeze

I don't always quote or post sound arguments only. But the quoted parts are what I felt was good points. I used to believe that one must not start philosophical debates with inferred premises. I still do.

You are quoting from someone who is ignorant. — TonesInDeepFreeze

I was not sure if she was ignorant or not, but there were parts that resonated with my feelings about the books. The reviewer didn't sound like a newbie (she has many Logic books, and read them all) for sure. I am the newbie :D