Among the difficulties in many discussions on Kant is that one - or both - have not understood him. Without understanding, no target can be established, and no criticism can hit a target that does not exist. — tim wood

One or both what?

One can only go by what a person has written or said. One can agree or disagree with what they have said. While the understanding of what they intended to say may be significant, it is not essential.

The effect of an object upon the faculty of representation,
so far as we are affected by it, is sensation. — Kryneizov

That pre-assumes that an object exists. It is the sensation that is primary not the 'object'.

. "Naive" is a dangerous word in this context, that may come to haunt you. — unenlightened

I doubt it :)

That is all that is required. — A Seagull
A Pragmatist Seagull. How effectively are you interacting with the world? Are you sure you're not missing something? If it is all we've got, then we'll have to make the best of it, but one can certainly wish one could tell the oasis from the mirage without a five mile walk and a mouthful of sand. — unenlightened

Any philosophy that is not linked pragmatically with the real world is indistinguishable from an abstract fantasy.

Of course there may be gaps, but that is why we do philosophy.

It is naïve to think that facts about reality can be discerned without observation, though observations may be indirect rather than direct.

What evidence could we have that things really are as they seem when that's all evidence is?

Because it allows us to interact effectively with the world. That is all that is required.

For exemple, currently I am reading Metaphysics by Aristotle (from beginning to end). It is really hard to understand. I feel like I'm stuck. I am reading with two different translation.

When you face difficult books what do you do? You keep reading even without understand? What can help in this situation? — John Pingo

Find something that is easier to read, something more meaningful to you. Reading without understanding is pointless.

If going to church doesn't make you a Christian, then why even go to church?

The cute chicks of course!

Well, some values, once established to be worthy, may need to be preserved for the next generation, no? For example, the value of a life — TheMadFool

Well yes, Life as a universal value is a good place to start.
and the pursuit of happiness... and in the modern world: education... and honesty in speech.

where the words "believe/belief" rear their ugly heads — Frank Apisa

Well I find the words belief, believe extremely useful and meaningful.

Your beliefs are what you believe, they are the ideas you hold in your head.

↪A Seagull

And, philosophy! — Shawn

lol

For me, there are four things that count as needs:

-Water
-Food
-Shelter
-Medication — Shawn

You left out air.

and maybe entertainment.

The problem is, not that the values that have been attacked by "scholars" are good, but that there are no good theories to take their place. I would prefer this situation to be due to a lack of trying but it might be the case that no system of values can ever be picture perfect. — TheMadFool

Well what do you want or need values for? Presumably they are a guide to actions. In which case as the world changes and peoples view of the world also changes their values would need to be continually refined and updated.

And a 'force multiplier to thought' is meaningful??? — A Seagull
Obviously. — StreetlightX

well you are so far stuck into your own world that discussion is pointless.

perhaps there are no truths in moral philosophy. — A SeagullThere definitely are truths in moral philosophy, — Congau

Just because you personally believe something, that doesn't make it a universal truth.

And a 'force multiplier to thought' is meaningful??? — A Seagull
Do you know the term “force multiplier” in general? — Pfhorrest

From Wikipedia: ' force multiplication or a force multiplier refers to a factor or a combination of factors that gives personnel or weapons (or other hardware) the ability to accomplish greater feats than without it'.

Nothing to do with thought. If applied to thought it is just new age mumbo jumbo.

Conclusions in moral philosophy, although they may be true, can’t really be called facts. — Congau

Well perhaps there are no truths in moral philosophy.

We are talking metaphilosophy here, so is moral philosophy or at least truths in moral philosophy an essential part of a 'good' philosophy?

↪A Seagull There's nothing subjective about it. Or objective for that matter (a silly distinction of limited use, everywhere misapplied). — StreetlightX

well that is up to you.

And a 'force multiplier to thought' is meaningful???

A good philosophy acts as a force multiplier to thought; it forges connections between the disparate, as elaboration on world and word. A good philosophy constantly surprises, pulls one along a forceful current of throught that propels a mind from one element to the next, and leaves one hungry for more. It inspires creation in thought and serves as a launchpad to thinking otherwise, always. It refers one constantly to an elsewhere and an outside that cannot be captured within that philosophy but on which it always draws upon, augments, and edifies. — StreetlightX

OK, but that is a very subjective evaluation of philosophy; can you be more objective?

A good philosophy may be restricted to a true philosophy — Congau

Presumably then, a true philosophy is one that is in concordance with the facts.

↪A Seagull Mine. The one that sentence was in. This is a self-serving answer. And what followed were the details of that answer in that post. — Coben

Yes, I eventually realised that!

↪A Seagull Thanks. And I agree with your analysis of how logic works. I would call the two types you described as analytical logic and applied logic. But only becasue I am old skool. I like descriptive names that mean what they say. User-friendly naming conventions — god must be atheist

Yes, analytical and applied logic are good ways of distinguishing the two types. Too often the two are conflated and this can cause problems.

Peter is John.
John is Paul.
Therefore Peter is Paul

The conclusion is right in logic. — god must be atheist

Well there is 'logic' and then there is other logic.

I prefer the logic whereby logic is the manipulation of symbols according to specific rules. So in logic for your example 'is' would have to be defined perhaps something along the lines of 'can be substituted for'
and the names eg 'peter' would be treated as alphanumeric strings. But the whole of it would be treated as an abstract deduction, with no particular relevance to the real world.


If a person accepts that the first two premises are an accurate representation of their model of the world then they would be likely to accept the conclusion as also being a representation of their model of the world and hence label it as 'true'.

Does your system have a special name to it? If I guessed your system correctly, and it has a specific name, would you please give it here? — god must be atheist

Yes, it is called 'The Pattern Paradigm'; you might find it interesting.

Why are you starting with truth? What is meant by 'truth'? — A Seagull
I am not starting with truth, but with the undeniable fact that I am self-aware, which is simultaneously an object of awareness and a truth. This is because truth and being are identical. Truth does not necessitate language, otherwise, the necessary truth "mind is necessary for language," is false. — TheGreatArcanum

Well there are lots of assumptions implicit in your assertion, and that is fine.

A giraffe has a long neck.

A giraffe has a short neck.

Would you call the corresondence to truth a value, or a label? Why? This is not a rhetorical question. I don't know why you would call them labels instead of values. So please explain. — god must be atheist

It is to do with the process by which one chooses which statements, if any, merit the label of 'true'

It is a somewhat haphazard and mystical process and so one cannot claim that a statement has the 'property' of truth, only a label, which is typically allocated on a subjective basis.

Statements have truth values — god must be atheist

Statements don't have truth values, but some have truth labels.

each truth is contingent upon a higher truth — TheGreatArcanum

Why are you starting with truth? What is meant by 'truth'?

You are making more implicit assumptions here.

The first principle of philosophy is that philosophy has a first principle.

(That ought to be right.) — god must be atheist

Why 'ought' it to be right?

You can claim it as an assumption if you want.

What are the First Principles of Philosophy?

Implicit in this question is the assumption that philosophy has first principles.

I think that that assumption needs to be clearly identified so that a philosophy that has first principles is not conflated with general philosophy.

While it may be the case, empirically speaking, that most, if not all, clearly expressed philosophy requires foundations, these may not neccessarily be expressible as principles.

↪
Well then who would you like to examine your life?

A Seagull I would like to do it myself. But, how do I go about it? I see my thoughts are conditioned and contradictory so, any kind of self-analysis I feel will yield unfruitful results. I am tempted to say, that I can examine myself in regards to my relationship to others, as Viktor Frankl proposes. But, I am not quite convinced. — Zeus

I was being frivolous. The claim that the unexamined life is not worth living is a lie.

The 'unexamined life' is totally worth living.

↪A Seagull Well, this is a self serving answer — Coben

Which is a self serving answer?

That said, the essence of philosophy is, in true Socratic spirit, a journey of discovery of not wisdom but of our own abject ignorance. The philosopher then is the quintessential tragic hero, lured by the promise of wisdom to begin a quest to become a sage but sadly betrayed to none other than himself and his pathetic ignorance. — TheMadFool

Well, one can still enjoy the journey.. :)

P

258 — Pussycat

Well I have to say I like the metaphor of philosophy as a dance. Extending the metaphor Life is a dance.

Some dances are more enjoyable than others, some lives are more enjoyable than others. A good philosophy is then one that enables one to have an enjoyable life. Ultimately a philosophy is personal, it has very little to do with truth or statements, they are only useful if one wants to communicate one's philosophy.

Let's assume, if we can, an unexamined life is not worth living — Zeus

Well then who would you like to examine your life?

Logic is a measure of consistency/coherence — creativesoul

Well how is it measured?

Philosophy is like dancing. So asking what makes a good philosophy, is like asking what makes a good dance. — Pussycat

OK, well what makes a good dance?

Do you consider that your answer to the question 'What makes a good philosophy' to be a superior one? — A Seagull
Yes. — Pfhorrest

Well that makes one of you.

So you think false statements are good philosophy? — creativesoul

I said what I said.

Logic.

Logic may be defined as the branch of philosophy that reflects upon the nature of thinking, or more specifically reasoning, itself. — Harry Hindu

I agree that logic is an essential part of a good philosophy, it specifies how inferences can be made.

But the philosophy of logic is not logic itself. So what is logic?

Philosophy is the search for wisdom, which is the ability to discern superior from inferior answers to questions. A good philosophy is thus one that provides such an ability. — Pfhorrest

How do you distinguish superior answers from inferior ones?

Do you consider that your answer to the question 'What makes a good philosophy' to be a superior one?

What makes for a good philosophy? — A Seagull
True statements. — creativesoul

Any philosophy can make a claim to truth. It does not merit as being a distinguishing feature of a good philosophy.