As others have noted, one of the most readable paths into Hegel is his writing on history. — Pie

Thanks for the interesting passage, to refresh my memory. Hegel places "the Idea" as the fundamental principle, the basis or foundation of human existence in the social setting. In its actualization, as knowing itself, the Idea produces a state, which provides for it, giving it freedom which is what it desires, the actualization is described as knowing itself. So what the Idea desires is freedom, and it produces this by universalizing good will, through what he calls universal Reason. This is all very idealistic

As describes, Hegel later explains this entire process as a process of negations. If we provide a definition of "freedom" for example, it will inevitably be negated, and we will move on to the new definition. This is the process whereby the Idea comes to know itself, it is a form of becoming, an evolution, which gives the Idea the freedom it desires.

Notice that Karl Marx went on to practise this form of dialectic, by negating Hegel's fundamental principle. Marx negated Hegel's proposal of "the Idea" as the basis of human existence in the social setting, and replaced it with "matter" as the kernel, or foundation of human existence in the social setting. From this perspective, the purpose of the state is to provide for the material needs of the individuals, rather than the Hegelian perspective, which places the purpose of the state as to provide for the Idea to know itself. From Marx's perspective, the Hegelian proposal for freedom, the Idea knowing itself, is just an illusion, or delusion.

If what is being picked out by the name exists in its entirety prior to being picked out then it does not matter one bit if those different uses conflict with one another. My point remains. — creativesoul

There is nothing being "picked out" by the name, like I said originally. I just went along with that notion to show you the fault in it. As I said, the name refers to a concept. And, we can use the concept in a variety of different ways. Whether or not a person uses the concept to pick out things, or believes oneself to be using the concept to pick out things, or simply believes oneself to be using the word to pick out things, is another issue altogether.

The tree in my yard is not a name. The term "tree" is. The term "tree" is used to pick out trees. The same holds for cells and "cells"... — creativesoul

A "cell" as commonly defined can be either a complete living organism, or a part of a living organism. How is it, that in some cases an entire living organism is "picked out" as a cell, and in other cases, a part of a living organism is picked out, and called by the same name. One is an entire living organism, the other is not, yet they are both said to be the same independent thing, a cell. Obviously, the term "cell" is not used to pick out cells, because it is used to pick out two completely different types of things, one being a whole living organism, the other being a part of a living organism.

Why would you want to eat sand anyway?

Two distinct types of sandwich, one uses bread, the other a bun. Some prefer to call it a bunwich. That's got a nice ring to it.

Anything in a bun is a sandwich... isn't it?

"Cell" does not refer to a specific "biological machinery" (which really makes no sense anyway, as biological organisms are not machines), so your reply is not relevant.

It makes absolutely no sense at all to deny and/or object to the following claim.

"14th century humans had cells."

That's my answer. — creativesoul

I think the point is that at that time, the word "cells" was not in use, nor was the concept which the word refers to. So at that time it is impossible that human beings had "cells" because there was no such thing as cells.

The principal difference between a particular and a universal is that all properties (including accidentals) are necessary to the individual, whereas all properties of all the particulars in a type (universal) are not necessary to the type. So, in "some people are white", white is necessary to all those individuals who are white. And, white is also necessary to each member of that group referred to by "some people". However, white is not needed to be a person. Therefore "people are not necessarily white" remains true, while "some people are necessarily white" is also true.

No, if some thought does not need words then the proposition "some thought does not need words" is true. "Thought does not need words" is a blanket statement which is equivalent to "all thought does not need words". — Janus

That is incorrect. You have made a category mistake, caused by equivocation. You are equivocating between "thought" as referring to numerous specific and particular instances of thought, in "some thought does not need words", and "thought" as referring to one general conception in "thought does not need words".

Notice "some thought" in the first case, refers to a multiplicity, a plurality of particular instances (that's what "some" indicates), while "thought" in the second case refers to one general concept, a universal. Your failure to make this distinction between "thought" referring to a group of particulars, and "thought" referring to one general concept, a universal, is a prime example of a very common form of equivocation.

The earth's magnetic field also reverses, but over a long time period of time, hundreds of thousands of years, and not in an organized cycle. Magnetic north has been drifting since it was first accurately located. The speed of the drift has varied. In recent times it has accelerated. If you use a compass you may have noticed that the adjustment for declination has changed in some places. The relationship between the shift in magnetic north, and global climate change is unknown.

https://earthsky.org/earth/magnetic-north-rapid-drift-blobs-flux/

It is the biggest influence. Easily overlooked, you're right. There's the grand solar minimum (solar minimum) that some say started two years ago and will cause cooling until around 2050? I don't know much about. — Tate

The standard, observed sunspot cycle is approximately eleven years, we are heading into a maximum period right now.

At the minimum period, the sun's magnetic field is an organized dipolar field, extending far into interplanetary space. The dipolar field allows particles to move rapidly along field lines, and this is the solar wind. The earth, being currently on a different plane is not exposed to this rapid solar wind of the minimum period.

At the maximum period, the magnetic field breaks down, and is randomized. This allows more random coronal ejections of particles, in random directions, in a slower solar wind. Some of these solar flares may be directed toward the earth.

When the magnetic field reestablishes itself as dipolar, at the next minimum period, it has reversed polarity from the last minimum period. So the entire cycle, to return to the same polarity, is approximately twenty two years.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/solar-magnetic-field#:~:text=The%20solar%20magnetic%20field%20is%20highly%20variable%2C%20which%20makes%20the,like%20that%20of%20the%20earth.

If some thought needs words, and some does not, then claiming that thought does not need words is false. — creativesoul

If some thought does not need words, then the proposition "thought does not need words" is true. This is true, regardless of the fact that some thought needs words. That's the way inductive reasoning works.

Here's some more examples. Some living beings need to breathe oxygen, some do not. We can conclude that living beings do not need to breathe oxygen. Some plants need UV light, some do not. We can conclude that plants do not need UV light.

When we have a class, "thought" for example, and some of the members of that class require a specified property. and other members do not require that specific property, we can conclude, as a general principle, that the specified property is not a requirement to be a member of the class. This makes the property accidental rather than essential. You could however, start a subclass, where that accidental property is stipulated as essential, and say that the property is a requirement for that subclass. So, a special type of complex thought needs words, but in general, complex thought does not need words..

I'm not sure what you're referring to. — Tate

The point was that radiant heat from the sun has the biggest influence over the earth's surface temperatures, and scientists seem to know very little about the sun's capacity to radiate heat. I suppose I'm off topic, and we need a different thread about the sun's influence on the earth's climate.

They're caused by changes in the circularity of the Earth's orbit. — Tate

What I asked about was the cause of the changes in Earth's orbit. @Joshs gave somewhat of answer, referring to the gravity of other planets, but I do not see how this could really be the case. We just had a major alignment of planets, but I didn't hear anything about that changing the orbit of the earth.

Someone mentioned this in the other thread and it bears repeating: climatology is a science that requires getting used to a lot of unknowns. When will reglaciation start? — Tate

I really would not call this sort of climatology a "science". It's pure speculation without any experimental evidence. I asked about how the magnetic field of the sun affects the climate of the earth, because the sun is known to be the major influencer of earth's surface temperature. But scientists appear to have little if any understanding of this magnetic field, or fields. How can long range climatology be a "science" when the activities of the thing which has the greatest influence on it, the sun, is not at all understood?

My first argument is that our intuitions of what negative values mean, and especially the operations between them, are sloppy and imprecise. Take the ubiquitous example of a count of apples. It's obvious and natural to us what it means for me to have a positive number of apples, it's something we can count. It's less obvious what it might mean for there to be an amount which is less than nothing. The first instinct most people have to apply negative numbers to such a situation is to introduce debt. Debt is a fine use-case of negative arithmetic, but offering it as a tangible realization of negative numbers in a realist sense, the sense in which we count positive numbers of apples, is rather insidious. — Jerry

In this case, I suggest that you think of zero as potential. If you're counting apples, 0 represents the potential for some apples, but no actual apples. When we allow the potential for apples to be a real representation of apples, zero apples, we can build an equality system around that potential, such that any number of apples can be negated to zero with an equal negative amount. That's a basic equation.

However, zero takes a much more complex position when numbers are used for order (ordinals) rather than for quantity (cardinals). Since it must be positional within an order, it cannot represent a complete lack of order. But if we give it a position within an order, it becomes prior to the first, which is really incoherent. Then any proposed negative order is just an exercise in incoherency.

To demonstrate my point, consider this: in the usual examples of negative numbers in nature (temperature, debt, sea level) when does the ×(-1) operation occur? For example, sea level may go up and down (add/subtract) in increments, but does the sea level ever flip from above to below? If you take out $100 dollars from your account of +$50, you may end up with -$50 dollars, but this wasn't a ×(-1) operation, that was a subtract $100 operation, which happens to yield the same result. — Jerry

Multiplying and dividing with negative numbers is a bit tricky. There are differences depending on the convention employed, as the concept of "imaginary numbers" demonstrates.

@Banno seems to think it's just a matter of following whatever set of rules serves one's purpose. But that's ridiculous, we can't just choose our rules depending on the consequence we desire. When incompatible, or contradictory, rules exist within the same field of study (mathematics), then there is a problem of incoherency. And using contradicting rules depending on what is desired, is simply wrong.

That's what the Quote Cabinet, in the Lounge is for.

What do you think causes the shape of earth's orbit to abruptly change? — Metaphysician Undercover

It doesn't. — Tate

"Abrupt" was your word.

This explains why reglaciation is always so abrupt. — Tate

What do you think causes the shape of earth's orbit to abruptly change?

I recall, vaguely, that it all begins with ϕϕ.

Ex nihilo nihil fit Creatio ex nihilo

How can nothing be something?!
— Greeks — Agent Smith

Think of it as pure potential. Zero, or empty set. is nothing, but it is a type of nothing, or nothing of a specific type of thing. If we proceed to say that the specified type is every type, so that it is nothing of any type of thing, then "every type" is a type. And if types are things, (Platonism), then nothing is something.

What we know is that we're moving into a trigger point now. — Tate

What is this "trigger point" you keep talking about? Is it a solar change, something to do with the sun's magnetic field, causing reduced energy from the sun? The sun's magnetic field is not well understood:
https://www.space.com/why-sun-atmosphere-hotter-than-surface

I suggest a new thread. — unenlightened

No, I think I'll leave that for now. I believe there are better options than systems theory. As I said, I'm not into boundaries myself. I'd prefer to look at internal and external as directions, inward and outward. That is why this thread is a little better, because gnosis is a form of knowledge derived from turning one's attention inward, looking in an inward direction, rather than looking outward.

We are more accustomed to looking outward, with our senses, and speaking with each other about things which are external, which we share (or fight over), so we have language which has evolved to be useful for that purpose. If we compare (through metaphor perhaps) looking inward with looking outward, then we can see the need to have internal things which are not private or personal, things we share and in that way are independent from us, which we can talk about with each other. So we have shared internal things just like we have shared external things. And of course, we might fight over the internal things like we fight over the external.

Understanding these internal things is not a matter of creating boundaries between oneself and the things to be understood, just like understanding external things is not a matter of creating boundaries between oneself and the external things. On the contrary, understanding internal things is a matter of creating a unity between oneself and the internal thing, 'bring it into your fold', just like understanding an external thing is a matter of creating a sort of unity between oneself and the thing to be understood.

It's like playing Monopoly on a Risk board. — unenlightened

It's not quite like that, because we don't really have the game yet which I want to try to play on the Risk board. My goal was to try and find a way to speak about that place which you designated the place 'whereof one cannot speak'. So I've produced the Risk board. But I do not want to play Risk, I want to play a different game, using the same old board, but a completely different set of rules; a set of rules which we could design and formulate to get us into that place. You're unwilling to play. Maybe you think that Risk is the only game which can be played on the Risk board. Or, maybe because you've already designated that place as "whereof one cannot speak', you see no point in trying.

What words do for "complex thought" is a type of compression. The complex thought, with multiple facets (being complex) is "compressed" and represented, or signified, by one simple word, or a simple proposition, a paragraph, a chapter, or even a simple book. So in a sense we can say that words render complex thought as simple. One entity represents a massive thought complex.

as to internal boundaries, I'm not at all clear what you mean. — unenlightened

Consider the "thinking self" as a type of system. There are external things which influence the self, some you've mentioned like knowledge and the empirical causes of experience. So as a matter of analytic convenience we assume a boundary between the self and the external world. These things which are external to the self have causal influence over the self, and there is a separation between cause and effect which requires a boundary, or a medium, as a principle of separation, to understand the temporal order.

But then there is the other thing you mentioned, "insight", which cannot be placed in that category of external influences because it is an internal influence on the self. Since it influences the self, but is not part of the self ("something personal but not of the self"), then for analytic convenience we could assume a boundary, medium, or principle of separation, between the self and the internal world, just like we assume a boundary between the self and the external. Then we might develop a better understanding of the temporal order between the internal reality, and the self.

Looking at the state of the modern human world, seemingly headed for complete self-destruction guided by secular science, it is apparent to me that the total contempt for religion that is so fashionable may be leading to the neglect of something important. I call it 'insight', and emphasise that it is something one cannot control or produce at will, but something that comes to one perhaps, or does not. It is something personal, but not of the self. This is not a contradiction of science, but it is beyond the scope of the scientific method, which without it becomes inhuman and mechanical and leads to destruction. In the small, it is a sudden understanding of something; in the large, it is a 'road to Damascus' transformation of one's life. It would be a serious mistake, if one has such a moment, to imagine that one has deserved or achieved it; that would be to add to the self when one should subtract. — unenlightened

I like this idea, "something personal, but not of the self". It seems very consistent with what I was arguing in the "Is there an external world?" thread. In that thread, the view of the thinking mind, from secular science, is a model from "systems theory". The systems theory places a boundary between the system and the external, to model sense perception. So I inquired as to why there is not also a boundary between the system and the internal, to account for everything internal which is not part of the system. But systems theory does not allow for this, everything inside the boundary between the system and the external, is part of the system, internal to the system. So the possibility of something coming from the inside, which is not part of the system ( something personal, but not of the self) cannot be part of that model.

I belief that this is similar to the way that Plato resolved the often cited "interaction problem" of dualism. He placed a medium between the immaterial and the material. So the realm of human thinking and activity, which he called passion (or some such word), is intermediate in relation to the external material world, and the internal immaterial world. Instead of placing boundaries between these two, the external and the internal, I prefer to view these as two different directions. One could look outward for external objects, or look inward for insight.

There's a big difference between using and applying in this context. Using a screwdriver or a key is not applying mechanics! — Alkis Piskas

Of course using a screwdriver is not applying mechanics. But using a screw driver is applying a screw driver, just like using mathematics is applying mathematics. In the context of mathematics, there is no difference between using and applying.

Using multiplication or division is not applying mathematics — Alkis Piskas

But it is, because multiplication and division are branches of mathematics. So apply multiplication is applying mathematics.

So applying mechanics or math means taking such laws, theorems, axioms, and other theory into consideration. — Alkis Piskas

To apply multiplication requires taking the laws of multiplication into consideration. It does not require taking the many other laws of mathematics into consideration. But to apply mathematics doesn't require that one knows all the laws of mathematics.

A boy can fly a toy airplane without having the slightest idea about and aerodynamics, and yet he uses aerodynamics without knowning what that is. And I can use a car without knowing and/or applying knowingly any elements of car mechanics. — Alkis Piskas

The boy in this example is not using aerodynamics, the boy is using the airplane. The person who made the airplane used aerodynamics, or maybe just copied another one. When you drive a car you are using the car, you are not using car mechanics.

Actually, philosophy should seek help wherever it can be found. :meh: — jgill

isn't that really what philosophy is, an act of seeking help.?

Right. Which is totally different than just use Math/Arithmetic/Probability terms which I have already pointed out. — Alkis Piskas

No I don't see the difference you are claiming. To use math is to apply mathematics. And to apply mathematics is to treat the thing which you apply mathematics to, mathematically. Therefore to use math is to mathematize the thing you apply it to.

When people utter common phrases like "Life is not fair", "Humans are intelligent beings", etc., this doesn't mean that they are philosophizing. — Alkis Piskas

Unless they are just parroting (repeating what was heard without understanding), then they are philosophizing when they use such phrases. But people always need some understanding when they apply mathematics, so they cannot be just repeating without understanding.

For whatever it's worth, I'm not at all against claiming that some complex thoughts need words whereas some do not. — creativesoul

So do you see then, that we can make the general claim "complex thought does not need words"? And in your examples, the words are "needed" not for the complex thought, as you seem to think, but for something else. We could for instance name a special type of complex thought, propositional thought, or something like that, and say that words are needed for this.

Have you ever had a puzzle or a problem that you have tried to work out for a long time without success, and then suddenly, without effort, you have the answer, clear and simple? Is that magic? — unenlightened

That's what I've heard called "the eureka moment". I can't say I've ever really experienced anything like the way it is described. Sometimes with a problem, if I let it go completely out of my head, then something will come into my head later which reminds me of the problem, but from a different perspective. That something can sometimes hold the solution. So it's like the solution comes to me only after I quit thinking about the problem, and having the solution makes me remember the problem. It's like when you're looking for something you've misplaced, and just give up because you can't find it. Then, later when you're doing something else, you'll see something, or otherwise remember something which reminds you exactly where the misplaced thing is. There's some sort of trigger. Also, quite often things come to me in my sleep, like the eureka moment, sometimes in dreams, other times I just wake up and the solution, or creative idea is right there, in my mind.

Do you not see that this exchange is exactly what I have described, that there is an understanding that cannot be conveyed - I say some words, but I cannot make room in you for a new idea. You need to have an insight! — unenlightened

Well, we can go around and around in circles, encircling the idea in many different ways, with you always saying "No! That is not what I mean". After my mind gets hit with a whole lot of No's, I might say, "all right, I give up, I'll never understand". Then I'll go off, and have a snooze, and bang! It hits me. "That's what unenlightened meant". You might say that it just came to me, "bang!", as insight, but I would say that it is really the product of all those no's, and going around in circles. The solution never would have come to me if I hadn't gone through that process of elimination first.

It means to treat mathematically. So, I would assume that using mathematics in a field of study constitutes mathematizing.

At this intellectual level grocery shopping might be, "Well, one can is $2, so two cans will be $4". — jgill

I think it depends on how you do your shopping. Many people figure the price per 100 grams, or oz., and stuff like that, to compare pricing, which requires mathematical thinking. But if you go into the store with a list of products and already know the brand and sizes of containers you will get, there is no mathematizing involved. They even add everything up for you, and all you do is put your card in and accept the charges.

Let me explain then. You have provided examples of complex thought which uses words. These examples are insufficient to produce the inductive conclusion "complex thought needs words". You have provided no evidence whatsoever, that complex thought requires words, only evidence that some complex thought uses words. Therefore you do not have the premise required to conclude that this proposition "a complex thought doesn’t need words any more than does a simple thought" is false. You have provided no indication that complex thought needs words.

But insight is present or it is absent, and there is no method, or training, or process or 'way' towards it. That is mere knowledge that is accumulated over time. — unenlightened

Well, it's like I said, I don't really understand what you mean by "insight". How can there be no way or process toward it? Is its appearance magical? Or are you saying that it's something one is either born with or not? If so, would a young child have insight? And if a child cannot have insight, how is it developed, if not through magic?

Of course they are. Simple arithmetic is too. I didn't say they aren't. I said "Using probabilities and statistics in any framework of thought, philosophical or other, is not mathematizing." So, you should most probably check the meaning of the word "mathematize".
It's one thing to use use probabilities in discussing a subject and another thing to consider or treat a subject as a mathematical one (i.e, "mathematize" it.) Because then, all mathematical questions and problems could be considered also as philosophical ones! — Alkis Piskas

So if using mathematics in a field of study does not constitute mathematizing it, then what does? Is physics mathematized? Is music mathematized?

Give me a break. Are you going to produce your offer or not?

The offer made to 'Praxis' is open to anyone who wishes to take me up. He couldn't, but maybe you can? let's have some fun on neutral grounds — skyblack

I'm game. What's this offer to Praxis?

You're no fun. Every time you think you see a weasel you run and hide.

I assume that everyone I converse with here is a person, so "I" is very relevant because a person has personality. And if you are a bot, or in some other way not a person, then "I" in that case, is even more relevant.

The measurement of what you are saying ( a response to what i had said) is determined by the motive behind any 'amendments'. If the amendments are done to upgrade one's weaponry, or to create a patched blanket to weather the assault of debate/regimentation, or to create a mental intellectual crutch etc.....which are the usual reasons why weasels amend.... are usually done to strengthen the image that one has it down. And to project that image outwards. — skyblack

You are characterizing the person who changes one's position as a "weasel", instead of seeing the person as open minded, and ready to accept change. There are two principal reasons for changing one's position, one is the "weasel" reason, the other the open minded reason.

However, considering the rarity of the second possibility, as evidenced by observing what is going on around us (an observation available to all), the likelihood of the second possibility was discarded in light of the common occurrences of the first possibility. — skyblack

Ever think that perhaps you misinterpret the situation around you? You see people all around you changing their positions, and you conclude that they are all weasels, because you have some predisposition to judge them this way. The weasel changes its position, therefore the person who changes position is a weasel. But in reality many of them are just open minded people.

What would cause you to see these people in this way? Is it because that's the reason why you would change your position, you are a weasel?

That some complex thoughts use words does not mean that all complex thoughts use words.