I feel that there are some topics in psychology that science cannot handle such as the problem of self or subconsciousness or explanation on the premonitions and etc. They are studied and explained in the mystic approaches like from Freud and Jung's.

But there are definitely topics that can be and must be tackled in scientific methods such as diagnosing depression anxiety problems. For these problems, they carry out lots of scientific experiments and tests on the mass of people with the suspected symptoms. They have the clearly and fully established theories to the causes, symptoms and also possible treatments for the problems. In that regard, it is a fully established science.

Psychology is a wide area with the large number of different topics, branches of disciplines and schools. Some are classic mysticism forms, and some are fully scientific. A diverse and flexible subject.

What do you believe as the causes for emotions? Are some emotions caused by purely bodily states? Some by thoughts and perceptions? Do they have some common grounds for the processes and existence?

Framing it as a matter of "belief" is to make the topic exterior to experience by default. — Valentinus

Can the framed beliefs without objective evidence and rational verification be subjects of the philosophical debates? Should they be in the realm of one's personal faith issue which are outside of objective logical investigations?

Enjoy your drinks. Gracias. Hasta la vista.

The attributed predicates of the described deity entail changes (events happening) in / to the world e.g. "parting of the red sea" "creation of the world in six days" or "second coming prophesy". — 180 Proof

Aha - they are from the Old Testaments, which are the scripts. I thought you are claiming to be able to observe the entailed changes now, by yourself directly and able to verify them yourself. If one believes what is written in the bible, then he would be believing surely God existence.

In possible world, they do. Everything is contingent.

I think therefore I am. Isn't that all we can know? — Down The Rabbit Hole

I know this is my hands in front of me. :clap: (waving and clapping). I am not thinking anything.

it's undefined and vague, therefore only an idea, not an existing entity. — 180 Proof

When some entailed changes are observed, it seems impossible to tell exactly what was causing the changes due to above mentioned undefinedness, vagueness and non existing substance of God.

If nothing can be known, — Cidat

then the rest of the sentence cannot be known.

if these entailed changes (events) are observed, then such a g/G must exist. So yes, in this way, it is quite reasonable to expect that such a g/G can be demonstrated to exist or not exist. — 180 Proof

What if those entailed / observed changes are by some other unknown / unverified causes such as super natural forces, ghosts or paranormal existence? How do you distinguish and verify which is which?

A great and interesting post. Thank you.

Faith is the belief without rational and verified evidences by leaping into the abyss unconditionally and blindly. Would it be rational / possible trying to prove God or God existence via rational means such as the logical debates?

If it's a delusion, more fool me! — Cuthbert

Here is a quote, I found.

“If one must have faith in order to believe something, or believe in something, then the likelihood of that something having any truth or value is considerably diminished. The harder work of inquiry, proof, and demonstration is infinitely more rewarding, and has confronted us with findings far more "miraculous" and "transcendent" than any theology. Actually, the "leap of faith"—to give it the memorable name that Soren Kierkegaard bestowed upon it—is an imposture. As he himself pointed out, it is not a "leap" that can be made once and for all. It is a leap that has to go on and on being performed, in spite of mounting evidence to the contrary. This effort is actually too much for the human mind, and leads to delusions and manias. Religion understands perfectly well that the "leap" is subject to sharply diminishing returns, which is why it often doesn't in fact rely on "faith" at all but instead corrupts faith and insults reason by offering evidence and pointing to confected "proofs." This evidence and these proofs include arguments from design, revelations, punishments, and miracles. Now that religion's monopoly has been broken, it is within the compass of any human being to see these evidences and proofs as the feeble-minded inventions that they are.”
― Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything

"What does it all mean? - a very short introduction to philosophy" by Thomas Nagel, OXFORD

I used to think the Oxford Handbook Series were for the new articles on the Philosophical topics. But found out that they are mostly 10 - 20 years old papers. Cannot beat the Online sources for the most current contents due to the constant updates they get.

I visit Philosophy Now time to time. Found it good for the books recommendations and some current stuff.

What I would be able to accept more, is that people may have more knowledge of the self as they approach death, in terms of reflection. I often think that the extent which we know ourselves is often in retrospect, because we don't always know who we are fully until we are placed in specific circumstances., That is because these may stretch us beyond the predictable, and may even change our innermost sense of self — Jack Cummins

Sure. An inspiring and deep thought on the point. :up: :fire:

There seem many university lecturers, artists, writers and researchers of the subject, active on Twitter, twitting about their current interests and activities on the topics minute by minute from every part of the world.

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.