Rookhersts Handguide to Getting started in Philosophy... | Page 1 | EDE Main | Guild Forums

Rookherst[KOS]

Offline

Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:56 pm

This isn't your typical intro To Philosophy type guide. I won't be giving many (if any) names and dates, and certainly won't be positing any metaphysical arguments.

The Nature of this guide is to provide others with a working knowledge about the mechanics of Philosophy. I've noticed in the ED, on that rare occasion when a thread starts moving into a philosophical Discussion, that people are unfamiliar with the basic tenets of Philosophy and how to carry out a conversation.

Like all projects like this, I fully intend this to be a Living Guide. I'll start with a few of the Basics and Fundamentals and update as needed.

The First thing that needs to be Covered before I can get to anything else is understanding the Socratic method, more specifically Socratic questioning. Rather then Directly Refuting, simply questioning is a far more useful tool and expert use of it can cause ones Interlocutor to refute their own thesis's/ argument.

For the sake of this guide though, we are focusing on the questioning aspect. If you seek further information on the full extent of the Socratic Method I would recommend this PDF file on the subject.

The Secret to questioning is contained in a four category's of questions:
1. Opposing thoughts or Objections (How could Someone else look at this? Why do you think your way of looking at it better? How would you awnser the Following statement....)
2. Implications and Consequences ( Are you implying...? Does that mean...? What happens when...?)
3. Origin/Source ( How did you come to this thought/ Conclusion?)
4.Support, reasons, evidence, and assumptions (How do you know? Are you assuming that …? Is this a good assumption? What evidence do you have?)

With this Basis I can now move into Specific questions and terms which hold great importance in any Philosophical discourse...

Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 2:37 pm

Definitions

Keeping in line with Questioning...one of the most powerful questions one can use is actually simple as all Hell. When used Appropriately it creates a discussion with the maximum amount of clarity and and mitigation of ideals from one person to the other.

It is to simply ask for a definition of an ambiguous word, the trick is determining what is an Ambiguous word, and how to define that word.

Now here is where things get kinda odd, Generally a Dictionary definition is not an acceptable definition. You see Dictionary meanings are collections of common definitions, and they treat words as concretes. The Philosopher understands that words are abstracts which represent either a singular ideal or a collection of ideals as a group. For Perfect clarity it is therefore fitting that the Interlocutor define the word as they understand it, in their own words.

Here we get to which words are in need of such examination. The Rule of thumb here is to ask for a definition of critical words which can be the subject of a discourse in their own right.

Let me provide an example of such a use of asking for a Definition, with an exiting dialogue between two Famous Philosophers rather dimwitted distant relations. Meet Sokrates and Pleto. (Sew-crates; Plea-Toe)

Pleto: It is proven that Food is tasty
Sokrates: Could you define Proven?
Pleto: Surely. To be Proven is to show with factual evidences which are Cumulative.
Sokrates: I'm sorry, but before we go back to the food...can you define Cumulative in relation to such evidences?
Pleto: Meaning they build upon each other, and are related in nature.
Sokrates: Ah, I see.

It is in this manner that the Philosopher can begin to clearly understand what his fellow is saying, and thus can use the Four categories of questions in the above Post to further explore the Subject.

Rookherst[KOS]

Offline

IcarusDream

Offline

Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2007 1:45 pm

Could you describe how some can say that the Law of Non Contradiction doesn't necessarily apply in metaphysical situations?

Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2007 5:38 am

IcarusDream

Could you describe how some can say that the Law of Non Contradiction doesn't necessarily apply in metaphysical situations?

That's Getting more into actual Philosophy rather then the prosscess of discussing philosophy.

But could you explain further what it is your asking?

Rookherst[KOS]

Offline

IcarusDream

Offline

Posted: Sat Oct 27, 2007 3:24 pm

The thought came up while discussing the existence of the trinity, assuming the correctness of commonly accepted Christian Scripture.

I took the position that it would not exist as it is described to exist, as Thomas Jefferson put it: "It is too late in the day for men of sincerity to pretend they believe in the Platonic mysticisms that three are one, and one is three; and yet that the one is not three, and the three are not one . . . But this constitutes the craft, the power and the profit of the priests."

Yet..Many Christian faiths still hold this contradictory statement, and from what I've heard, the defense is that the LNC need not apply to solely metaphysical or spiritual situations.

Welcome to Gaia! ::

Gaia Guilds

Extended Discussion Encyclopedia

Quick Reply

More Information