So you admire your own philosophical sophistication, you build up your own individual preferences as to what you consider is an admirable persona, that is you identify yourself to this image, sophisticated philosopher, and anyone who breaks the rules with their own philosophical speculation such as I am doing right now in this very mail is deemed a threat to that way of philosophy and therefore that image and persona?

So what do you do with threat to the ego? You strive to rid yourself (EGO) of that threat this is reasoning of the deeper layers of myself, therefore it is free thinking and it is philosophy, but it is new to youi because it is not bounded by rules.

Ozay

You've asked a fair question (albeit in rather particular terms), so I owe you as fair an answer as I can give. Your first remark called into question my "personal preferences". As the most superficial glance would show, there are very great differences between my preferences and those of others posting in this group; and it'll be seen that these differences can at times lead to hard words. However, I usually react in kind when my preferences are attacked by stressing what I consider to be the advantages of my point of view and the weaknesses of my opponents'. This approach is common to trained philosophers.

You represent no threat to my 'ego', though you do represent a threat to our common image. You don't reject rules, Ozay - you want to impose yours; and your rules have nothing to with philosophy. If you want "free thinking", become a surrealist - what you're doing is confusing doxastics with epistemics, and both with metaphysics.

If you could cut it right down to the most simple words how would you describe the aim of philosophy, or what is the purpose ultimate aim of philosophy? Please try to explain in as few words as possible.

The word, 'philosophy' means the 'love of wisdom.' The term was used by Socrates, who wished to separate himself from the 'sophists' or teachers of ancient Greece, who promised to teach a variety of subjects, particularly, rhetoric. Socrates said that he did not claim to be wise, as the sophists did, but merely to love wisdom.

Wisdom is a somewhat confusing term. In Greek thought, it simply means knowledge. Thus the philosopher is one who loves to know.

And "To Know"? does this not mean to come to "TRUTH"

Just to "LOVE" wisdom, has little meaning other to love some thing that could be inanimate, it could be understood that though one loves wisdom, but one may have no wisdom, so where does philosophy help this to happen?

Can one be wise just by Loving wisdom? It hardly seems likely that, that is the meaning I would say one has to make some form of effort to come "To Know"

OR: "Can one be wise just by Loving wisdom? It hardly seems likely that, that is the meaning I would say one has to make some form of effort to come 'To Know.'"

Certainly one who loves wisdom will seek it.

Much has changed since Socrates' day. Much of what was once considered to be the domain of philosophy has been taken over by the various sciences... physics, chemistry, etc. What remains is what doesn't fit nicely into any of the specialized disciplines. Much of that is what can be called 'methodology.' Beyond that there is metaphysics, the science of being in general.

Aristotle laid much importance on knowing the causes of being...

"all men suppose what is called Wisdom to deal with the first causes and the principles of things; so that, as has been said before, the man of experience is thought to be wiser than the possessors of any sense-perception whatever, the artist wiser than the men of experience, the masterworker than the mechanic, and the theoretical kinds of knowledge to be more of the nature of Wisdom than the productive. Clearly then Wisdom is knowledge about certain principles and causes."

~ Aristotle; ***Metaphysics;*** Book 1; Part 1.

One should not confuse wisdom with prudence. Wisdom is knowledge --- especially, the knowledge of principles and causes. Prudence is sound judgment. I suspect you are much more interested in the latter than the former. A man may be very wise, knowing much, yet be a fool, lacking prudence.

If all mans ultimate aim is to attain happiness or peace or even tranquillity seemingly they are all branches from the same tree, then are we to say the man who finds the shortest route to this place within the self is the wise man?

What do we call a wise man otherwise? Some one who has all the answers for other people but cannot find the answers to his own happiness?

If we consider all people in our society, what are we all taught from beginning about happiness? We are taught that we need to learn, get a degree in higher education get a good job with good money a good wife, hopefully with good children then we will be happy.

Yet the most famous who get all of those things cannot deal with what we call success and it brings all these thing we think will give happiness.

Where do we go then to find happiness and what tool will give that road to happiness?

Many questions to answer Bill.

:O)

OR: "Where do we go then to find happiness and what tool will give that road to happiness?"

Clearly you wish to be prudent.

It is said that Euclid was once engaged in teaching geometry to King Ptolemy. The king found it very difficult and began to complain to Euclid, that there surely must be a way of teaching geometry that would be better fitted to his royal condition. Euclid responded, "There is no royal road to geometry."

Similarly, Charles Sanders Peirce, in his "How to Make Our Ideas Clear" (1878), says, "There is no royal road to logic, and really valuable ideas can only be had at the price of close attention."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Road

And I would add that there is no royal road to philosophy. It is a difficult study to say the least. I have been studying it for most of my life.

As to happiness... there is no royal road there either. Some seek it through theology, some through psychology, some through friendship, some through wealth, some through pleasure.

All I will say in the context of this group is that men should seek the four virtues... wisdom, self-control, courage and sound judgment.

And I may object if someone makes certain religious claims... which directly and seriously contradict my own views. If I do so it will be with great care that I do not say more than I mean. Indeed, I have at times been accused of being an atheist, though nothing could be further from the truth... for I will not discuss my own views here, beyond what I see as consistent with the purposes of this group.

What I see is a common issue concerning many things here is a rock solid 'BELIEF' it has made the mind to inflexible, my belief is my belief and I am not changing for no one, it's a problem for free thinking because of the fact one identifies to belief so it makes this inflexibility, and I can see that it stagnates your "OWN" free thinking, you have become to complex, when wisdom is the most simplest thing ie I have a problem I fear falling from this height. Simple answer don't 'THINK' about how high it is it works for many people.

This answer is to simple for a complex mind to understand, he would rather tell himself it is a mental illness because it is called acrophobia and it is logged as so in the pharmaceutical journal, and therefore it is now medical rather than just a mind issue that can be resolved by pure reasoning that is what has stagnated this discourse.

PS Acrophobia is just an example of what I mean in many other aspects where belief is a problem for free thinking.

Shall we go back to the question and address the question I asked about philosophy.

What is "WISDOM"? Can you focus just on this question considering it is at the roots of philosophy?

"Wisdom is knowledge about certain principles and causes."

~ Aristotle; ***Metaphysics;*** Book 1; Part 1.

Where are the certain principles and causes, are they outside of a man or are they inside of a man these certain principles and causes?

That's a matter of dispute. According to Aristotle there are four causes... the material cause, the formal cause, the final cause and the efficient cause.

As to principles, I suppose Aristotle would start with the ten 'categories...' substance, quantity, relation, quality, time, space, action, passion, state and position.

Great answer Bill and Russell, but still I 'FEEL' there is some thing missing call it intuition, does that word have any ground in philosophy? Any way to the topic:

A simple question for me to ask, what is wisdom? And; "mans wisdom" is wisdom to have inner wisdom ie He finds answers to his own life thereby giving him inner peace contentment joy and happiness he has found inner equilibrium that keeps him free from all those negativities of mind, and he has also found the answer to the external influences that may of had control over his own mind, and by finding the ingredients to having "OWN" inner peace, (Equilibrium) he therefore has the ingredients for other people also to have their inner peace. Therefore he can advise for the so called unwise who have not got those ingredients of wisdom.

And for those people who are wise, where would we say they had been given this wisdom from? Can we say from genetics, environment or from a bit of both? Or is there some way they "Process" their own minds so that they can see things more clearly ie a mind discipline that the unwise do not have.

For instance can you focus your attention on one issue sufficiently to come to a wise answer if your mind has many many other thoughts running through it to much data or over flow of thought, possibly creating the unwise.

And if a man has the ability to stem all thoughts except the issue itself will that ability to focus mean he will come up with better answers, that is he comes up with the wisest answers ?

A metaphor could fit this bill: If we fill a barrel with water and the barrel has many leaks in it none of the leaks have any force, yet if we can block the leaks and only keep one leak open then this has all the energy or all the focus and a better answer is given.

In this analogy we could say wisdom is about the ability to have self mental discipline and total focus, which can be trained, therefore that would not make it totally genetic though genetics and environment cannot be ruled out.

Does any body agree with this analogy of Wisdom?

If not can you point out where you think this analogy fails specifically?

RT: "As every old belief system is successfully challenged over time, just as life itself evolves , why is it so common to insult the intellect by offering some popular BELIEF set, apparently set in stone?"

Words have meanings. I was asked to explain the meaning of 'philosophy.' I answered that the term means the 'love of meaning' and further explained its history going back to Socrates.

I further indicated that the word 'wisdom' (σοφία) has changed meanings. In the Greek usage it means knowledge, especially, the knowledge of principles and causes.

I also indicated that in modern English, the word 'wisdom' is frequently used to mean prudence or sound judgment.

Please let me know where I have said something incorrectly. I would love to be corrected, as it is the way to learn. Failing such correction, I shall continue using the word in the way philosophers use it. For this group is related to philosophy, not to 'pop psychology.'

OR: "Does any body agree with this analogy of Wisdom?"

I was asked to explain the meaning of 'philosophy.' The word is derived from the Greek word, φιλοσοφία which can be further broken down into φιλο, meaning 'love' and σοφία, meaning wisdom.

According to Aristotle, the Greek word σοφία means knowledge of principles and causes. To put this into context, I reproduce the text from ***Metaphysics,*** Book I, Part 1...

"ALL men by nature desire to know. An indication of this is the delight we take in our senses; for even apart from their usefulness they are loved for themselves; and above all others the sense of sight. For not only with a view to action, but even when we are not going to do anything, we prefer seeing (one might say) to everything else. The reason is that this, most of all the senses, makes us know and brings to light many differences between things.

"By nature animals are born with the faculty of sensation, and from sensation memory is produced in some of them, though not in others. And therefore the former are more intelligent and apt at learning than those which cannot remember; those which are incapable of hearing sounds are intelligent though they cannot be taught, e.g. the bee, and any other race of animals that may be like it; and those which besides memory have this sense of hearing can be taught.

"The animals other than man live by appearances and memories, and have but little of connected experience; but the human race lives also by art and reasonings. Now from memory experience is produced in men; for the several memories of the same thing produce finally the capacity for a single experience. And experience seems pretty much like science and art, but really science and art come to men through experience; for 'experience made art', as Polus says, 'but inexperience luck.' Now art arises when from many notions gained by experience one universal judgement about a class of objects is produced. For to have a judgement that when Callias was ill of this disease this did him good, and similarly in the case of Socrates and in many individual cases, is a matter of experience; but to judge that it has done good to all persons of a certain constitution, marked off in one class, when they were ill of this disease, e.g. to phlegmatic or bilious people when burning with fevers-this is a matter of art.

"With a view to action experience seems in no respect inferior to art, and men of experience succeed even better than those who have theory without experience. (The reason is that experience is knowledge of individuals, art of universals, and actions and productions are all concerned with the individual; for the physician does not cure man, except in an incidental way, but Callias or Socrates or some other called by some such individual name, who happens to be a man. If, then, a man has the theory without the experience, and recognizes the universal but does not know the individual included in this, he will often fail to cure; for it is the individual that is to be cured.) But yet we think that knowledge and understanding belong to art rather than to experience, and we suppose artists to be wiser than men of experience (which implies that Wisdom depends in all cases rather on knowledge); and this because the former know the cause, but the latter do not. For men of experience know that the thing is so, but do not know why, while the others know the 'why' and the cause. Hence we think also that the masterworkers in each craft are more honourable and know in a truer sense and are wiser than the manual workers, because they know the causes of the things that are done (we think the manual workers are like certain lifeless things which act indeed, but act without knowing what they do, as fire burns,-but while the lifeless things perform each of their functions by a natural tendency, the labourers perform them through habit); thus we view them as being wiser not in virtue of being able to act, but of having the theory for themselves and knowing the causes. And in general it is a sign of the man who knows and of the man who does not know, that the former can teach, and therefore we think art more truly knowledge than experience is; for artists can teach, and men of mere experience cannot.

"Again, we do not regard any of the senses as Wisdom; yet surely these give the most authoritative knowledge of particulars. But they do not tell us the 'why' of anything-e.g. why fire is hot; they only say that it is hot.

"At first he who invented any art whatever that went beyond the common perceptions of man was naturally admired by men, not only because there was something useful in the inventions, but because he was thought wise and superior to the rest. But as more arts were invented, and some were directed to the necessities of life, others to recreation, the inventors of the latter were naturally always regarded as wiser than the inventors of the former, because their branches of knowledge did not aim at utility. Hence when all such inventions were already established, the sciences which do not aim at giving pleasure or at the necessities of life were discovered, and first in the places where men first began to have leisure. This is why the mathematical arts were founded in Egypt; for there the priestly caste was allowed to be at leisure.

"We have said in the Ethics what the difference is between art and science and the other kindred faculties; but the point of our present discussion is this, that all men suppose what is called Wisdom to deal with the first causes and the principles of things; so that, as has been said before, the man of experience is thought to be wiser than the possessors of any sense-perception whatever, the artist wiser than the men of experience, the masterworker than the mechanic, and the theoretical kinds of knowledge to be more of the nature of Wisdom than the productive. Clearly then Wisdom is knowledge about certain principles and causes."

~ Aristotle; ***Metaphysics;*** Book I; Part 1

http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/metaphysics.1.i.html

RT: "The legacy clearly remains to this day, and thus the hatred amplified among otherwise decent men. "

Hatred? The whole point of dialectic is rational, dispassionate discussion.

RT: "Bill elaborate the obvious, whilst dispensing scripts from Aristotles dated book, which is where the problem lies."

I was asked a question, "what does 'philosophy' mean?" I answered it: It means the love of wisdom. I explained that Socrates did not consider himself wise. He said, however, that he loved wisdom. I was asked "what does 'wisdom' mean?" I explained that frequently the word is confused with prudence. In fact, wisdom as it relates to philosophy, means the knowledge of certain principles and causes.

You may hate me or not as you please. I don't really care. I will not change my answer to please you. I am too much of a 'freethinker' for that.

Prudent meaning: Of a person or conduct, careful to avoid undesired consequences; circumspect.

Wisdom meaning: 1A state of being wise.2experience and knowledge together with the power of applying them critically or practically.3 Sagacity, prudence common sense.

Take note of the 3rd meaning of wisdom : Sagacity, "prudence" common sense.

And how the word prudence is incorporated into the meaning, which basically leave your argument for getting the meaning of prudence and wisdom mixed up as being void taking into account they belong together, "THIS" is the problem in philosophy if this is all philosophers do is play around only with the words, you spend a lot of time having to look up the words only to see you are going around and around in circle's progress very very slow hence 30 years of studying philosophy amounts to very little progress.

As the discussion was sabotaged I will now bring it back to the original topic and here again forgive me but we were usurped, we have to be brought back to the arguments beginning:

(1)If you could cut it right down to the most simple words how would you describe the aim of philosophy, or what is the purpose ultimate aim of philosophy? Please try to explain in as few words as possible.

(2)And "To Know"? does this not mean to come to "TRUTH"

Just to "LOVE" wisdom, has little meaning other to love some thing that could be inanimate, it could be understood that though one loves wisdom, but one may have no wisdom, so where does philosophy help this to happen?

(3)Can one be wise just by Loving wisdom? It hardly seems likely that, that is the meaning I would say one has to make some form of effort to come "To Know"

(4)If all mans ultimate aim is to attain happiness or peace or even tranquillity seemingly they are all branches from the same tree, then are we to say the man who finds the shortest route to this place within the self is the wise man?

What do we call a wise man otherwise? Some one who has all the answers for other people but cannot find the answers to his own happiness?

If we consider all people in our society, what are we all taught from beginning about happiness? We are taught that we need to learn, get a degree in higher education get a good job with good money a good wife, hopefully with good children then we will be happy.

Yet the most famous who get all of those things cannot deal with what we call success and it brings all these thing we think will give happiness.

Where do we go then to find happiness and what tool will give that road to happiness?

Many questions to answer Bill.

:O)

The word, 'philosophy' (φιλοσοφία) comes from two Greek words, φιλο and σοφία. The word, φιλο means love. The word, σοφία, as it relates to philosophy, means the knowledge of certain principles and causes.

I will not change my answer to please you. I am too much of a 'freethinker' for that.

So we would coin the meaning as having a love of the knowledge of cause and effect. Am I right?

We must always remember also that when we quote from sources that are some 5-6 thousands years old slight defintions are changed and this can mean that the full definition can be lost, for even in our own time we have changed meanings of words, now when you go back that amount of time and you have one meaning that has become even slightly altered then translated and re-translated then the change of meaning to words, then ultimately what you have is a very unreliable source of information.

If your compass is just one degree off course then by the time you get to your planned destination you can be 100's of miles off target and that is what I am seeing in some discourse here whn you bring old reference books into the topic at hand, it throws everyone off track, to be lost forever more, that is philosophy may of once had great significance as a science but has been thrown off course, I cannot see a bunch of philosophers from all that time ago just playing around with usless word meanings and getting nothing out of it, there had to be a good reason, I would say it was about inner liberation, otherwise it would have been a useless exercise, or am I wrong.

If so please point it out to me in simple words that the every day man would understand, spending hours looking up meanings of unusual words just to find they were words that could have been given more commonly used words and phrases.

No disrespect meant to this group.

PS modern meaning is where we are at, and you can see where it has all gone wrong, shall we try not to get personal but rather stay detached from the ultimate truth gain no matter who it comes from is that a deal?

OR: "If so please point it out to me in simple words that the every day man would understand, spending hours looking up meanings of unusual words just to find they were words that could have been given more commonly used words and phrases."

I was asked a question, "What does 'philosophy' mean?" I have done my best to answer that. I do not know why it is so difficult to understand. You will have to determine the source of your problem.

OR: "modern meaning is where we are at, and you can see where it has all gone wrong"

I understand and tried at first to explain the matter in modern English. But when that failed I had to go back to the Greek.

OR: "If your compass is just one degree off course then by the time you get to your planned destination you can be 100's of miles off target."

Right. You kept confusing wisdom with prudence. Thus the need for the course correction.

OR: "If so please point it out to me in simple words that the every day man would understand, spending hours looking up meanings of unusual words just to find they were words that could have been given more commonly used words and phrases."

I think I do that. I do not spend hours looking up unusual words in order to confuse anyone. I generally try to say ***exactly*** what I mean, no more or less. I am a mathematician and computer programmer by training and do my best to employ precise logic to philosophy... to the degree --- that is --- that the subject admits.

When I look up something I do my best to provide a proper reference note. If you need further explanation just ask and I will do what I can to clear up any confusion.

OR: "shall we try not to get personal but rather stay detached from the ultimate truth gain no matter who it comes from is that a deal?"

I always do my utmost to avoid any sort of 'ad hominem' comment. I think that if you look over what I have written you will see that I have tried my best to be patient and even long-suffering in the face of repeated, obvious and deliberate 'ad hominem' comments which you have made about my ego, etc.

We have already seen one important contributor leave the discussion for a two-week hiatus out of a desire to avoid the 'ad hominem' comments directed at him. I do not wish to lose any other contributor. I think that if you will stop the personal comments you will find others all too willing to go along with that. You will certainly not find me objecting.

OR: "So we would coin the meaning as having a love of the knowledge of cause and effect. Am I right?"

Cause and effect are principles. But there certainly are others.

Typically the terms 'cause and effect' are now used only of the efficient cause. Aristotle considered four causes: material, formal, efficient and final.

Personally though, I would say that there are causes corresponding to each of the 'categories.'

Would you not say that for every effect there has to be a cause? That basically covers every aspect of mind right out to the universe, everything arises by some cause, it takes us back to this again: energy cannot be destroyed but it is transformed, so cause and effect would demonstrate that principle?

It has been demonstrated already that prudence and wisdom are one and the same thing.

OR: "energy cannot be destroyed but it is transformed..."

I do not claim that energy can not be destroyed. There certainly are theories in which energy is created. There seems to be no 'a priori' reason to claim that it can not be destroyed.

OR: "Would you not say that for every effect there has to be a cause?"

Every effect is, by definition, the effect of something, its cause. Saying that, however, doesn't eliminate the possibility of something being uncaused. Such a thing would simply not be an effect.

OR: "so cause and effect would demonstrate that principle?"

I don't know that there is such a principle. If it were true, I suppose you could relate it to cause and effect.

The efficient cause to which you refer is --- I think --- the least interesting sort of cause. The final cause is --- in my humble opinion --- the most interesting. It is far from clear that it can be reduced to the transfer of energy.

OR: "It has been demonstrated already that prudence and wisdom are one and the same thing."

Nothing of the sort has been 'demonstrated.' In fact they are significantly different. Wisdom is the knowledge of principles and causes. Prudence is sound judgment. One can know much about the former and yet be a fool in practice.

These descriptions have been directly copied out of the Concise Oxford dictionary, take note of one of the sentences given to the meaning of Wisdom: Sagacity, "PRUDENCE" common sense.

And "PRUDENT" meaning: Of a person or conduct, careful to avoid undesired consequences; circumspect.

Wisdom meaning: 1A state of being wise.2experience and knowledge together with the power of applying them critically or practically.3 Sagacity, "PRUDENCE" common sense.

Take note of the 3rd meaning of wisdom : Sagacity, "prudence" common sense.

And how the word prudence is incorporated into the meaning, which basically leave your argument for getting the meaning of prudence and wisdom mixed up as being void taking into account they belong together, "THIS" is the problem in philosophy if this is all philosophers do is play around only with the words, you spend a lot of time having to look up the words only to see you are going around and around in circle's progress very very slow hence 30 years of studying philosophy amounts to very little progress.

OR: "And how the word prudence is incorporated into the meaning, which basically leave your argument for getting the meaning of prudence and wisdom mixed up as being void taking into account they belong together, "THIS" is the problem in philosophy if this is all philosophers do is play around only with the words, you spend a lot of time having to look up the words only to see you are going around and around in circle's progress very very slow hence 30 years of studying philosophy amounts to very little progress."

The discussion group I am posting to is dedicated to 'Philosophy,' not pop psychology. I use the word as it has been used by the great philosophers. It doesn't bother me that you would use it differently. Many words are used in a variety of senses. In philosophy such words are called homonyms.

The proper use of the word in philosophy may cause some people to spend 30 years going in circles. That's not my problem. It took me all of 5 seconds to get the idea. It's really not that complex.

If the great Philosophers use it in your way and the British Oxford Concise Dictionary explain it in another way, then this means what I was saying earlier that the meaning has changed, and that is likely why Philosophy has strayed off course, it is as I have said, if the compass is just one small degree out at the beginning of the journey then by the time you get to the end of the journey it is going to be many miles off course, having the wrong meaning of the most basic words in philosophy is just taking you a million miles off course, you and the old philosophers have given Wisdom and prudence one meaning, and today wisdom are given another meaning, I cannot change the Oxford dictionary for you, you have to change according to the Oxford dictionary.

Bill if you cannot accept the Oxford dictionaries meaning of these words that means we cannot speak about this issue any further until we can accept what the meaning of philosophy is, and that should be settled by a dictionary, if you don't accept that then you have to be wrong and if you have studied with these kind of fundamental precepts miss-placed for that 30 years then no wonder we cannot see eye to eye, your philosophy has different meaning, it has a different structure given to it than modern words will give to it, if meanings have changed then you have to change, like the word gay has changed it meaning it is just a natural occurrence you have to check out in order to be accurate with your understandings.

OR: "If the great Philosophers use it in your way and the British Oxford Concise Dictionary explain it in another way, then this means what I was saying earlier that the meaning has changed, and that is likely why Philosophy has strayed off course."

What is likely is that words have multiple meanings. Every discipline has word usages which are unique to it. Physics does, mathematics does, chemistry does... and philosophy does.

The problem seems to be that you are unwilling to learn philosophy. That's fine. There are plenty of places where you can discuss pop psychology.

RT: "The legacy clearly remains to this day, and thus the hatred amplified among otherwise decent men."

There is no hatred, but that which you have imagined. Why accuse "otherwise decent men" of hatred? It makes little sense to me. Stick to the dialectic and leave hatred out of our discussion.

RT: "I note Bills further comment, about my hating again ( this time personal ) - not a philosophers rationale."

If you read what I wrote you will see that I didn't say that you hate anyone. I simply said that I don't care whether you hate me or not. That certainly seemed appropriate given your comment on hatred. Context is important. Switching the context from Aristotle's quote which said nothing about hatred to a discussion of "division between camps" is quite a stretch. Clearly Aristotle said nothing to suggest such a division.

What I said was correct... I don't really care... I will not change my answer to please you. I am too much of a 'freethinker' for that.

RT: "Unless philosophic members live in a bubble , without interaction except for the dialectic - the context of pertinent life must shape the dialectic as dialectic shapes life."

Short attention span?

RT: "Please explain what I imagine, when stockmarket crashes create desperation, and crime swells ? Or when learned men of law take advantage of a clients ignorance of law & reduce his freedom or ruin his life ? Or when it becomes dangerous to walk to the corner shop , in certain countries , all this is context."

I would recommend the four virtues: wisdom, self-control, courage and sound judgment.

RT: "Why another nonsense, clinging to Aristotle your perceived quantum jump?"

There is no clinging to Aristotle. You imagine that. I don't even like Aristotle. He was a genius, however, and I honor his genius, though I dislike his style.

RT: "I cannot see evidence of free thinking."

It takes an fiercely independent mind to look back to ancient wisdom. You can not do that, but I can. If I quote Aristotle when it suits me, I do so. But no Scholastic philosopher would consider me to be a Scholastic. I also quote C. S. Peirce from time to time, but no Pragmatist would consider me to be a Pragmatist.

I am really developing a new synthesis of Scholastic thought and Pragmatism. I know of no one else who is doing that, today. So yes, I think for myself.

RT: "Belief systems create so much general anger in the observable world."

Certainly, atheistic thought systems have led to the death of 150 million people over the past hundred years. We need to get beyond that.

But it has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject under consideration.

RT: "How can that be, when I speak of others manifested hatred, as a philosophical element?"

Hatred is not a philosophical 'element.' It certainly has no part in the discussion of metaphysics. You are letting your imagination get away from you. To a carpenter, every task requires a hammer. Philosophy, however, requires great flexibility. If one can't do metaphysics, then it is best to steer clear of it. Socrates thought one should not study philosophy until one is forty years old. I wouldn't go quite so far, but he had a point. Philosophy requires discipline and maturity, as well as intelligence.

#H1-111: i have complete reading this thread {Flames} : [Is any thing there in the 2 pages!]:

OR: Wisdom: "So we would coin the meaning as having a love of the knowledge of cause and effect. Am I right?"

BO: Wisdom: "Cause and effect are principles. But there certainly are others."

@*. 1. I do not understand if meanings of words should be insisted to be limited within our/one's understanding? Why not allow some additivity operator when two or more people hold two or more different [hopefully not opposite! ; by the way, that's my patent!] meanings. [I am not suggesting we abandon communicable language.]

2. It will be interesting to see what understanding we can newly derive by combining experience+prudence. In about 1980s, i was interested in combining concepts, and even ideas, and see what is the result. Some examples may be biogeography for the latter. For the former, an equation i declared: Intelligence + Innocence = Retardence. I forgot the several others. Were they useful? I certainly think in the positive, they made me?

3. Cause and effect: Is there cause and effect in non-science? I further wonder, is there some thing at all non-scientific? I think every thing that exists does so in science. Including stock market prices, or history lists, or sports scores. For this we need a science that's multiply boundaries defined? Anyway, finally all such will overlap and merge?

SN: "I do not understand if meanings of words should be insisted to be limited within our/one's understanding?"

Words have meanings in context. I was asked the meaning of the word, 'philosophy.' I explained the history of the term... that it comes from the Greek words, φιλο and σοφία, meaning the 'love of wisdom.' I then explained how the word, σοφία means the knowledge of principles and causes, giving the relevant quotation from Aristotle. I would further argue that the meaning Aristotle gave is consistent with the way Socrates used the term.

I certainly recognize the fact that the English word, 'wisdom' is frequently used to mean prudence or sound judgment. Thus it is not exactly equivalent to the term, σοφία. I don't know how I can make the matter any clearer than that.

SN "Intelligence + Innocence = Retardence."

'Retardence' means "The difference in phase shift between two characteristic polarizations of light upon reflection from an interface. Retardance can be reported in the Abelès or Mueller conventions. The retardance phase shift angle is often specified in degrees."

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/retardance

The word is derived from 'retardant.' In chemistry it means "any substance capable of reducing the speed of a given reaction."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/retardant?qsrc=2446

And it is somewhat related to 'retarded' "characterized by retardation: a retarded child."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/retarded

I don't see how any of those meanings (except possibly the last) fits into your equation.

SN: "Cause and effect: Is there cause and effect in non-science?"

I am not sure what you mean by 'non-science.' Certainly the 'final cause' has been rejected by many on the ground that it is unscientific.

As I have indicated before, I believe there are causes corresponding to each of the 'categories' and also that there are transcendental causes.

#H1-118. Bill Overcamp Dec 16, 2010 12:30 am. Thanks very much , esp because you have taken pain to, explain, what i now realise, are my ad hominem writing.

2. you are right. By Retardence, i meant the behavior that results when an intelligence wishes to also conserve/comply innocence. I certainly don't think such a combination could not fail intelligence too, therefore some times the behavior may even appear retarded/ immature/ labile to injury, but i think certainly some higher principles are conserved. The ability to know to not to use intelligence to learn unfairness/self-attention.

3. By non-science what i meant? where after saying "every thing that exists does so in science".

perhaps contexts other than physical/chemical; and biology; sociology; i don't know if any thing other than mathematics is not subject to cause-and-effect.

do i mean even irrationality is science. no, i would exclude at least a half of that, so half-yes too.

3a. Then what about my ad hominems? I think they do contain some probability of reason. Then what subjects are beyond reason? I think only some aspects of religion is beyond reason. perhaps also individualistic attempts to understand every thing, the universe, and presently ultiverse.

4. Next a question? What is the necessity for cause-and-affect. Other wise things cannot be born? and may also to represent order. Which means, birth/creation/existence is at the same level as cause-and-effect as concepts?

Next, is there a meaning such as "necessity"? Without "necessity" what will not be there? Cause-and-effect was necessary for creation. that's why c-a-e became necessiated. Otherwise c-a-e itself would have not been born? For-From relation is it is?

5. please liberate, if possible?, the paragraph(4) from tautology. Otherwise, again my ad hominem.

NS: "i don't know if any thing other than mathematics is not subject to cause-and-effect."

It is not clear to me that mathematics is not subject to cause and effect. Clearly someone had to come up with the axioms of mathematics. Euclid and the early mathematicians certainly observed points, lines, circles, etc. in nature and in man's engineering work. Those axioms reflect things which came into being through cause and effect.

I would argue that anything uncaused would have to be absolutely simple... having no parts and no potency. Mathematics has no potency, but it does describe a multitude... for one is not two; and the line is not the circle. Thus it is conceived of as a union of 'parts.'

Mathematics does abstract from cause and effect. But in my humble opinion, it is something which must have a cause. The cause is, as I see it, the mind of man reflecting on nature.

#H1-120. Reading BO 1217100150 + 1401:

@*. Man caused mathematics born. That is right. I was (half?)thinking about like,a circle does not cause some thing another shape, etc. In that way, no concept causes other. But physical and chemical and biological and social action are that way. Force causes an object to move. Electronegativity$ causes Flourine to be the very reactive. Metabolism differs from individual to individual and causes some people selectively to be affected by some food stuff. Selfishness causes to be people to disown their responsibility and friendship when caught in difficult situations. Of course no ammonia can cause starch, or electron can cause neutron or neutrino (?), a lion cause an eucalyptus tree, or NYSE can cause some body suffer poverty some where in an unconnected corner of the world. So a Cause can cause an/some effect/s, strictly ordered and not any. Of course these are all obvious, may be no body other than me need to lisMant to come to know. But mathematical objects/properties, similarly physical or other science/arts/humanities concepts do not cause other concepts, an human agency is required. Material properties/objects can cause by themselves while proximal to each other, Living beings can cause by themselves, but Ideas/concepts cannot, they require a living agent to be caused or to cause.

&My inevitable claimer: Probably, if properly framed, the answer to any question i may get if i get read from any book. But thinking is as easy as lazy,reading requires effort and more time to for understanding the read, hence my using the RG space; i hope you don't mind.

$$ Another thing which makes me wonder: what is this electricity, the source from? We have made it one of the fundamental properties like time/length/mass/, giving it Coulumb, but if it is also quantised, does it need separate space to occupy? We will say no, only the fundamental particle of matter will "occupy" space, or/and charge is similar to mass (may be space too) a property of the fundamental particle. This means particle has different properties, but where from the properties come? If properties all reside in the same particle (here it is easier to make the space reside in the particle, rather than properties reside in particle and particle resides in space), if we cannot further divide a particle, then we say each property occupies a separate dimension? Here of course dimensions are not spatial but "propertial"?

&&another "disclaimer": {the travails of illiterate participation; i had earlier wanted to give to the world only finished-products, but because that results in unbridgibility, so nothing ever gets given, so i thought (now decades after) I may write only my responses [originality ruled out as too late] i may share some ability, but what is this if it could not go beyond what could have been easily read in the text books if only i had studied (now i cannot study, too eroded)].

@*. I don't understand even this. How any uncause can even generate anything at all, where the simple from. Of course there is no alternative if anything had to be born and we have to be here at Earth. Probably if only we grant the first violation, then we need not bother ever after. But i always feel this gets only a "philological universe" ie through our language (or when we did not know langauge if we had known this idea, then some k-anguage$), how this would have been translated in to physical form(=content)? And we all know the question of cause of cause of origin of origin does indeed would stretch potentially ad infinitum back; in that case atleast the concept of cause would not require a conceptual progenitor (ie another concept as progenitor); or is this also wrong? we need to freshly find out what precursed "cause" as the concept [like yesterday's "is there a meaning as necessity"].

$$ My method of easy naming; k-l-m; it's sufficiently/naturally representative of the characteristics the thinker intends, who may later learn what's the word others have used for that already.

So if i say a progression of concepts may be treated LIKE c-a-e progression, that will be mistaking an orderly sequence for c-a-e sequence? [somewhen in the past, i had allowed cause-effect interactions to some extent, as well as frame-object interactions to the extent of FoR-Object] inaleinability]. That is we cannot be sure of a "causal connection" in a progression of ideas, but such connection is called "logical connection". [cause is the logic of happenings? ie can be caused, cannot,, like logical/illogical]. Now i have to define what is logic and what is cause, but only if both can be defined independently of each other, they may be in the same level/class. Of course, the shortest possible definitions (applicable definitions from out of a myriad there may be even for these words!).

The following definitions are my own understanding, not doubting everybody will know; if i would expose my logical fallacies, i should console myself, after all it is only a short life!

better try atleast in a rough note(this!) rather not at all.

From //wordweb/

1. causal. cause: 1.Events that provide the generative force that is the origin of something. 2. A justification for something existing or happening.

2. logical. logic: 1. Reasoned and reasonable judgment. 2. The principles that guide reasoning within a given field or situation.

I may[!] like to know an "addition" of the above two words/meanings is possible, but only result in absurdities in the long term. I don't try at this stage of my unfamiliarity with the subject words.