That is an interesting question.

My problem with the latter statement lies in the fact that philosophy at any point in time, might be making progress, but because it is taught as if the earliest thinkers were the most important ones, quite often errors in thought, that have been resolved keep coming up time after time, just because the errors are taught and the resolutions aren't.

Hmmm.... I think I sense two different threads in your answer Stephen

the first seems to agree that progress has been made, and the second seems to say that it is especially true in obfuscation.

"The thinkers of today are much better informed and have instant access to more data sets to compare scenarios and theoretical outcomes than the myopic thinkers of the ancient world."

I'm glad to see someone finally say that besides myself! Thanks Stephen...

Dear Stephen

Your comment begs the question: What does it mean to be a 'thinker of today' - and is being "better informed" not hold relative value?

I'm of the opinion that in order for one to be a *philosophical thinker* one could rely on knowledge that holds noumenal value yet have opinion that is progressive in character. On the whole, the idea is that *progression of thinkers* is different to the notion of *progressive thinking* in that the former holds relative value and can be attributed to *actual disciplines* as in science (which searches for knowledge and solutions to problems AND finds them); the latter holds noumenal value and can be attributed to the general [transcendent] progression of intelligible systems of thinking and doing (searching for knowledge and progressing opinion).

Thus, one's impression of progress or success is dependant on one's personal philosophical views and to what degree that *changes* over time.

Hmmm... I am at a distinct disadvantage here, I don't know what noumenal means.

Darn, I knew I should have taken another few years of University...

Definition of noumenon from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary...

Etymology: German, from Greek nooumenon that which is apprehended by thought, from neuter of present passive participle of noein to think, conceive, from nous mind

Date: 1796

: a posited object or event as it appears in itself independent of perception by the senses

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/noumenal

It is an interesting question whether men are capable of knowledge independent of the senses. Certainly, the mind is a 'blank slate' upon which sensory phantasms are presented.

The question goes back, of course, to Kant who founded it upon silly quasi-mathematical claims.

NR: Philosophy is a history of conversations about "satisfactory solutions" to philosophical problems - but *without* criterion of what exactly a satisfactory solution is.

Too bad Hume isn't alive to sip from the well of your common sense, Natasha. Hume tried to convince us that all we ordinary philosophical blokes considered 'satisfactory' AND 'philosophical' simply could not be true, and defended it on what for all in the world was an unstated a priori without any ultimate dispositive evidence to say nothing of proof, whence Kant's attempt.

*Progress* I hold happens in philosophical discourse as we improve in methodology. I approve definitions of philosophy that go along the lines of -- the use/development of methods by which to address matters inadequately scaled by the lights of natural reason.

So long as we employ hubris or arrogance we self-destruct, and most good philosophers have held that it is methodology that spares us from the final shame by developing within us the actual SENSE of shame (as honor-based cultures know it).

Charles, I'm afraid that water tastes rather bitter! Following on with this sense-idea, Hume, along with Kant and Locke also conceived the a priori study of Mind and Knowledge. Hume, in all his immediate wisdom, denied the existence of abstract entities on the grounds that immediate experience presents us only with particulars and not with universals.

Assertions could be made if abstract entities fall within the 'given', thus all other assertions are discarded, INCLUDING inquiry. This of course may apply to specific activities and their methods, but what does it do for conversations around the structures of those methodologies and their interrelationships?

As inquiries go, the elucidatious nature of philosophy as an activity should ultimately produce clarifications on propositions set forth by other disciplines - solving or di-ssolving problematics through use of language. Its method of inquiry is applied *outside* of other methodologies, concerning itself with raising connotative (regarding meaning) questions on the logical structure and arrangement of that method/subject/object.

The point is, progress in philosophy is certain, if there is an unrestricted 'search for clarity' through formal questioning around any structured system of thinking or doing; and that such clarification is formally expressed through clear language (that is not obfuscatious) and is evident through changing presuppositions.

NVR: Charles, I'm afraid that water tastes rather bitter!

That's what language enthusiasts have always told metaphysicians from time immemorial. Problem with language is only that it risks a didactic and unthinking reflection of human propensities, not all of which are useful for philosophical inquiry, and Aristotle offered the lead in demonstrating this problem. Instead of denominating his four causations as categories he used language to locate them, believing, rather arrogantly (as do we moderns--some things don't change, and to that degree lousy philosophy remains just that and will always remain just that--that human language reflected the ways of Gods rather than actual reality).

Meaning, in short, that a focus on language necessarily obfuscates somewhat after a linguistic Heisenberg principle. Dry, arid, BITTER methodology seeks to understand reality's building blocks, not how to employ fuzzy human modalities of propositioning one another. This is why I so poke fun at David. He wants to be all things to all philosophers but starts off by putting the cart before the horse, denominating language as prior to metaphysics, and still yet thinking of himself as a what--metaphysician? David, demonstrate that I am wrong here, please.

Metaphysics allows nasty sorts like me to appear horrifically arrogant to well-meaning folk who believe there is something new-agey spiritual in our overly proud little realm of god-given language. Methodology, especially paradigmatics, seeks, like the original daoists, to understand nature on her terms, not the terms our language would prescribe. Precisely WHO is really being arrogant in all this? Precisely, I reply, all those who place language ahead of metaphysics, and argumentation ahead of understanding. Even the common man in the gutter sees how those twisting language look oddly silly. And whereas they might not understand a metaphysician's methodology, they can see wisdom through the clouds.

Language is arrogance, nature is reality. Use that as your mantra and you will find a way to redefine BITTER. When language reflects metaphysics she loses that arrogance, NOT the other way around. The language-metaphysics problematic has been tearing us asunder too long. Kant had hoped to rescue us from the nonsense of Hume and Swedenborg but even he overlooked where S. had a few things right. But at least he saw through the veil of language and allowed metaphysics to claim its rightful place. What did Wittgenstein do but declare arrogance to and upon the world. A fellow gay boy helped usher in the destruction of metaphysics. Some observers felt, rightly or wrongly, but felt nonetheless, that he actually intended that result.

So Natasha, I may well have misread your meaning of BITTER, but what I have used my misreading to illustrate is truly the necessary distinction to be made in evaluating the wonderful questions and observations of this thread. As always you invigorate and always with a lovely disposition. Always I admire your kind and intelligent ways. I, on the other hand, am the hard-nosed take-no-prisoner fellow who does what others teach. It really does make a difference, the difference between language and metaphysics, to be certain.

Welcome Charles A.!

As in the famous words of our David H (right here in Philo Group):

"Who exactly IS this 'Will' fellow you speak of??" :)

To add my two cent's worth: How *does* he progress/digress/regress Philosophy? And what 'other things' can language *be* in all this?

I always enjoyed the (false?) presumption that Benedict followed Christ: language is disposed to represent the mind, but the truth of spirit requires to be first filtered through the heart, and language, when present, should represent how mind exists after being instructed in heart/spirit. Now when language has come to express, faithfully, a sound metaphysic, which is to say an adequate methodology for philosophical inquiry, then language shall have learned to express true spirit for representing true reality as nature intended it, not as we pretend to suppose it based on errant presuppositions and off-beat syllogistic propositions. It was an error of language first, only later of metaphysics, that the syllogism and transitive properties were presumed threefold instead of as they actually are, fourfold. Language is important, but only after we have granted to metaphysics what is hers and hers ALONE. Language, STEP ASIDE, if only to catch your breath. Reflect, take a deep breath, and resume at a point where metaphysics is adequately reflected, and I will put language on the empirical pedestal as did Aristotle, but for the right reasons.

NvR: "Who exactly IS this 'Will' fellow you speak of??"

What is will? Will is the soul deciding on a course of action.

Take two situations...

(1) A man is standing on a ladder. He sees his enemy coming up to him. He drops a hammer on the head of his enemy, killing him.

(2) A man is standing on a ladder. His enemy sneaks up to the ladder and shakes it. Completely surprised by the sudden disturbance, he drops a hammer hitting his enemy on the head and killing him.

We say that in the former case he acted by free will to kill his enemy, in the sense that his knowledge of his enemy's presence caused him to drop the hammer. In the latter case, he had no such knowledge of his enemy's presence and acted by mere accident in killing him.

Thus knowledge is the critical factor. 'Will' is therefore knowledge in action.

In pragmatic terms 'will' is the presumptive cause of actions characterized by authority, as in 'from an author' of an act, a thought, a speech act, etc. Perice spent the better part of his life trying to keep people (especially philosophers if I mistake not) from asking, with empty gazes and cute attitudes, "Well, why not just tell me WHAT IS X", presuming--incorrectly--that no one will have an adequate answer and thus thinking the high road of philosophical discourse belongs to those who are the first to ask such really important questions.

I have had students who (until informed by me) had gone through a full undergraduate program majoring in philosophy who had no earthly clue what philosophy consisted of. And now we are being asked what is 'will;', and this after Schopenhauer and god only knows who else has been in on the act.

So let's see...

Consider a proposition, namely, that a word is definable (as people will generally understand it) in terms of the linguistic context in which its meaning is rendered to a literate person. In the case of the term 'authority' we will say that its context--its defining context--includes 'will', 'power' and 'obligation'. That along should suggest rather a lot aas to what we may expect from will especially when we recall Aristotle's conception of the formal-final cause in which firstness (will) is tantamount to Fourthness (authority).

Now, to Bill's point above, authority and will presuppose knowledge without which we would not know how to apply power within a context of obligation in order to satisfy presumptions characterizing will. But then, all this methodology does is to state what any literate person instinctively knows, and the only real difference between a good philosopher and the common man is simply the ability to state the fact in so many words as we have here. What irritates me is the fact that among philosopher types we are reducing ourselves to debating this question simply because it was thoughtlessly asked.

And NO, NO, NO, it is NOT okay to excuse stupid questions just because we are on a forum discussing philosophy and 'will' happens to be a topic occasionally debated. Were the topic itself over how the subject has been discoursed upon over time in some larger philosophical context, that is fine and dandy and I will usually joint such. But here, it is thrown out almost as if by a pseudointellectual trying to get the goat of his intellectual betters, and David, of all people, surely knows how irritating this can be since surely others have thrown the same his direction. I beg of us all, not to treat this site as if it were a country club chit-chat affair with parlor games and cutsypie crap. I want serious discussions that speak well for us as philosophers. If I throw out a question blankly asking for a definition, I had better have a rationale.

Now I know that David was not here to have this done, as it was done for him. Yet what must have been the context in which his quip originated, given its form? It was not addressed in a serious mien, was it? And it was not introduced here in a serious mien, was it? And what does that teach us about EVER tossing things like that out amongst philosophical types? It means they will ultimately get bandied about and continue to cause fallout, as in the present instance. When we take our profession--or for the non-professionals, their interest in wisdom--seriously, we take care not to be cute. Too much academic philosophy is just cuteness these days, masquerading as lofty intelligence. Let's be better than that here, on ResearchGate.

SC: "Gnosis (from one of the Greek words for knowledge, γνῶσις) is the spiritual knowledge of a saint or mystically enlightened human being. ...(Do you know any Greek words Bill?)"

To quote a better man, "And NO, NO, NO, it is NOT okay to excuse stupid questions just because we are on a forum discussing philosophy..."

David H "Who is this will you are talking about"

"No, No, No, it is NOT okay to excuse stupid questions just because we are on a forum discussing philosophy"

Sidney "Gnosis (from one of the Greek words for knowledge"

Bill "No, No, No"

Actually, looking back on this discussion, it becomes obvious that Daves question was not as silly as it first seemed. I think it should have been written "Who's will are we talking about" but the main problem lies in the shortness of the question.

The whole question of "Human Will" is being drawn into discussion by recent research that suggests that unconscious, preconscious, or subconscious depending on your definition processes are doing the lions share of the decision making, long before consciousness is even possible in the human mind. There are some of us that have even gone so far as to suggest that Human Will, is an illusion created by association of feedback with an event, to link that event to an action, that was not directly caused by the feedback which is our only way of telling the Agency involved in "Causation" of the event.

When people bring up the concept of Will, therefore, the question becomes "Who's Will" since if Will is a misnomer in humans, you must be talking about some other form of will, and indeed, people like Sidney are often talking about "God's Will", and Gnosis, and other topics that have no relation to human will, except by extension via some religious thinkers work.

The question becomes, is this a discussion about philosophy or about theology? Who's will are we discussing?

GS: "The whole question of "Human Will" is being drawn into discussion by recent research that suggests that unconscious, preconscious, or subconscious depending on your definition processes are doing the lions share of the decision making, long before consciousness is even possible in the human mind."

So you think it impossible that one's knowledge of a situation can cause one to act one way or another?

So if one sees one's enemy one can not know it is one's enemy before one takes action against him? Thus one can only know what a situation is after one has acted in accordance with the situation? Suppose one sees the enemy far before he is close enough to take action. Is the mind somehow prevented from realizing it is one's enemy until one has already taken action?

Somehow your notions do not agree with mine.

Ah.... The difference is to Know or to Consciously know.

Many people make the mistake of thinking that you don't know anything unless you are conscious of it. But what you consciously know you know is only the tip of the iceberg of what you react to. So, you may already be reacting to your enemy, before you even know consciously that it is your enemy you are reacting to. Is this so alien to your understanding?

Are you one of those people who waits 500 milliseconds after they see a stop light to start to push on the brakes, or are you perhaps already pushing on the brakes, long before you have consciously realized that the light has changed?

To reiterate the obvious, again:

When we acknowledge--as some apparently are loathe to do for it would decrease their IQ rating in the eyes of the world, so it would seem--that ordinary language exists to communicate with a degree of faithfulness to intent a meaning of an author to presumed auditors, it does not behoove a philosopher to question meaning by blankly directing off-topic questions of definition.

On the other hand, when the conversations context is the philosophical study of what we mean by 'will', the matter clearly is different. Here, we are no longer discussing language strictly as effective communication, but rather we are inquiring what language utilizes in order to effectuate such transfer of meaning. In other words, we are asking after the make-up of the meaning communicated. Even here, however, as Graeme's explication illustrates reasonably well, I think, the rendition of Who's 'will' are we dealing with presupposes a communication that actually does not, because cannot, address the philosophical issue addressed, but instead glibly redirects the case after the fashion of a clever rhetorical diversion a la Wm F. Buckley.

The inquiry 'who's will' in that context amounts effectively to asking what we mean by will differently for one person than another (human, angel, God, etc.), where in fact the meaning-communication aspect remains the same throughout and there is no reason to presume that the underlying philosophical aspect of what meaning is that is being communicated is at issue in such a question.

I brought the matter into focus because of the glibness and thoughtlessness encountered in philosophy, and I am not about to glibly accept even well-intentioned excuses for others as against my point. When as careful and considerate a person as Natasha makes such an error it should have become apparent to one and all that things have progressed to the point where it has achieved a commonplace status that nonsense be thought somehow legitimate. Natasha certainly never in a billion years dreamt of causing or intending such, and yet observe what has happened.

This is the natural result of sloppiness that can catch the best of us unwittingly, and is why we should especially try to avoid glibness whereat we permit what I term 'country club' discourse to define the modality of serious discourse. Simply put, you can't do philosophy with an attitude like that, and this will not be the first time I delivered this sermon, and David should be the first to understand that, as it was delivered by me as one of my very first posts on this site. David's initial response was to suggest that I be careful over *ad hominems*, whereat I returned that it was in no measure an ad hominem but rather a reasonable principle of discourse that I desired be addressed, then and again now.

Blankly redirecting via quizzical definition-mongering and similar methods has no place in philosophy for at the very minimum it accomplishes two things whether intentional or not: 1) respect to all conversants is rendered impossible, and 2) stewardship of the profession or one's 'office' becomes all but impossible. As an expert in the latter I expect to have a reason to address my remarks with the stamp of authority. As a metaphysician far more concerned with the relation of what is vs what seems, I likewise claim some authority to address the matter.

I am not advocating humorless, dull, drab and dreary discourse. I am saying that glibness is no part of it, and if glibness requires to be defined for the likes of people partaking in these discussion, well, someone is in deep trouble. Don't even go there. Glibness is insulting enough without arguing as if the notion had merits. Even when used to disparage a bad idea it is dangerous because too easily interpreted as an ad hominem. Why even go there? In short, why, except out of academic cupidity--of which there is far too much in this world--should we ever reduce ourselves so? For NO reason, that's what/why.

A brand new member to this group raised an intelligent point and was immediately accosted with stupidity. Sorry, folks, that doesn't cut it. Get your heads out of the smelliy parts. If it is poor judgment to utilize such methods against good acquaintances, how much worse is it to introduce newcomers to nonsense right out of the blocks? With my equipment I am fairly easily offended by nonsense of that ilk and if others aren't offended my advice is that it were better to develop a habit of shame-mindedness that would bring us to that point, for at that point we would rarely if ever stoop to those lowbrow levels of discourse. The question offered by someone in the cross-cultural psychology group might well have been brought up right here: what is the relevance of pride in the context of shame (the latter I believe is fairly implied in the former).

GS: "The difference is to Know or to Consciously know."

Well, there is a sort of imperfect knowledge which is unconscious. Will is certainly conscious. I suppose I should amend my previous statement to say that will is knowledge acting consciously.

~CH: "So Natasha, I may well have misread your meaning of BITTER, but what I have used my misreading to illustrate is truly the necessary distinction to be made in evaluating the wonderful questions and observations of this thread."~

My 'bitter' comment was related to your comment on MY "well of common sense" ;)

This, however, IS a side note:

My question on 'will' may have borrowed a previous (bumpy?) ride here in Philo Group, purely intended as reference, not to reinvent a wheel.

Was the question badly placed? I don't believe so.

Was it badly uttered in light of a 'newcomer'? I don't agree.

At what point of discourse should questioning be considered unquestionable?

Could I ask for clarification on philosophical 'progress' yet not on 'will' *in light* of this progress?

My experience of 'will' in another context discussion only informs my philosophical intentions to an assertion raised here and not vice versa.

My intention on all assertions, irrespective of whether it's attached to 'use of language', is to open up descriptions of a current understanding to inform future use of the assertion. In other words, my primary reason is to proposition assertions within context of the discussion.

As for *use of language* - Charles, as usual your elegance in the written word is commendable. Your points are valid and justified. As a responsible moral agent, I'd like to make a distinction between: the experience of causal responsibility and blame associated with previous [collective or not] irresponsible leveraging of [glib] language in discourse; and the intentions of the question to the raised assertion of 'will' in *this* thread. Having said this, I also acknowledge the role that this *intentionality* has to group morality in practice, especially when it comes to wielding, rather than informing, intellect.

NVR: My 'bitter' comment was related to your comment on MY "well of common sense" ;)

Totally missed that.

NVR: Welcome Charles A.! -- So far so good.

As in the famous [er, infamous?] words of... -- Lunacy personified. Out of bounds and nothing that follows alters this fact, cf.

To add my two cent's worth. -- No one disputes your intentions, you are only wishing to flesh out additional material germane to the thread. No one's being silly here, Natasha. The rub is the context you began with:

How *does* he [i.e., 'this "Will" fellow'] progress/digress/regress Philosophy? -- All would have been perfect, totally perfect--had you not stupidly prefaced it so stupidly. Really: as if ANY remark anybody, let alone a comparative novice (for all we know our new guest was one such) could have made predicated upon that prefatory context would have added nothing, because could not have added anything, especially of the teased out ideas you were looking for. All that was canceled in your initial foolish and thoughtless act of commending David's lunacy.

Let me be absolutely clear here for humdrums (not yourself, surely) who don't think it necessary to heed the niceties necessary in philosophical discourse: Once we have asked after 'this Will fellow' -- i.e., implied the need to define him somehow--as if the meaning had not already BEEN CRYSTAL CLEAR to anybody but a pseudointellectual unclear in his own mind of such things (and let us not be insulted with quotes from Socrates)--what is it about crystal clear that we DO NOT understand?-- Charles A. was PERFECTLY clear in his use of that term. In prefacing with David's trashy country-club jibe you force the interlocutor to reinvent the wheel in order to then further accommodate himself to your teasing intentionalities. And what exactly does he then do? How does any explication of will enable him to address your follow-ups? The ONLY way he can intelligently address your follow-ups is to address his own MEANING--by which we DO NOT mean his conception of will, for starters!!!--to the thread topic. But once having so prefaced the matter he could only have been nonplussed. Who would not have been? I would have thrown it right back in your face. But then, I am certifiable.

It does little good to be well-meaning and concerned to expand a thread if you think you can also be an idiot. DO NOT do things like that, Natasha, and DO NOT excuse these things on the basis of good intentions, for on being trashed they are no longer the intentions intentioned.

You are a smart, caring and concerned person who destroyed her credibility for all of that in being philosophically tone deaf. From one philosopher to another your using David's nonsense reminded me for all in the world something the head of BP would say in the context of an oil spill. To say, absent of that context, that "I want my life back" is one thing--to say it in a prefatory context of, well, Who is this oil spill fellow who takes up so little of the Gulf, after all-------

Again, Natasha, in the philosophical arena you did something nearly as stupid. DO NOT defend such nonsense on the basis of intentions. JUST DON'T DO THOSE THINGS PERIOD. The lesson for all of philosophical discussion is NOT TO BE STUPIDLY GLIB!!!!!!!!!

The only point to be offered has been fleshed on both sides. We all admire you, Natasha, just be more attuned to philosophy and less concerned at being cozy with good friends. Good friends do not philosophy make. Philosophy is largely about being a gadfly. Your efforts on behalf of soothing dear David (who of all people does not require such) fell off the cliff of nonsense. It added nothing and detracted mightily.

I do of course, consider myself duly slapped.

In the absence of a better-placed argument, I reserve the right to still thoroughly dislike the manner and place in which it is done.

But such is the value of free will within free speech: solid advice to cruel intentions (or is that vice versa?). Nonetheless, both sides a-fleshed, but not quite bleeding - shall we continue?

*DO* we progress, philosophically?

And if I had done so with kid gloves and hugz 'n' kisses????? The result would have been precisely what? I am the gadfly here and obviously that does not mean I am about to take awards for winning ways and swimmingly good manners. That's the territory we are in, Natasha. and whereas in public* i.e., outside of this forum, it would have been out of line completely, whereas in here, sort of private and sort of public, it was not only appropriate but entirely what philosophy requires, what philosophy expects, and if it hurts the lesson is really fairly clear, no? The acknowledged loser learns not to be in a position to lose again, no?

As usual, your good sense determines the end, Natasha, for in starting the other thread in which these kinds of things can be further discussed, you demonstrate your true and not inconsiderable philosophical credentials. I have already joined that discussion and look forward to your replies as always.

Can philosophy progress? Yes, but only so long as we properly steward our offices.

All is well Charles. I cringe at the idea of kid gloves, hugz or kisses. As to what "philosophy expects" - well, we'll see won't we! Indeed, lessons well learnt can be further carved in another thread. Looking forward to it too, as always.

#H1-213. MAY some threads be closed at some point? I want to change the last post to this, hence i upload notwithstanding.

1. Ref Natasha van Rooyen, Jul 5, 2010 5:13 pm.

@*. i think we address philosophy only when and for such questions we do not immediately conceive of an experiment to get the answer. If philosophy would be prototyping experiment, which is the work of science, and which for is not philosophy is getting paid, that's a loss of time. Not must not, but must less.

Philosophy is to work to advance the mind, such minds when could infect science, we will get the science to advance. [and the reverse infection too is must]. Both have always been interlocked, only either's results the fuel/propeller to the other.

I wouldn't imagine if p & s exist without the other; i don't know if philosophers and scientists so interact; i hope my hesitating is only an overassumption.

In the above, science can be substituted by arts and humanities too.

2. Bill Overcamp, Jul 7, 2010 1:01 am.

3. Charles Herman, Jul 7, 2010 12:55 pm.

#Completed reading this thread "philosophical conversations" (2 pages, 34 posts), and the above were my observations and gleanings.