Philosophy Discussion Forums

Hello Fellow Philosophers,

I'm a 29 year old Male from London, studying toward a degree in Psychology and Philosophy. I also have interests in Epistemology, Etymology, Linguistics, Logic, Grammar, and Neurology. My long term goal is to work on a consise unified theory of Psychology and Philosophy; a human body users manual. There are two reason for this: primarily as something to give to my son on his 25th birthday as a coming of age present; he is currently 4 months old; and secondly as a method of self development. I decided to join this forum as I am currently giving up smoking, carbohydrates, and wish to soon give up social media. I hope to find a more philosophy focused community. I look forward to meeting everyone and reading what other people are working on.

Loki Morningstar

Welcome, Loki. You are smart in giving up smoking carbohydrates -- that's deadly stuff. (-:

Congratulations on the birth of your child.

Welcome to the forums. The greatest setback you'll experience here is the lack of intellectual supervision, which is extant in academic settings. There is no judge to tell which side won the argument. On the other hand, you'll be exposed not so much to new and emergent theories, but to dissection of old ones. You'll find some debate participants easy to agree with, some very hard. But to win arguments is not very easy here, basically because there is no judge, and no guidance to the conduct of the arguments -- ill logic is just as acceptable by its proponents as solid, valid logic by its.

So, basically, beam me up, Scottie, it's mayhem down here.

Oh, and good luck in your endeavour of unifying the theoretical approaches of what it means to be human in terms of philosophy and of psychology. That's a very worthwhile, should I say, beautiful and noble effort.

Hi -1-,

Smoking carbohydrates!? Almost thought I forgot a comma! I even used an Oxford I'll have you know.

Thanks for your kind welcome. Is intellectual supervision innately good? Some who class themselves intellectual think their cup is full, this helps no one. Why else was Plato seen as the wisest man in Athens? As for winning, all new ideas are useful in my opinion. By gaining new ways to reduce, dissect, digest, old ideas, everybody wins. Old ideas can even be new to one who don't know them. In my opinion old Grammar and Logical Methods has to be used, so that we can change, or build upon, the rules to create new 'Rhetoric'.

I must admit, as it seems it is to you also, Logic is very important to me. At the same time Jung being one of my heroes, perhaps the liminal chaos beings are necessary for creation? If everything was ordered there would be no room for anything new right? Hail the Chaos Gods. ;0)P

And thanks for you encouragement. I had hoped I was in the right place for that. I think this has been the first time someone has understood my goal, let alone encouraged me towards it.

As to the unification of philosophy and psychology, it is, as I see it, a much needed re-unification.

Chaos has its own rules, we just have no clue what they are. Chaos takes an input, and produces a different output each time the same input is presented. This is what is behind the idea that chaos is the ultimate unorderedness. But the output of the same input with the same parametric conditions can be different due to parametric differences we do not take into consideration. "YOU can't step in the same river twice." (But I can.) (Just joking.) A difference in actually observed chaos may be presented by distant gravitational forces (like expanding universes outside our own observed one) or else the fabric of the cosmos is not uniformly homogeneous in its basic distribution. Whatever that fabric is -- space-time continuum, gravitron distribution in quantum space, a polyester-cotton blend, or energy borne of the splitting of matter from anti-matter.

I view chaos as the materialist atheist's substitution for what the religious call miracle or act of the supernatural. If your dogma is "everything has a rational explanation", (and this is necessitated by logic which dictates that determinism is unassailable as an order,) then chaos in its true form does not exist, says the man of ration.

Chaos has it's own rules, we just don't know what they are[/quote]

How does one know what one does not know?

Loki Morningstar wrote:

-1- wrote: Chaos has it's own rules, we just don't know what they are

How does one know what one does not know?

That's a valid question.

It is not a question of knowledge, but a question of reliance of laws that one accepts as the ruling laws that govern movements in the universe (or reality).

One such law is the law of cause-and-effect. It states that no movement or change happens without a cause, all change is caused, and all causes have effects.

Applying this law and this law alone denies the unpredictability principle of chaos.

Notice, there is no knowledge of what we don't know in my explanation why chaos must have rules; but there is a notion that some knowledge we don't know exist, and must necessarily exist IF and ONLY IF we take the cause-and-effect principle as a true principle in the life of the universe or reality.