GENIUS FORUMS

Does the hyper-simplicity make me look lazy, or does it draw attention to the content? I'm trying to decide whether I should add anything other than writing to this.

Yes, I want to use a pseudonym. A fancy Italian pseudonym. :)

Actually, I would be more flattered by an imitator than a compliment.

In that spirit, how about I use Nietzsche's phrase where he lamented how people salt their truths to survive... and call this a grain of salt, plucked from people's meals and investigated.



If this sounds like a good idea to anyone:

Unless there is anything to be added to the format (simple white with harsh black edges, like a grain of salt), we could eventually put them into a collection, linked to from a larger site.

If everyone kept to consistent pseudonyms, it would save any of us from having to be embarassed by it linking back to us from any other external writing we happen to do.

A one-page essay and a poem by Shakespeare worked for this grain of salt. My pseudonym means, in Italian, "silhouette of the guide". I think it's cute and colourful.



Otherwise:

Forget it. :)

Heh. Okay, that website annoyed enough people at my other forum that a mod banned me. I'm not returning there. I sent him an ultimatum. He said he'd shorten my sentence, and I told him to fuck off. Being punished for responding to the insults of those who hate before they read with a few naughty words is too much censorship for my tastes. A shame, because I was beginning to like the forum (which probably means I was pissing everyone off).

Since people familiar with my philosophy hate it, I can be sure it's good. This website is now officially my favourite piece of art I've ever made. It's the first thing that pissed people off. Most of the time, people simply like what I write.

Come on, anyone feel like writing a rebuttal, or even just a page or two about what you happen to be thinking about right now? Let's see how much damage we can do... ;)

What do artists have to do with logic that you want to see become more prominent in history textbooks? Artists have their place, at least in history textbooks I studied from.

As for logical revolution, you said it began in 5th century BC, and then you say it started with Tales (640-550).

If it was a revolution, it was that in the sense of being an opposition towards mythical thinking, mostly. Could you think of any more definitions of it, or characteristics?

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:Does the hyper-simplicity make me look lazy, or does it draw attention to the content? I'm trying to decide whether I should add anything other than writing to this.

I don't have any huge problem with the simplicity, though it's hard to tell what the hell the page is about. It's also a good idea to include links back to the idex page. They can be subtle and unobtrusive. Having to mouse up to the browser's back arrow can be annoying.

Black on white is hard to read.

And you should have some structure so it is convenient easy to use and to add to.

Boyan:

What do artists have to do with logic that you want to see become more prominent in history textbooks? Artists have their place, at least in history textbooks I studied from.

Specifically, I want artists (including philosophers) to be considered to have caused a valuable enough contribution to humanity that the invention of logic is placed alongside the invention of agriculture in significance.

As for logical revolution, you said it began in 5th century BC, and then you say it started with Tales (640-550).

This is a good point, and brings up my own vacillations between who had started it. When I began writing the essay, I did not have Thales in mind, and missed this when re-reading.

Even now, I'm wondering if it goes back earlier than Thales, to Homer. Poetry is highly logical; being able to create works of art of the length of The Illiad requires logical thought. However, I could also say that logic begins with Aristotle, who was the first to formalize it; or with Socrates, who brought popularity to philosophical approaches to truth. Before I change this, I will need to decide where the best demarcation is: the earliest example of controlled logical structures (Homer), the earliest example of genuine philosophy (Thales), the best example of raw logic used successfully in popular discourse (Socrates), or the first clear formalization of logic (Aristotle). These are all very important. Deciding which really began the logical revolution will be tough: basically, I consider the beginning to be when enough is in play that it is possible to predict the outcome. Homer and Thales, for instance, may be examples of people who attempted and failed to start the revolution, and it is only through dumb luck that they remain in history.

So: who started it, and when?

If it was a revolution, it was that in the sense of being an opposition towards mythical thinking, mostly. Could you think of any more definitions of it, or characteristics?

I think I gave a few characteristics of it in the last reply. But since you say it is in opposition to mythical thinking, that may be enough to justify excluding Homer from potential candidates for the start of the revolution, despite his use of logic.

Dan,

I don't have any huge problem with the simplicity, though it's hard to tell what the hell the page is about. It's also a good idea to include links back to the idex page. They can be subtle and unobtrusive. Having to mouse up to the browser's back arrow can be annoying.

Hmm. I was thinking of finding a way to change the essays (the brief poem followed by the article) to .pdf form, but if having to use the browser to navigate is annoying, that might not be a wise move.

So, perhaps I should find software that adds a template to the raw writing. User-friendliness is indeed important, and people who design templates have often put a lot more thought into it than I can. I'm sure that missing little things like back buttons would be compounded if I tried to create a larger site which links to these little essays.

You are also right on your other point: if I need to work this hard to explain my intention to a bright audience, it's obviously unclear what I'm doing. Adding a prologue, or including this essay in a meta-site would help considerably. The latter option, unfortunately, requires that I have other writing that I think is worth reading. I'm not competent enough in my philosophy yet to have reams of writing with content. If I were to choose "meta-site", I may have to hold off on putting a website up for a few months, until I have gathered sufficient content to be worth someone's attention.

Prologue seems such an easy way out, so I'm going to go for meta-site.

WhorlyWhelk,

Black on white is hard to read.

I kind of enjoy the salt-theme, if only for the pun that you can't take a grain of salt with a grain of salt. Salt is more white and light-blue, I guess, but that's also hard to read. Personally, I prefer white text on black, but that completely ruins my theme. Any suggestions?

And you should have some structure so it is convenient easy to use and to add to.

Yes, Dan mentioned this as well. I'm thinking.

Boyan: as a side-thought, perhaps I could consider all of them to be the joint inventors of logic. The Logical Revolution was a revolution, a paradigm-shift. Aristotle is evidence that the paradigm-shift is in full effect by his time, and he gave it an eloquent voice.

Homer marks the very beginning of the drift into the new paradigm, Thales' refusal to admit any god of the gaps into argument is the final rejection of the biases Homer tried to bring into the new era (so stands as evidence that a new way of thinking had emerged), Socrates is evidence that this new paradigm can be applied to life, and Aristotle is its first truly complete formulation. I can't imagine removing any of these men from the picture.

Plain black and white can be used quite effectively: http://theuntitleddocument.org/

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:Dan,

I don't have any huge problem with the simplicity, though it's hard to tell what the hell the page is about. It's also a good idea to include links back to the idex page. They can be subtle and unobtrusive. Having to mouse up to the browser's back arrow can be annoying.

Hmm. I was thinking of finding a way to change the essays (the brief poem followed by the article) to .pdf form, but if having to use the browser to navigate is annoying, that might not be a wise move.

I personally dislike online .pdf documents, and for your purposes it seems entirely unecessary anyway. As for the navigation, all you need is a tiny discreet link like an webding arrow that is hyperlinked.

So, perhaps I should find software that adds a template to the raw writing. User-friendliness is indeed important, and people who design templates have often put a lot more thought into it than I can. I'm sure that missing little things like back buttons would be compounded if I tried to create a larger site which links to these little essays.

Yes, but you don't need to have or learn anything that fancy if your pages are going to be very simple. You could just use Front Page Express, which was the very first webdesign program I used. You can get it here. It has a WYSIWYG interface as well as the ability to edit the source code.

You are also right on your other point: if I need to work this hard to explain my intention to a bright audience, it's obviously unclear what I'm doing. Adding a prologue, or including this essay in a meta-site would help considerably.

A simple title might be sufficient.

Dan, that man's website layout is quite inspiring. It keeps everything down to the raw essentials without looking lazy. I would say that's nearing the bare-bones minimum for an acceptable website (considered as a self-contained piece of art).

I'll look into the software tomorrow. I always let my insomnia get the best of me, and it only leads to overwork and illness.

Yes, it's one of the best "bare-bones" formats I've seen in a while. The owner of that website is 17.

.

-fatboy d-

"Trevor Salyzyn" -- Does the hyper-simplicity make me look lazy, or does it draw attention to the content? I'm trying to decide whether I should add anything other than writing to this.


-tomas-
You just be lighten up.






http://www.freewebs.com/jugrin/index.htm -- Yes, I want to use a pseudonym. A fancy Italian pseudonym. :)




-tomas-
If you have ghosts... then... you have every-thing.



Tomas
Prince of Jerusalem
16 Degree
Scottish Rite Free Mason


.

Dan Rowden wrote:Plain black and white can be used quite effectively: http://theuntitleddocument.org/

That's not really plain black and white since there are several shades of gray used there. Also he uses softer fonts rather than times which makes it reader-friendly.

A structure is a good idea for any sizable website but I'm sick of seeing Wordpress by now... seems like everyone has it.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:Boyan: as a side-thought, perhaps I could consider all of them to be the joint inventors of logic. The Logical Revolution was a revolution, a paradigm-shift. Aristotle is evidence that the paradigm-shift is in full effect by his time, and he gave it an eloquent voice.

Homer marks the very beginning of the drift into the new paradigm, Thales' refusal to admit any god of the gaps into argument is the final rejection of the biases Homer tried to bring into the new era (so stands as evidence that a new way of thinking had emerged), Socrates is evidence that this new paradigm can be applied to life, and Aristotle is its first truly complete formulation. I can't imagine removing any of these men from the picture.

Aristotle is widely regarded as the father of logic. He was the first one to devise a logical system. However he certainly did not started it. He drew significantly from his predecessors like Plato, Socrates, Zeno... all of whom greatly used logic in their thinking.

So Aristotle was the great systematizer of logic (and philosophy). His categories i.e. would not have been something new to his predecessors; nor his syllogisms even though it says in my philosophy textbook that he was the one to formulate that first logical theory in the history of human thought, because Socrates used them in his method of dialogue - from wikipedia:

' 1. Socrates' interlocutor asserts a thesis, for example 'Courage is endurance of the soul', which Socrates considers false and targets for refutation.
2. Socrates secures his interlocutor's agreement to further premises, for example 'Courage is a fine thing' and 'Ignorant endurance is not a fine thing'.
3. Socrates then argues, and the interlocutor agrees, that these further premises imply the contrary of the original thesis, in this case it leads to: 'courage is not endurance of the soul'.
4. Socrates then claims that he has shown that his interlocutor's thesis is false and that its contrary is true.'

Question is: Is courage is the endurance of the soul?

Premises are - courage is a fine thing; ignorant endurance is not a fine thing.

Conclusion - courage is not the endurance of the soul

Aristotle did not made up the syllogistic method, as it was already in use.

Therefore it wouldn't be far off to say the logical revolution originated in the 5 century b.c. in ancient (or is it classical Greece?), that it was easily evident in the doings of Socrates and Zeno (Example of Zeno's logic can be found in his argument that there is no motion i.e.), Plato, and was systematized by Aristotle.

Also, the question of when did a non military oriented revolution took place can not be answered exactly. For example, the industrial revolution is placed in the late 18th early 19th century, and then the historians disagree whether it was actually the second half of the 18th when it started and so on.

Tomas: I had to squint to read that. Thanks. :)

Boyan: okay, you're awake at the same time as me, but I'm going to go back to bed before I read what you just wrote. (I just woke up because I was thirsty.)

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:Tomas: I had to squint to read that. Thanks. :)

Boyan: okay, you're awake at the same time as me, but I'm going to go back to bed before I read what you just wrote. (I just woke up because I was thirsty.)

Different time-zones, Trevor ;)

Boyan:

Therefore it wouldn't be far off to say the logical revolution originated in the 5 century b.c. in ancient (or is it classical Greece?), that it was easily evident in the doings of Socrates and Zeno (Example of Zeno's logic can be found in his argument that there is no motion i.e.), Plato, and was systematized by Aristotle.

So I guess I wasn't far off the mark just giving it the general century that I did, although I could have stood to be more specific in why I chose to do so.

Zeno is an excellent idea for inclusion if I ever were to expand this idea into a more substantial essay (this modest amount of agreement with the century I picked is sufficient reason for me not to change it). It took a huge chunk of human history to figure out how to resolve his paradox -- how to express infinity in mathematical terms.

Plato might be necessary, but I view Plato as a means to Socrates. I couldn't stand the Republic. It was clear that he had turned Socrates into a fictional character, and it was kind of gross. The Socrates of The Symposium was sharp, witty, eccentric, and philosophical. Socrates of the Republic was pedantic and annoying. If Plato is not necessary, I would rather exclude him. He's more like a scholar than a philosopher, whose biggest claim to fame is what appears to be a very excellent memory (although it could merely have been extensive research and note-taking, like Herodotus). Giving him credit for the invention of logic justifies the existence of the historians of philosophy who follow in the footsteps of Plato and clog up our educational systems. Quite frankly, I find it hard to believe that any of my philosophy professors could have invented logic.

So, from a moral perspective, I would exclude him unless he is absolutely needed. He remembered logic, which only helps create it in the most peripheral sense.

After a revolution, we all remember its fruits (or else the paradigm failed to shift), so there is very little special about him.

Also, the question of when did a non military oriented revolution took place can not be answered exactly. For example, the industrial revolution is placed in the late 18th early 19th century, and then the historians disagree whether it was actually the second half of the 18th when it started and so on.

Well, if any of them read my essay, they can disagree whether it was the earlier or latter half of the 5th century BCE. I have a very poor grasp of dates, which is why I directed the letter to them. :)

Because all of the information about philosophy of Socrates comes mostly from Plato, and in the form of dialogues in which he is the main character, we do not know exactly what of it belonged to Socrates and what to Plato.

That is the main reason why Plato can not be left out.

Only if you relegate all of his works to writing down what Socrates said, can you claim that his place in history of philosophy is due to great memory. And there is no way that can be proven.

Simply, it is Plato's name on those 30+ works.

I'm a huge fan of minimalism and generally tend towards it when designing websites that feature written word as their primary content. On another note, the mention of Thales reminded me of one of my favorite paragraphs from Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy:

"In every history of philosophy for students, the first thing mentioned is that philosophy began with Thales, who said that everything is made of water. This is discouraging to the beginner, who is struggling--perhaps not very hard--to feel that respect for philosophy which the curriculum seems to expect. There is, however, ample reason to feel respect for Thales, though perhaps rather as a man of science than as a philosopher in the modern sense of the word."

BOL!

...and with that quotation, Bertrand Russel has now officially joined my mental list of great philosophers.


Boyan: Okay, I agree. Plato will have to stay. As obvious as it may seem, it's impossible to prove that Plato was an insufferably boring man. And, really, the invention of logic did allow people like Plato to begin to earn respect; he is one of the fruits of this method. Denying Plato his place in history because he was applying his teacher's method -- but did not invent it himself -- would be unfair to both teacher and student. Plato is part of the paradigm shift. As much as I disagree with his methods, there is a place for them in thought.

I don't see anything particularly insightful in Russel's quote. That Tales should be appreciated as a man of science is obvious when you first time skim through history of philosophy, because it is stated that he predicted a solar eclipse, which alone gives him the credit Russel mentioned, and he also discovered a mathematical theorem.

Not to mention how he made money by predicting how rich the crop of olives will be one year.

First thing I read about Russel, which gave me a bad first impression, was how he 'discovered' that saying Scott and later addressing to this person as the author of Veyverly (or something like that), would not make obvious to a person who does not know that Scott is the author of this book that we talk about the same person - a fact that is obvious even to those not interested in philosophy.

Trevor, I don't find Plato's works boring. His few dialogues I've read are very interesting. 'The feast' , 'Apology' , 'Menon' , 'Fedon' , and Republic too with its searching for the meaning of justice.

Though, those were the first works of philosophy I read, and I was introduced to philosophy through Plato.

Boyan: that quotation is an aphorism. It's the single most cynical thing I've read from Russel, and is completely hilarious in the sense of "if you don't get it, he just might be poking fun at you".