philosophical bedrock

[Age]

>But EVERY, so called, philosophical question, has ALREADY been answered.

Every philosophical question had been individually answered many times, and the majority of those times by idiots.

And, REMEMBER that 'you' are thee IDIOT, sometimes, to "others".

But how often have they all been answered together, coherently?

Just once.

That's a different thing entirely. And if an answer includes any woo at all, it's not truth

And, if you still BELIEVE that you have answered ALL philosophical questions together, coherently, then you are just fooling "your" 'self', and thus 'you' are thee idiot here, once again.

>What does 'bespoke' mean, to you?

Customized. In this context, accounting for salience, perspective, and priority.

Which explains your response.

>>What question or problem is a prerequisite for solving all others?

>I, obviously, ALREADY did say; 'and is very simple and easy to learn, and know'. So, my answer would, obviously, be Yes.

It's obvious that you said it, but anecdote is the lowest type of evidence so my question remains.

But anecdote is all any one is getting here in this forum. That is; UNTIL CLARIFYING QUESTIONS ARE POSED.

By the way, you misquoted me as I did NOT say what you wrote here, in reply to the quote of yours that you wrote here.

My response was in reply to you writing;
I know, but do you?

Which was your response to when I wrote:
>The answer to both question has already been discovered, and is very simple and easy to learn, and know.

If you quote us properly AND correctly, then this helps any one who is interested in this, and so is reading this, keep an accurate track of what is actually going on here.

>So, you agree that it is 'agreement', itself, which is what makes stories true or not, and so what determines, Truth, Itself, also, correct?

Yes, sort of. It's a semantic argument but it's True too.

What do you mean by 'it' is a 'semantic argument'?

Firstly what is the 'it' here, in regards to exactly? And,

What do you mean by 'semantic argument'?

If you do NOT CLARIFY, then what you said here means absolutely NOTHING, to me.

Truth the way it's normally understood references the Beyond, the transcendent; Actuality, which is impossible.

But this is NOT how Truth is normally understood, nor references, to me at all.

What do you mean by 'normally understood'?

The only way we can recognize truth is by way of evidence so "justified true belief" is likewise impossible for the same reason. Evidence doesn't determine what is actual but it does determine what we have reason to believe is actual, and that's the most a word like truth can Actually aspire to.

Well I certainly do NOT agree with this.

>I concur with all that. It's not that simple though, as mentioned above, people would have to understand their priorities, for a start; which is something few ever accomplish.

How could you, accurately and logically, concur "with all that", but then disagree with 'some of that'?

It's necessarily true but also insufficient.

What, exactly, do you propose is "also insufficient"? And,

Why do you propose that 'that' is "also insufficient"?

What are people's priorities? And, are they the exact same for EVERY one?

[Advocate]

[quote=Age post_id=475120 time=1602370280 user_id=16237]
"things"
[/quote]

I feel that you're too neuro-atypical for me to converse with effectively. Each of your questions seems to lead directly to an infinite regress of other questions. That's not a practical way to do philosophy. I require a certain common understanding of how language works in order that my boredom and restlessness not take over from my interest in "doing philosophy".

[PeteJ]

What is the most important question in philosophy? What question or problem is a prerequisite for solving all others?

Great question!!!

Metaphysical questions are so closely entangled that any one will do. But some questions are more immediately useful than others. I have almost no doubt that the best question you can ask is

Why are all positive metaphysical positions logically absurd'?

Or, equivalently,

Why are all metaphysical questions undecidable?

If you can answer this then you have solved all metaphysical problems at the level of principles. The answer is simple and really quite obvious, but is missed by most philosophers.

Any metaphysical question will lead eventually to this general question, but starting with it saves a lot of time.