What's W 'On Certainty' Main theme?

[FlashDangerpants]

Here it is, the ideas as related to the list of philosophers;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_ ... ilosophers
If you have read widely you would have understand what each of the majority of philosopher's ideas are.

That's not a list of ideas, it's a list of philosophers. Frege only gets described as "Influential analytic philosopher"
It doesn't even list Berlin. It's not what you were offering, you have tried a bait and switch on me.

One of the first book I read of Western Philosophy was Russell's
History of Western Philosophy.

So far, I have >18,000 files [books, articles and notes] in my Philosophy Folder with >1000 subfolders [with some duplications]. My Kant folder has 4300 files in 200 subfolders which signify the high weightage I placed on Kantianism.

See the other thread. You know the one.... The one where we were checking your ability to read and it hasn't gone well for you.

The fact that you would place such emphasis on storing 18000 documents in a hierarchy but not on understanding what they write is not as impressive as you think it is. Again, this is another of your boasts that makes no sense to anyone else, and it's not coincidental that what you boast of is a pointless excess of organisation and sorting.

So, which are the philosophers and their ideas you align with the most with its relevant weightages [note the useful of weightages you condemned]?
If you have a 'Philosophy' folder in your hard-disk you may be able to infer from there.

Of course I don't have such a fodler. If you think I am going to make up numbers for weighting Adam Smith against John Stuart Mill you must have lost your goddamn mind.

It seems your best moves is to complain about nothing.

If you have read enough philosophical books you would have noted in some there is a long list of references and this is not a sign of boasting.

List the ideas like you said or fail, that's your issue and I don't care because I never thought it was plausible.

You can't read properly. Listing books you have failed to read is a waste of effort. The fact that you would place such emphasis on storing 18000 documents in a hierarchy but not on understanding what they write is not as impressive as you think it is.

I believe in a philosophy forum it is effective to know what others have read which will facilitate a smoother discussion.
This is why I need to know your philosophical stance in detail but you are such a coward in revealing all your moves to avoid being 'checkmate'.

You don't even understand the books you say you have 'read', probably because of this speed reading technique you use which obviously prioritises speed over read.

Berlin??

Berlin did not enjoy writing, and his published work (including both his essays and books) was produced through dictation to a tape-recorder, or by the transcription of his improvised lectures and talks from recorded tapes.
-WIKI

Perhaps the above is the reason he was not listed.
It is likely he is a second tier or grade philosopher with no novel ideas.

Scruton is on the list. Berlin is massively more important than that chump. I'v read both, you've read nothing. Your opinion is uneducated drivel.

[Veritas Aequitas]

That's not a list of ideas, it's a list of philosophers. Frege only gets described as "Influential analytic philosopher"
It doesn't even list Berlin. It's not what you were offering, you have tried a bait and switch on me.

See the other thread. You know the one.... The one where we were checking your ability to read and it hasn't gone well for you.

The fact that you would place such emphasis on storing 18000 documents in a hierarchy but not on understanding what they write is not as impressive as you think it is. Again, this is another of your boasts that makes no sense to anyone else, and it's not coincidental that what you boast of is a pointless excess of organisation and sorting.


Of course I don't have such a fodler. If you think I am going to make up numbers for weighting Adam Smith against John Stuart Mill you must have lost your goddamn mind.

It seems your best moves is to complain about nothing.

If you have read enough philosophical books you would have noted in some there is a long list of references and this is not a sign of boasting.

List the ideas like you said or fail, that's your issue and I don't care because I never thought it was plausible.

You can't read properly. Listing books you have failed to read is a waste of effort. The fact that you would place such emphasis on storing 18000 documents in a hierarchy but not on understanding what they write is not as impressive as you think it is.

I believe in a philosophy forum it is effective to know what others have read which will facilitate a smoother discussion.
This is why I need to know your philosophical stance in detail but you are such a coward in revealing all your moves to avoid being 'checkmate'.

You don't even understand the books you say you have 'read', probably because of this speed reading technique you use which obviously prioritises speed over read.

Berlin??

Berlin did not enjoy writing, and his published work (including both his essays and books) was produced through dictation to a tape-recorder, or by the transcription of his improvised lectures and talks from recorded tapes.
-WIKI

Perhaps the above is the reason he was not listed.
It is likely he is a second tier or grade philosopher with no novel ideas.

Scruton is on the list. Berlin is massively more important than that chump. I'v read both, you've read nothing. Your opinion is uneducated drivel.

Your point is childish and too picky.
That list is merely a sufficient guide which include the most popular and relevant philosophers.
I don't see the list missed out a lot of relevant philosophers. If you think one or two are missing, you can add them in.

As I had stated, if you have read widely you would have a general idea of each of the popular philosophers instantly.
If not sure of their ideas you can just click the links.

Here is where Excel comes in handy.
List the philosophers in one column and analyze their main philosophical stance across various columns, e.g. realist, anti-realists, analytic, etc.
Note what I did with 6236 verses of the Quran in Excel.

You have yet to relate your main philosophical stance to their philosophers.
The list is sufficiently complete to cover all philosophical ideas since Western philosophy first emerge till the present.
So what is your main philosophical stance and their philosophers within that list?

I believe in a philosophical discussion it is very effective to state one's coverage of philosophical knowledge. In my case, I have stated the specific philosophies and philosophers I specialized in and indicated [clue] the wide scope I have covered.
This is why I am confident is critiquing that your [& others applicable] ideas are narrow, shallow, dogmatic, etc.

[FlashDangerpants]

Here is where Excel comes in handy.
List the philosophers in one column and analyze their main philosophical stance across various columns, e.g. realist, anti-realists, analytic, etc.
Note what I did with 6236 verses of the Quran in Excel.

What you did with the Quran was very mad.
What you describe with the list of philosophers is bland and pointless and not what you said at the start of this by any means.

Your solution to everything is always to make an absurd list.

You have yet to relate your main philosophical stance to their philosophers.

You have yet to show any reason why to bother.

My interest was only piqued because you were offering a list of all the ideas, that's an interesting thing. Now you want to skate by with meaningless list of people instead? That's not an interesting thing at all. Obviously you cannot deliver so the excercise is just more of your bullshit.

This time it seems the promised list was too absurd even for you.

I believe in a philosophical discussion it is very effective to state one's coverage of philosophical knowledge. In my case, I have stated the specific philosophies and philosophers I specialized in and indicated [clue] the wide scope I have covered.
This is why I am confident is critiquing that your [& others applicable] ideas are narrow, shallow, dogmatic, etc.

You are shit at all those philosophers, you can't describe any of their arguments. All you do is say that you've heard of some guy called Grice and you hear he destroyed OLP so he must be a fan of yours. You never have a point, you can't make any use their actual arguments the way you would if you had talent and learning. You've usually never read them and you can't read very well if you have.

That's just one among many reasons why I am confident your cofidence means nothing.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here is where Excel comes in handy.
List the philosophers in one column and analyze their main philosophical stance across various columns, e.g. realist, anti-realists, analytic, etc.
Note what I did with 6236 verses of the Quran in Excel.

What you did with the Quran was very mad.

Your competent in analysis of data is very low and you don't have the intelligence to use technology efficiently.

You have been condemning my philosophical views but I have yet to know precisely on what philosophical stances, if you even mention any, they are on very flimsy grounds.
As such your philosophical views lack credibility.

[FlashDangerpants]

Here is where Excel comes in handy.
List the philosophers in one column and analyze their main philosophical stance across various columns, e.g. realist, anti-realists, analytic, etc.
Note what I did with 6236 verses of the Quran in Excel.

What you did with the Quran was very mad.

Your competent in analysis of data is very low and you don't have the intelligence to use technology efficiently.

You have been condemning my philosophical views but I have yet to know precisely on what philosophical stances, if you even mention any, they are on very flimsy grounds.
As such your philosophical views lack credibility.

Whenever I need to make an argument for some purpose, I will make an argument relevant to that purpose. If you know enough about this stuff, you will often recognise where I am getting the argument from, otherwise it doesn't matter, the source isn't important as a rule. Deal with the argument, that's the important bit.

You cannot construct an argument, we've seen that in excruciating detail over the years. You cannot read to get ideas from other philosophers as you have demonstrated with your complete failure to understand Boyd after more than 20 readings. So all you actually can do is lists. You have no other move but to make a list and then sort the list into some meaningless order. You do a stupid list for every stupid idea you ever have.

But the lists are shit too. Putting the Quran into a spreadsheet was a dumb and pointless idea. Making a folder tree 1000 directories deep is pointless, sorting files into it without reading them is pointless. Comparing all the KFC-bucvkets by making a giant list of them is pointless.

Other lists aren't even possible. The list you mentioned in this quote cannot be made and so you had to try and fob me off with some cheap plastic alternative

Say if we list down all the full range of Western philosophical ideas from 800 BCE to the present [2024], which is the ones you align with the most with its relevant weightages [not the useful of weightages you condemned]?

The list of all the moral things sorted into a pointless league table with every possible bad thing in the wolrd listed so you could make your authoritative morality-proper-KFC-bucket is impossible. Your meta-KFC-bucket where you list all the types of knowing and arrange them inorder of knowyness is purest bullshit.

That's why nobody except you thinks that you could ever do any of this stuff you think you have almost completed.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Putting the Quran into a spreadsheet was a dumb and pointless idea.

This is one of the most stupid point in reference in using a spreadsheet [Excel].

I have already done it, when I try to ask AI to do an analysis of the themes of the Quran based on certain criteria, AI was reluctant giving excuses it has to follow guidelines. However, AI did advise me my own analysis using a spreadsheet.

What happened to your brain, it seem you have so many cognitive deficits besides morality?

[FlashDangerpants]

Putting the Quran into a spreadsheet was a dumb and pointless idea.

This is one of the most stupid point in reference in using a spreadsheet [Excel].

I have already done it, when I try to ask AI to do an analysis of the themes of the Quran based on certain criteria, AI was reluctant giving excuses it has to follow guidelines. However, AI did advise me my own analysis using a spreadsheet.

What happened to your brain, it seem you have so many cognitive deficits besides morality?

Using AI to tell you that an idea all humans think is mad is actually very good is your worst idea yet.