[quote=Atla post_id=474587 time=1602001507 user_id=15497]
[quote=Advocate post_id=474585 time=1602000924 user_id=15238]
You've confused me here because it seems the answer you accept so easily ( and correctly ) for the first question is the same as the one you seem not to accept ( or think is non-obvious ) for the second question.
Why can mean many things. Usually it means an empirical answer - how. If you mean why in the sense of an intended outcome, there is none. We're pure accident. How is that hard to figure out? Without an intended outcome, there cannot be a why. Why is an intentional cause in that sense.
[/quote]
'Pure accident' is an extremely, probably infinitely unlikely explanation. Because a much larger, probably infinitely larger world, void of humans, also exists by 'pure accident'. So that doesn't explain what's going on with us humans here, now. Has nothing to do with intended outcomes. I already explained this to you btw.
[/quote]
If there is no particular desired outcome in advance, a perfectly organized thing is indistinguishable from a completely chaotic one for all intents and purposes. Everything that does happen always had a 100% chance of happening, we simply don't know enough to explain how. That's the default "prior". What outcome happens to happen is only meaningful in the sense of desires, wanting/expecting a certain outcome over another. I'm not sure if we disagree or not.
philosophical bedrock
Re: philosophical bedrock
All outcomes happen, but the outcomes where humans or similar creatures are involved are unimaginably rare. The question is, what is 'unique' to these outcomes, why are we here instead anywhere else / why aren't we anything else. Why does existence seem to be 'centered' on us?Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 5:34 pm If there is no particular desired outcome in advance, a perfectly organized thing is indistinguishable from a completely chaotic one for all intents and purposes. Everything that does happen always had a 100% chance of happening, we simply don't know enough to explain how. That's the default "prior". What outcome happens to happen is only meaningful in the sense of desires, wanting/expecting a certain outcome over another. I'm not sure if we disagree or not.
I don't think that saying that "only intelligent creatures can ponder such questions" actually answers why existence seems to be 'centered' on us. That is a necessary coincidence, but not an explanation.
Re: philosophical bedrock
Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 12:25 amseeds wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2020 11:28 pmShouldn’t the person (you) who claimed to have “solved philosophy” be telling us what that question might be?
Nevertheless, I’ll offer one anyway.
It’s pretty standard and it comes in two parts, so here goes:
How is it possible that the essence of matter and the essence of life could have arisen out of pure and absolute nothingness?
On the other hand, if there did exist a primordial somethingness from which matter and life arose, then where did the something come from?
(Note: Any attempt to claim that all of those things simply always existed throughout all of past eternity, will immediately be viewed as either a non answer, or an “...I don’t know and I’m sorry I asked...”)
_______
How in the world can someone who claims to have “solved philosophy” not have any answers or suggestions as to what some of the most important philosophical questions are?
I think you may have misunderstood what I meant by “essence.” It’s probably my fault, because for the sake of clarity, I perhaps should have used the word “substance” instead of essence.
In which case, the question of what it was that the physiological “substance” of matter and mind could have arisen from...
(whether it arose from somethingness or from nothingness)
...is not a semantic question; it is an ontological question.
And in my opinion, that particular question...
(combined with the mystery of how the fabric of reality managed to “wake-up”)
...is perhaps the most difficult philosophical question of them all.
Of course there is a beginning and an end to reality (maybe not in temporal terms, but at least in spatial terms).
And to demonstrate what I mean by that, have a look at the following rudimentary image of our universe:
Now try to imagine that the bubble of reality depicted above is not just a representation of our one little universe alone, but is a metaphorical representation of the “ALL-THAT-IS.”
And by “ALL-THAT-IS,” I am talking about every possible context of reality in all of existence - be it mind or matter, objective or subjective, universal or multiversal, phenomenal or noumenal, eminent or transcendent, etc., etc..
In other words, imagine that absolutely every imaginable (or even unimaginable) state of being that could possibly exist is represented by the bubble, and that the blackness surrounding the bubble is pure and absolute nothingness.
Now with all of that in mind, I suggest that where what we call reality “begins” (or has its being) is represented by the sum total of the contents and makeup of the “ALL-THAT-IS” bubble.
Whereas, on the other hand, where reality “ends” is delineated by where the metaphorical outer film of the bubble terminates and the blank infinity of absolute nothingness begins.
I furthermore suggest that the only things that can be said to have no beginning or no ending are “infinity” (which is a reference to distance), and “eternity” (which is a reference to time)...
...with “infinity” being represented, again, by the endless void of nothingness that extends omnidirectionally away from the terminating edge of the “ALL-THAT-IS”...
The bottom line is that when it comes to what we commonly refer to as “reality,” then it should be understood that reality...
(at least in a purely spatial context when compared to absolute infinity)
...does indeed have a beginning and an ending.
_______
Re: philosophical bedrock
Beginnings and endings lol. Circles don't have them, and obviously the default view is that our universe is circular in n or infinite dimensions.
Re: philosophical bedrock
>How in the world can someone who claims to have “solved philosophy” not have any answers or suggestions as to what some of the most important philosophical questions are? :?
I can say what some of them are all day long but... Every question in metaphysics requires an understanding of epistemology and vice versa. Also, "most important" is bespoke, the most important question for me isn't going to be the answer for you or her or them.
>I think you may have misunderstood what I meant by “essence.” It’s probably my fault, because for the sake of clarity, I perhaps should have used the word “substance” instead of essence.
>In which case, the question of what it was that the physiological “substance” of matter and mind could have arisen from...
[i](whether it arose from somethingness or from nothingness)[/i]
>...is not a [b]semantic[/b] question; it is an [b]ontological[/b] question.
Same question, same answer. Ontology is about what we use the words to represent, not external Actuality. Things are bespoke collections of attributes and boundary conditions, not "out there somewhere" to be discovered. They only exist according to purpose, and that purpose makes all metaphysical questions semantic ones.
>And in my opinion, that particular question...
>[i](combined with the mystery of how the fabric of reality managed to “wake-up”)[/i]
>...is perhaps the most difficult philosophical question of them all.
The assumption that Isness was ever dormant is unwarranted.
>Now try to imagine that the bubble of reality depicted above is not just a representation of our one little universe alone, but is a metaphorical representation of the [b]“ALL-THAT-IS.”[/b]
>And by “ALL-THAT-IS,” I am talking about every possible context of reality in all of existence - be it mind or matter, objective or subjective, universal or multiversal, phenomenal or noumenal, eminent or transcendent, etc., etc..
>In other words, imagine that absolutely every imaginable (or even unimaginable) state of being that could possibly exist is represented by the bubble, and that the blackness surrounding the bubble is pure and absolute nothingness.
>Now with all of that in mind, I suggest that where what we call reality [b]“begins”[/b] (or has its being) is represented by the sum total of the contents and makeup of the “ALL-THAT-IS” bubble.
>Whereas, on the other hand, where reality [b]“ends”[/b] is delineated by where the metaphorical outer film of the bubble terminates and the blank infinity of absolute nothingness begins.
Because the word reality is already in common use to mean our experience, i use Actuality to refer to the beyond. That distinction is the kernel of all philosophy https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... y_X2Kbneo/
>I furthermore suggest that the only things that can be said to have no beginning or no ending are [b]“infinity”[/b] (which is a reference to distance), and [b]“eternity”[/b] (which is a reference to time)...
Beginnings and ends only exist conceptually to us, they don't exist in Actuality. Words like infinity that reference the transcendent can only be stand-ins. Infinity means "etcetera". Time is merely measured change (the universal substrate of the universe). The same understanding simplifies matter, energy, space, entropy, causality, mass, etc. Time and space aren't conceptually unique, they're both aspects of change.,
>The bottom line is that when it comes to what we commonly refer to as [b]“reality,”[/b] then it should be understood that reality...
>[i](at least in a purely spatial context when compared to absolute infinity)[/i]
>...does indeed have a beginning and an ending.
Space is the correlation of our internal (proprioceptive) and external senses. Up and down are relative to gravity, left and right are relative to sight and hearing, and so forth. To the extent we agree on the measuring stick, that's consensus reality.
I can say what some of them are all day long but... Every question in metaphysics requires an understanding of epistemology and vice versa. Also, "most important" is bespoke, the most important question for me isn't going to be the answer for you or her or them.
>I think you may have misunderstood what I meant by “essence.” It’s probably my fault, because for the sake of clarity, I perhaps should have used the word “substance” instead of essence.
>In which case, the question of what it was that the physiological “substance” of matter and mind could have arisen from...
[i](whether it arose from somethingness or from nothingness)[/i]
>...is not a [b]semantic[/b] question; it is an [b]ontological[/b] question.
Same question, same answer. Ontology is about what we use the words to represent, not external Actuality. Things are bespoke collections of attributes and boundary conditions, not "out there somewhere" to be discovered. They only exist according to purpose, and that purpose makes all metaphysical questions semantic ones.
>And in my opinion, that particular question...
>[i](combined with the mystery of how the fabric of reality managed to “wake-up”)[/i]
>...is perhaps the most difficult philosophical question of them all.
The assumption that Isness was ever dormant is unwarranted.
>Now try to imagine that the bubble of reality depicted above is not just a representation of our one little universe alone, but is a metaphorical representation of the [b]“ALL-THAT-IS.”[/b]
>And by “ALL-THAT-IS,” I am talking about every possible context of reality in all of existence - be it mind or matter, objective or subjective, universal or multiversal, phenomenal or noumenal, eminent or transcendent, etc., etc..
>In other words, imagine that absolutely every imaginable (or even unimaginable) state of being that could possibly exist is represented by the bubble, and that the blackness surrounding the bubble is pure and absolute nothingness.
>Now with all of that in mind, I suggest that where what we call reality [b]“begins”[/b] (or has its being) is represented by the sum total of the contents and makeup of the “ALL-THAT-IS” bubble.
>Whereas, on the other hand, where reality [b]“ends”[/b] is delineated by where the metaphorical outer film of the bubble terminates and the blank infinity of absolute nothingness begins.
Because the word reality is already in common use to mean our experience, i use Actuality to refer to the beyond. That distinction is the kernel of all philosophy https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... y_X2Kbneo/
>I furthermore suggest that the only things that can be said to have no beginning or no ending are [b]“infinity”[/b] (which is a reference to distance), and [b]“eternity”[/b] (which is a reference to time)...
Beginnings and ends only exist conceptually to us, they don't exist in Actuality. Words like infinity that reference the transcendent can only be stand-ins. Infinity means "etcetera". Time is merely measured change (the universal substrate of the universe). The same understanding simplifies matter, energy, space, entropy, causality, mass, etc. Time and space aren't conceptually unique, they're both aspects of change.,
>The bottom line is that when it comes to what we commonly refer to as [b]“reality,”[/b] then it should be understood that reality...
>[i](at least in a purely spatial context when compared to absolute infinity)[/i]
>...does indeed have a beginning and an ending.
Space is the correlation of our internal (proprioceptive) and external senses. Up and down are relative to gravity, left and right are relative to sight and hearing, and so forth. To the extent we agree on the measuring stick, that's consensus reality.
-
Veritas Aequitas
- Posts: 12957
- Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am
Re: philosophical bedrock
Wow.. you are claiming you are more philosophical then Bertrand Russell.Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 11:16 am As a rule, Bertrand Russell doesn't know what he's talking about. There are answers, they can be found, and it can be proven. That anyone could in good faith say their subject cannot lead to answers is remarkably naive. If there are no answers then there are no meaningful questions. How is that not blindingly obvious to everyone!?
To optimize the well-being of the individual requires the individual having their priorities straight, at a minimum. Humanity is a question of meaning at scale, like politics basically, but without the layers of rhetoric.
Note Russell stated there are no definite answers to any question but there are only more questions on any answers.
If you disagree with the above, then you are claiming to be omniscient like the claim for a all-knowing God.
I presume you are theist and thus your God will provide the definite and ultimate answer to anything?
Note even Science the most credible source of knowledge we have, NEVER claims certainty to the knowledge it generate.
Re: philosophical bedrock
[quote="Veritas Aequitas" post_id=474853 time=1602223557 user_id=7896]
[quote=Advocate post_id=474557 time=1601979381 user_id=15238]
As a rule, Bertrand Russell doesn't know what he's talking about. There are answers, they can be found, and it can be proven. That anyone could in good faith say their subject cannot lead to answers is remarkably naive. If there are no answers then there are no meaningful questions. How is that not blindingly obvious to everyone!?
To optimize the well-being of the individual requires the individual having their priorities straight, at a minimum. Humanity is a question of meaning at scale, like politics basically, but without the layers of rhetoric.
[/quote]
Wow.. you are claiming you are more philosophical then Bertrand Russell.
Note Russell stated there are no definite answers to any question but there are only more questions on any answers.
If you disagree with the above, then you are claiming to be omniscient like the claim for a all-knowing God.
I presume you are theist and thus your God will provide the definite and ultimate answer to anything?
Note even Science the most credible source of knowledge we have, NEVER claims certainty to the knowledge it generate.
[/quote]
I'm not claiming to be omniscient, i'm claiming that he doesn't know what he's talking about with regard to the limits of philosophy. The Truth isn't that complicated and it's not that hard to find if you have your priorities straight. The infinite regress is not as it seems, The universe is an infinitely recursive meta-mobius and The Answer to philosophy is as that of any complex idea like economics or physics - a simplified understanding that leads to actionable certainty. Science is less certain than logic because it relies on replicable measurement rather than descriptive relationships between idealised entities like math and logic do.
Relationships describe boundary conditions and cannot be wrong to the extent they're explicit because the boundaries between things are wherever we say they are. Less than, greater than, equal to, approximately, etc. all describe those relationships. All languages are descriptive. Logic and math are languages, science is not. Science is a method - rigor, and the body of knowledge ( justified belief ) so obtained.
[quote=Advocate post_id=474557 time=1601979381 user_id=15238]
As a rule, Bertrand Russell doesn't know what he's talking about. There are answers, they can be found, and it can be proven. That anyone could in good faith say their subject cannot lead to answers is remarkably naive. If there are no answers then there are no meaningful questions. How is that not blindingly obvious to everyone!?
To optimize the well-being of the individual requires the individual having their priorities straight, at a minimum. Humanity is a question of meaning at scale, like politics basically, but without the layers of rhetoric.
[/quote]
Wow.. you are claiming you are more philosophical then Bertrand Russell.
Note Russell stated there are no definite answers to any question but there are only more questions on any answers.
If you disagree with the above, then you are claiming to be omniscient like the claim for a all-knowing God.
I presume you are theist and thus your God will provide the definite and ultimate answer to anything?
Note even Science the most credible source of knowledge we have, NEVER claims certainty to the knowledge it generate.
[/quote]
I'm not claiming to be omniscient, i'm claiming that he doesn't know what he's talking about with regard to the limits of philosophy. The Truth isn't that complicated and it's not that hard to find if you have your priorities straight. The infinite regress is not as it seems, The universe is an infinitely recursive meta-mobius and The Answer to philosophy is as that of any complex idea like economics or physics - a simplified understanding that leads to actionable certainty. Science is less certain than logic because it relies on replicable measurement rather than descriptive relationships between idealised entities like math and logic do.
Relationships describe boundary conditions and cannot be wrong to the extent they're explicit because the boundaries between things are wherever we say they are. Less than, greater than, equal to, approximately, etc. all describe those relationships. All languages are descriptive. Logic and math are languages, science is not. Science is a method - rigor, and the body of knowledge ( justified belief ) so obtained.
-
Veritas Aequitas
- Posts: 12957
- Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am
Re: philosophical bedrock
Some of your points are questionable;Advocate wrote: ↑Fri Oct 09, 2020 7:35 amI'm not claiming to be omniscient, i'm claiming that he doesn't know what he's talking about with regard to the limits of philosophy. The Truth isn't that complicated and it's not that hard to find if you have your priorities straight. The infinite regress is not as it seems, The universe is an infinitely recursive meta-mobius and The Answer to philosophy is as that of any complex idea like economics or physics - a simplified understanding that leads to actionable certainty. Science is less certain than logic because it relies on replicable measurement rather than descriptive relationships between idealised entities like math and logic do.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 09, 2020 7:05 amWow.. you are claiming you are more philosophical then Bertrand Russell.Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 11:16 am As a rule, Bertrand Russell doesn't know what he's talking about. There are answers, they can be found, and it can be proven. That anyone could in good faith say their subject cannot lead to answers is remarkably naive. If there are no answers then there are no meaningful questions. How is that not blindingly obvious to everyone!?
To optimize the well-being of the individual requires the individual having their priorities straight, at a minimum. Humanity is a question of meaning at scale, like politics basically, but without the layers of rhetoric.
Note Russell stated there are no definite answers to any question but there are only more questions on any answers.
If you disagree with the above, then you are claiming to be omniscient like the claim for a all-knowing God.
I presume you are theist and thus your God will provide the definite and ultimate answer to anything?
Note even Science the most credible source of knowledge we have, NEVER claims certainty to the knowledge it generate.
Relationships describe boundary conditions and cannot be wrong to the extent they're explicit because the boundaries between things are wherever we say they are. Less than, greater than, equal to, approximately, etc. all describe those relationships. All languages are descriptive. Logic and math are languages, science is not. Science is a method - rigor, and the body of knowledge ( justified belief ) so obtained.
1. There is no such thing as truth with a capital 'T' which is often claimed by theists and those of the metaphysical woo woo.
2. There is no question of Science being less certain than logic. Logic is only certain with its rules but not the truth. Logic cannot certainly be done correctly but the conclusion can be garbage if the premises are garbage - GIGO.
3. Instead of trying to be one-up of Bertrand Russell, I suggest you retract your claims and, study and think more deeply so that you can at most be on par with Russell on the above point.
p.s. your "quote" marking is OK [as evident above] but it is not properly presented in your post thus I did not receive any notification of your reply. Check with Admin if need to.
Re: philosophical bedrock
[quote="Veritas Aequitas" post_id=474882 time=1602236499 user_id=7896]
Some of your points are questionable;
1. There is no such thing as truth with a capital 'T' which is often claimed by theists and those of the metaphysical woo woo.
2. There is no question of Science being less certain than logic. Logic is only certain with its rules but not the truth. Logic cannot certainly be done correctly but the conclusion can be garbage if the premises are garbage - GIGO.
3. Instead of trying to be one-up of Bertrand Russell, I suggest you retract your claims and, study and think more deeply so that you can at most be on par with Russell on the above point.
p.s. your "quote" marking is OK [as evident above] but it is not properly presented in your post thus I did not receive any notification of your reply. Check with Admin if need to.
[/quote]
1. ...to us. This is the line of transcendence. I call what's on the other side "Actuality" for clarity because Reality is already so broadly used to mean so many different things. Because literally everyone has their own idea of what truth is, it's best to reserve that particular word for individual experience while Reality is consensus experience. The terms are all debateable - my contention is that these definitions settle all the related problems best. If the metaphysics includes woo, it's just bad metaphysics because it's not accounting for epistemology at all. To the extent you mean what i call actuality by what you call truth, i concur.
2. Logic is semantic, but absolute. IF (and to the extent) we agree where the divisions between things are, math is absolute. Logic doesn't rest on a single variety of relationship (quantification/distinction) like math, but every aspect of it is individually derivable from personal experience. Logic "keeps working" and that's as replicably sufficient as any system of thought can be. "Logic is only certain with it's rules" is all it claims. The facts you put into it must be verified by empirical measurement, science - the other side of the coin. The validity of a logical fact is not inherently related to the truth of the outcome because it isn't intended to produce truth, it's intended to produce certainty. You can be 100% certain that IF all cats are blue and you're a cat, you're blue. It's a description of the relationships between things that we all experience in reality, in this example a matter of mereology.
3. I don't have to try, i can prove the particular contention i'm standing against here with ease. The fact that he's considered a great thinker is clouding your judgement of his point. He has no authority over anyone in philosophy, least of all me. The truth can be recognized by anyone. He is simply wrong and it isn't anything to do with authority. Even if he were correct, it's a philosophical statement so it's self-refuting. But we need not talk about him at all, let's discuss ideas. Why do you think i'm trying to one-up him instead of merely refute him? Why do you grant him the status of infallible in relation to myself?
4. I have "disable bbcode" selected for the same reason as "disable smilies", because the code sucks. Turning it off is a site feature, not a bug as everyone seems to assume.
Some of your points are questionable;
1. There is no such thing as truth with a capital 'T' which is often claimed by theists and those of the metaphysical woo woo.
2. There is no question of Science being less certain than logic. Logic is only certain with its rules but not the truth. Logic cannot certainly be done correctly but the conclusion can be garbage if the premises are garbage - GIGO.
3. Instead of trying to be one-up of Bertrand Russell, I suggest you retract your claims and, study and think more deeply so that you can at most be on par with Russell on the above point.
p.s. your "quote" marking is OK [as evident above] but it is not properly presented in your post thus I did not receive any notification of your reply. Check with Admin if need to.
[/quote]
1. ...to us. This is the line of transcendence. I call what's on the other side "Actuality" for clarity because Reality is already so broadly used to mean so many different things. Because literally everyone has their own idea of what truth is, it's best to reserve that particular word for individual experience while Reality is consensus experience. The terms are all debateable - my contention is that these definitions settle all the related problems best. If the metaphysics includes woo, it's just bad metaphysics because it's not accounting for epistemology at all. To the extent you mean what i call actuality by what you call truth, i concur.
2. Logic is semantic, but absolute. IF (and to the extent) we agree where the divisions between things are, math is absolute. Logic doesn't rest on a single variety of relationship (quantification/distinction) like math, but every aspect of it is individually derivable from personal experience. Logic "keeps working" and that's as replicably sufficient as any system of thought can be. "Logic is only certain with it's rules" is all it claims. The facts you put into it must be verified by empirical measurement, science - the other side of the coin. The validity of a logical fact is not inherently related to the truth of the outcome because it isn't intended to produce truth, it's intended to produce certainty. You can be 100% certain that IF all cats are blue and you're a cat, you're blue. It's a description of the relationships between things that we all experience in reality, in this example a matter of mereology.
3. I don't have to try, i can prove the particular contention i'm standing against here with ease. The fact that he's considered a great thinker is clouding your judgement of his point. He has no authority over anyone in philosophy, least of all me. The truth can be recognized by anyone. He is simply wrong and it isn't anything to do with authority. Even if he were correct, it's a philosophical statement so it's self-refuting. But we need not talk about him at all, let's discuss ideas. Why do you think i'm trying to one-up him instead of merely refute him? Why do you grant him the status of infallible in relation to myself?
4. I have "disable bbcode" selected for the same reason as "disable smilies", because the code sucks. Turning it off is a site feature, not a bug as everyone seems to assume.
-
Angelo Cannata
- Posts: 228
- Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2016 2:30 am
- Location: Cambridge UK
- Contact:
Re: philosophical bedrock
I think that this is an important question. But I admit that this is just a temporary opinion of mine. Is it really an important question? Is it a good, fruitful think, asking what the most important question is? Doesn't it contain some ancestral desire to dominate things, dominate the world, dominate people, by trying to find some strong point able to be efficient? Is it a good thing trying to find a prerequisite for solving all others? Why should we question, why should we approach reflection as it was a problem to solve? Imagine I meet you and I tell you that I would like to solve the problem of you being you, or of the fact that we met, or about our relationship: would you feel fine seeing that I consider you, or our relationship, a problem that I would like to solve? Is it a good thing choosing to proceed in philosophy with such a start, that is, considering things essentially as problems? Is it a good way adopting a method of questioning, seeing problems, essentially problems? Can we suspect that this has been for too a long time some sort of vice of philosophy, that still prevents us from exploring alternative ways? Is it possible that we, especially as Westerners, are still in such a mental cage, the cage of approaching things, life, the world, as problems, as things to be questioned? Shall we state that questioning and problematizing is the nature of philosophy? Is this good, correct, fruitful, sound? I'd prefer to think that philosophy is, or should be, the human activity that, more than any other, tries to be radical in criticizing itself. I know that, by saying all of these things, I have been just questioning and problematizing as well, thus confirming that actually I have agreed on adopting the method chosen by the question you started with. But questioning about questioning can try to be different from just confirming questioning: for example, I can try to question questioning by trying to slow down and contemplate reflections, rather than making efforts while remaining inside the traditional way of questioning, which is the cage where questioning of questioning remains. So, there is art, for example, as a different approach to things, life, reality, that doesn’t proceed by questioning. We could try to make questioning an art, that could be, for example, contemplating questions rather than feeling in a hurry to find answers. Are we sure that the best way to deal with questions is trying to find answers to them? What method, what criterion shall we use to evaluate all of these things, to evaluate questioning?
Re: philosophical bedrock
[quote="Angelo Cannata" post_id=474937 time=1602275240 user_id=12795]
I think that this is an important question. But I admit that this is just a temporary opinion of mine. Is it really an important question? Is it a good, fruitful think, asking what the most important question is? Doesn't it contain some ancestral desire to dominate things, dominate the world, dominate people, by trying to find some strong point able to be efficient? Is it a good thing trying to find a prerequisite for solving all others? Why should we question, why should we approach reflection as it was a problem to solve? Imagine I meet you and I tell you that I would like to solve the problem of you being you, or of the fact that we met, or about our relationship: would you feel fine seeing that I consider you, or our relationship, a problem that I would like to solve? Is it a good thing choosing to proceed in philosophy with such a start, that is, considering things essentially as problems? Is it a good way adopting a method of questioning, seeing problems, essentially problems? Can we suspect that this has been for too a long time some sort of vice of philosophy, that still prevents us from exploring alternative ways? Is it possible that we, especially as Westerners, are still in such a mental cage, the cage of approaching things, life, the world, as problems, as things to be questioned? Shall we state that questioning and problematizing is the nature of philosophy? Is this good, correct, fruitful, sound? I'd prefer to think that philosophy is, or should be, the human activity that, more than any other, tries to be radical in criticizing itself. I know that, by saying all of these things, I have been just questioning and problematizing as well, thus confirming that actually I have agreed on adopting the method chosen by the question you started with. But questioning about questioning can try to be different from just confirming questioning: for example, I can try to question questioning by trying to slow down and contemplate reflections, rather than making efforts while remaining inside the traditional way of questioning, which is the cage where questioning of questioning remains. So, there is art, for example, as a different approach to things, life, reality, that doesn’t proceed by questioning. We could try to make questioning an art, that could be, for example, contemplating questions rather than feeling in a hurry to find answers. Are we sure that the best way to deal with questions is trying to find answers to them? What method, what criterion shall we use to evaluate all of these things, to evaluate questioning?
[/quote]
The purpose of all knowledge, wisdom, and understanding is to produce actionable certainty. That's how to properly evaluate them.
I think that this is an important question. But I admit that this is just a temporary opinion of mine. Is it really an important question? Is it a good, fruitful think, asking what the most important question is? Doesn't it contain some ancestral desire to dominate things, dominate the world, dominate people, by trying to find some strong point able to be efficient? Is it a good thing trying to find a prerequisite for solving all others? Why should we question, why should we approach reflection as it was a problem to solve? Imagine I meet you and I tell you that I would like to solve the problem of you being you, or of the fact that we met, or about our relationship: would you feel fine seeing that I consider you, or our relationship, a problem that I would like to solve? Is it a good thing choosing to proceed in philosophy with such a start, that is, considering things essentially as problems? Is it a good way adopting a method of questioning, seeing problems, essentially problems? Can we suspect that this has been for too a long time some sort of vice of philosophy, that still prevents us from exploring alternative ways? Is it possible that we, especially as Westerners, are still in such a mental cage, the cage of approaching things, life, the world, as problems, as things to be questioned? Shall we state that questioning and problematizing is the nature of philosophy? Is this good, correct, fruitful, sound? I'd prefer to think that philosophy is, or should be, the human activity that, more than any other, tries to be radical in criticizing itself. I know that, by saying all of these things, I have been just questioning and problematizing as well, thus confirming that actually I have agreed on adopting the method chosen by the question you started with. But questioning about questioning can try to be different from just confirming questioning: for example, I can try to question questioning by trying to slow down and contemplate reflections, rather than making efforts while remaining inside the traditional way of questioning, which is the cage where questioning of questioning remains. So, there is art, for example, as a different approach to things, life, reality, that doesn’t proceed by questioning. We could try to make questioning an art, that could be, for example, contemplating questions rather than feeling in a hurry to find answers. Are we sure that the best way to deal with questions is trying to find answers to them? What method, what criterion shall we use to evaluate all of these things, to evaluate questioning?
[/quote]
The purpose of all knowledge, wisdom, and understanding is to produce actionable certainty. That's how to properly evaluate them.
Re: philosophical bedrock
How can we solve/answer ALL of our problems/questions?
What is the solution, which will lead to answering ALL of our questions?
The answer to both question has already been discovered, and is very simple and easy to learn, and know.
By the way,
For every problem there is a solution. And,
For every solution there is a formula.
How to discover, or obtain, the formula that creates the solution, which will solve ALL of human being's problems, is extremely simple AND easy.
Re: philosophical bedrock
>>What is the most important question in philosophy? [/quote]
>How can we solve/answer ALL of our problems/questions?
Understand tiny.cc/TheWholeStory, https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... gq2BmR8qs/, and https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... y_X2Kbneo/ and you'll be able to answer answer every philosophical question, but solving is bespoke.
>>What question or problem is a prerequisite for solving all others?
>What is the solution, which will lead to answering ALL of our questions?
That starts by understanding an answer as potentially being "that's not a meaningful question" - a useful framework for understanding what's needed to find a solution. A solution is best understood as actionable certainty with a thoughtful balance of salience, perspective, and priority.
>The answer to both question has already been discovered, and is very simple and easy to learn, and know.
I know, but do you? The Truth is only one thing, however many perspectives there are on it. Two true stories always agree.
/.By the way,
For every problem there is a solution. And,
For every solution there is a formula.
>How to discover, or obtain, the formula that creates the solution, which will solve ALL of human being's problems, is extremely simple AND easy.
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. The ultimate formula is what i'd call "spiritual math", incorporating relationships between metaphors in symbolic form.
>How can we solve/answer ALL of our problems/questions?
Understand tiny.cc/TheWholeStory, https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... gq2BmR8qs/, and https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... y_X2Kbneo/ and you'll be able to answer answer every philosophical question, but solving is bespoke.
>>What question or problem is a prerequisite for solving all others?
>What is the solution, which will lead to answering ALL of our questions?
That starts by understanding an answer as potentially being "that's not a meaningful question" - a useful framework for understanding what's needed to find a solution. A solution is best understood as actionable certainty with a thoughtful balance of salience, perspective, and priority.
>The answer to both question has already been discovered, and is very simple and easy to learn, and know.
I know, but do you? The Truth is only one thing, however many perspectives there are on it. Two true stories always agree.
/.By the way,
For every problem there is a solution. And,
For every solution there is a formula.
>How to discover, or obtain, the formula that creates the solution, which will solve ALL of human being's problems, is extremely simple AND easy.
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. The ultimate formula is what i'd call "spiritual math", incorporating relationships between metaphors in symbolic form.
Re: philosophical bedrock
>How can we solve/answer ALL of our problems/questions?
Understand tiny.cc/TheWholeStory, https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... gq2BmR8qs/, and https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... y_X2Kbneo/ and you'll be able to answer answer every philosophical question, but solving is bespoke.[/quote]
But EVERY, so called, philosophical question, has ALREADY been answered.
What does 'bespoke' mean, to you?
I, obviously, ALREADY did say; 'and is very simple and easy to learn, and know'. So, my answer would, obviously, be Yes.Advocate wrote: ↑Sat Oct 10, 2020 3:35 am >>What question or problem is a prerequisite for solving all others?
>What is the solution, which will lead to answering ALL of our questions?
That starts by understanding an answer as potentially being "that's not a meaningful question" - a useful framework for understanding what's needed to find a solution. A solution is best understood as actionable certainty with a thoughtful balance of salience, perspective, and priority.
>The answer to both question has already been discovered, and is very simple and easy to learn, and know.
I know, but do you?
So, you agree that it is 'agreement', itself, which is what makes stories true or not, and so what determines, Truth, Itself, also, correct?
How could you, accurately and logically, concur "with all that", but then disagree with 'some of that'?Advocate wrote: ↑Sat Oct 10, 2020 3:35 am /.By the way,
For every problem there is a solution. And,
For every solution there is a formula.
>How to discover, or obtain, the formula that creates the solution, which will solve ALL of human being's problems, is extremely simple AND easy.
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.
Discovering, explaining, AND understanding the formula, that creates the solution, which is thee actual answer to ALL of human being made up and created problems IS; extremely simple AND easy.
Okay.
That SIMPLE formula I call 'HOW'.
Re: philosophical bedrock
>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. But how often have they all been answered together, coherently? That's a different thing entirely. And if an answer includes any woo at all, it's not truth
>What does 'bespoke' mean, to you?
Customized. In this context, accounting for salience, perspective, and priority.
[quote=Advocate post_id=474980 time=1602297346 user_id=15238]
>>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.
>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. Truth the way it's normally understood references the Beyond, the transcendent; Actuality, which is impossible. 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.
>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.
Every philosophical question had been individually answered many times, and the majority of those times by idiots. But how often have they all been answered together, coherently? That's a different thing entirely. And if an answer includes any woo at all, it's not truth
>What does 'bespoke' mean, to you?
Customized. In this context, accounting for salience, perspective, and priority.
[quote=Advocate post_id=474980 time=1602297346 user_id=15238]
>>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.
>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. Truth the way it's normally understood references the Beyond, the transcendent; Actuality, which is impossible. 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.
>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.