who is the best philosopher? (it's me)

[Advocate]

How can one validate the claim to "best philosopher" other than by who has the best philosophy?

And how can one validate the claim to have the best philosophy?

[Skepdick]

It's true for every perspective.

Philosopher 1 says: I am the best philosopher.
Philosopher 2 says: I am the best philosopher.
.
.
.
Philosopher N says: I am the best philosopher.

[Advocate]

[quote=Skepdick post_id=493589 time=1612105277 user_id=17350]
It's true for every perspective.

Philosopher 1 says: I am the best philosopher.
Philosopher 2 says: I am the best philosopher.
.
.
.
Philosopher N says: I am the best philosopher.
[/quote]

The question is, by what standards. Allowing everyone to have their own obviously cannot get us anywhere. Are you saying there's no such thing as a best philosophy or best philosopher? That seems an untenable use of the word best, which is comparative.

[Skepdick]

The question is, by what standards.

Philosopher 1: My standards. Obviously! I am the best philosopher - I have the best standards.
Philosopher 2: My standards. Obviously! I am the best philosopher - I have the best standards.
...
Philosopher N: My standards. Obviously! I am the best philosopher - I have the best standards.

Allowing everyone to have their own obviously cannot get us anywhere. Are you saying there's no such thing as a best philosophy or best philosopher? That seems an untenable use of the word best, which is comparative.

It's only untenable if you can't answer the question "Which best philosophy is bestest?"

Philosopher 1: OBVIOUSLY! My best philosophy is bestest.
Philosopher 2: OBVIOUSLY! My best philosophy is bestest.
...
Philosopher N: OBVIOUSLY! My best philosophy is bestest.

I can tell you which philosophy is worst though. One that makes no distinction between imminent and delayed extinction. Philosophies that ignore time.

Since this problem is humanly undecidable, I've outsourced it to nature. Extinct philosophies, or philosophies that make the practicing philosopher extinct sooner is not the best philosophy.

[Advocate]

>>The question is, by what standards.

>Philosopher N: My standards. Obviously! I am the best philosopher - I have the best standards.

Are you actually trying to say that the idea of standards is meaningless? It literally cannot be decided by everyone individually or it wouldn't Be a standard. I do not believe you are answering in good faith, unless you're surreptitiously vetting me by process of Devil's Advocate.

>I can tell you which philosophy is worst though. One that makes no distinction between imminent and delayed extinction.

>Since this problem is humanly undecidable, I've outsourced it to nature. Extinct philosophies, or philosophies that make the practicing philosopher extinct is not the best philosophy.

Why that particular criteria? Also, please elaborate. I don't think i grok your intent. There are numerous existential issues that could be failure points for a world view. Do you mean that there must be ultimate pragmatism as a criteria?

[Skepdick]

Why that particular criteria? Also, please elaborate. I don't think i grok your intent.

Ceteris paribus every philosophy gives you the choice to die NOW.

A philosophy that gives you the option to die later is necessarily better. Because living is good!

And if living isn't good... die NOW.

There are numerous existential issues that could be failure points for a world view.

Managing failure points results in longevity.

Science. Medicine. Engineering... risk management.

Do you mean that there must be ultimate pragmatism as a criteria?

Yes. We didn't need philosophy or science to be alive - we made it without it for 100000 years, but we do need to be alive to philosophise/do science.

[Advocate]

>>A philosophy that gives you the option to die later is necessarily better. Because living is good!
>>And if living isn't good... die NOW.

False dichotomy. Anyhow, i accept your criteria, understood as basic pragmatism. The best philosophy best enables your goals, but it's also possible for two beings to have mutually exclusive goals and there must be a way to moderate that dispute. Also it's important to mediate differences in scale (personal/social/political).

>Managing failure points results in longevity.
>Science. Medicine. Engineering... risk management.

That's a matter of priority. Truth must be the first priority because it's a prerequisite for the best ends in any other sense. You're elevating risk management and i concur. It must be the second priority because it's a prerequisite for progression.

>Yes. We didn't need philosophy or science to be alive - we made it without it for 100000 years, but we do need to be alive to philosophise/do science.

We don't need them to be alive, but we need them for life to be worth living, and as the sort of creatures we are, with a highly complex approach/avoid system, we "need" life to be worth living.

[Terrapin Station]

How can one validate the claim to "best philosopher" other than by who has the best philosophy?

And how can one validate the claim to have the best philosophy?

What is it with you starting so many crap threads today?

[Advocate]

[quote="Terrapin Station" post_id=493613 time=1612110191 user_id=12582]
[quote=Advocate post_id=493588 time=1612105060 user_id=15238]
How can one validate the claim to "best philosopher" other than by who has the best philosophy?

And how can one validate the claim to have the best philosophy?
[/quote]

What is it with you starting so many crap threads today?
[/quote]

Are you saying talking about (trying to!) the best philosophy isn't properly philosophy? Which other threads are you objecting to and why are they not properly philosophy in your opinion?

[Terrapin Station]

How can one validate the claim to "best philosopher" other than by who has the best philosophy?

And how can one validate the claim to have the best philosophy?

What is it with you starting so many crap threads today?

Are you saying talking about (trying to!) the best philosophy isn't properly philosophy? Which other threads are you objecting to and why are they not properly philosophy in your opinion?

Can you answer if you queried any mods about why your posts won't format?

[Skepdick]

Are you actually trying to say that the idea of standards is meaningless?

No! I am saying the exact opposite. I am saying that there are very many standards! People keep inventing them.

standards.png (49.78 KiB) Viewed 1267 times

It literally cannot be decided by everyone individually or it wouldn't Be a standard.

OK how many people are needed for standardisation? Lets see how quickly you invent a political/voting system and have to deal with tribe loyalism.

I do not believe you are answering in good faith,

The entire point of the principle of charity is to find the faculties to believe that I am answering in good faith, despite your uncertainty and confirmation bias.

unless you're surreptitiously vetting me by process of Devil's Advocate.

Oh no! So if I already know all of the gaps in your arguments and can counter-argue them effectively wouldn't that mean I am a better philosopher than you?

[Skepdick]

Can you answer if you queried any mods about why your posts won't format?

He turned it off. Intentionally. For <reasons>.

[Impenitent]

standards proliferate because people come through in the clutch

-Imp

[Advocate]

>The entire point of the principle of charity is to find the faculties to believe that I am answering in good faith, despite your uncertainty and confirmation bias.

I don't accept charity as a positive. Perhaps you can appeal to my magnanimity.

>Oh no! So if I already know all of the gaps in your arguments and can counter-argue them effectively wouldn't that mean I am a better philosopher than you?

It would..

But there are literally no gaps because i speak the truth.

[Skepdick]

I don't accept charity as a positive. Perhaps you can appeal to my magnanimity.

If you are so magnanimous how come you only attack strawmen?

But there are literally no gaps because i speak the truth.

Who doesn't? Is just that... your truth is incomplete.