Buddhism's 4NT-8FP is a Life Problem Solving Technique.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The principle and practice of continual questioning and checking [using sound philosophical tools - logic, rationality, epistemology, critical thinking, wisdom, morality, etc.] will definitely be better than blind faith.

And yet you seem to have taken the 4NT-8FP AND Russel's teachings on blind faith

Because when it comes down to it - people don't just ask questions for the sake of asking questions. People expect reasonable answers too.

Nope my agreement with Russell is in alignment with my many years on intensive involvement with Philosophy-proper [e.g. not incestuous academic philosophy].

[TimeSeeker]

Nope my agreement with Russell is in alignment with my many years on intensive involvement with Philosophy-proper [e.g. not incestuous academic philosophy].

Very good.

By the same argument my DISAGREEMENT with "Philosophy-proper" is through many years of intensive involvement with Applied science-proper [e.g not ANY "philosophy" but strictly real-world, applied praxis ].

If philosophy is all about asking questions, and all important questions can be reduced to a form that produces yes/no answers. Guess what that means?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entscheidungsproblem
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_problem

Computer science is "Philosophy-proper" ?


P.S https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

[Veritas Aequitas]

Nope my agreement with Russell is in alignment with my many years on intensive involvement with Philosophy-proper [e.g. not incestuous academic philosophy].

Very good.

By the same argument my DISAGREEMENT with "Philosophy-proper" is through many years of intensive involvement with Applied science-proper [e.g not ANY "philosophy" but strictly real-world, applied praxis ].

If philosophy is all about asking questions, and all important questions can be reduced to a form that produces yes/no answers. Guess what that means?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entscheidungsproblem
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_problem

Computer science is "Philosophy-proper" ?


P.S https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

Computer Science, as with all other fields of knowledge, is a tool of Philosophy-proper.

It is more likely we have a Philosophy [Meta] of Computer Science [like Philosophy of X=Whatever] but not likely to have a Computer Science of Philosophy.
Rather we will have Computer Science in Philosophy Proper as a tool.

[TimeSeeker]

Computer Science, as with all other fields of knowledge, is a tool of Philosophy-proper.

Excuse me! I reject "Philosophy-propper's" claim over the tools I INVENT. I reject your claim over MY WORK

If "Philosophy-proper" wants my work/tools - then "Philosophy-proper" can ask for them nicely. Or pay for them - like everybody else!

It is more likely we have a Philosophy [Meta] of Computer Science [like Philosophy of X=Whatever] but not likely to have a Computer Science of Philosophy.
Rather we will have Computer Science in Philosophy Proper as a tool.

Yeah. Philosophers like to think that their field encompasses all other fields

It's a pretty egotistical perspective given their demonstrable inability to overcome practical problems/challenges with their claims. Philosophers keep tripping over reality, then blame reality for being wrong.

For a field that claims to concerns itself with 'knowledge' Philosophy-proper sure pays lip service to epistemology.

It is the distinction between knowledge-that and knowledge-how. https://aphilosopherstake.com/2013/02/2 ... know-that/

Computer science teaches us HOW to acquire knowledge. It teaches us HOW to LEARN.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Computer Science, as with all other fields of knowledge, is a tool of Philosophy-proper.

Excuse me! I reject "Philosophy-propper's" claim over the tools I INVENT. I reject your claim over MY WORK

If "Philosophy-proper" wants my work/tools - then "Philosophy-proper" can ask for them nicely. Or pay for them - like everybody else!

It is more likely we have a Philosophy [Meta] of Computer Science [like Philosophy of X=Whatever] but not likely to have a Computer Science of Philosophy.
Rather we will have Computer Science in Philosophy Proper as a tool.

Yeah. Philosophers like to think that their field encompasses all other fields

It's a pretty egotistical perspective given their demonstrable inability to overcome practical problems/challenges with their claims. Philosophers keep tripping over reality, then blame reality for being wrong.

For a field that claims to concerns itself with 'knowledge' Philosophy-proper sure pays lip service to epistemology.

It is the distinction between knowledge-that and knowledge-how. https://aphilosopherstake.com/2013/02/2 ... know-that/

Computer science teaches us HOW to acquire knowledge. It teaches us HOW to LEARN.

Note Philosophy-proper is a drive which is almost [not exactly] as critical as the need to breathe.
This is why Philosophy-proper encompass everything in life.
Philosophy-proper as fundamental impulse [contrast philosophy as a subject] is a human activity that do not entail a Framework and System.

Science [fundamentally, to know] for example is merely a subset of Philosophy.
Whether scientists like it or not, there is a Philosophy [Meta] of Science.

Computer science is the study of the theory, experimentation, and engineering that form the basis for the design and use of computers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_science

[TimeSeeker]

Note Philosophy-proper is a drive which is almost [not exactly] as critical as the need to breathe.
This is why Philosophy-proper encompass everything in life.
Philosophy-proper as fundamental impulse [contrast philosophy as a subject] is a human activity that do not entail a Framework and System.

This is a No true scotsman fallacy and a false dichotomy.

I have the DRIVE to LEARN. It is called curiosity. You could say Philosophy-proper and I share that drive.
I also have the DRIVE to be LESS WRONG. It is called precision. Philosophy-proper doesn't share that drive with me.

As I keep demonstrating.

I have a drive for KNOW-HOW.
Philosophy-proper has a drive for KNOW-THAT.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Note Philosophy-proper is a drive which is almost [not exactly] as critical as the need to breathe.
This is why Philosophy-proper encompass everything in life.
Philosophy-proper as fundamental impulse [contrast philosophy as a subject] is a human activity that do not entail a Framework and System.

This is a No true scotsman fallacy and a false dichotomy.

I have the DRIVE to LEARN. It is called curiosity. You could say Philosophy-proper and I share that drive.
I also have the DRIVE to be LESS WRONG. It is called precision. Philosophy-proper doesn't share that drive with me.

As I keep demonstrating.

The name is not critical.
If you reflect upon all the fundamental drives of a human being to facilitate survival and preservation of the species, there is one fundamental drive to evolve to improve on a current status which then proceed to collate all the relevant tools.
I call this philosophy-proper which aligns with the central sense of the term 'philosophy' as used throughout the world and times. You can call it X, Y Z rose but ...

[TimeSeeker]

The name is not critical.

I disagree! To the wise the name makes no difference. To those seeking wisdom it makes all the difference in the world!

For they do not know how to tell the difference between "bullshit" and "wisdom". And so we must guide them or their precious little time on Earth shall be wasted!

If you reflect upon all the fundamental drives of a human being to facilitate survival and preservation of the species, there is one fundamental drive to evolve to improve on a current status which then proceed to collate all the relevant tools.
I call this philosophy-proper which aligns with the central sense of the term 'philosophy' as used throughout the world and times. You can call it X, Y Z rose but ...

And I call it "Systems theory".

And the reason is simple: In 2018 if an 8 year old sought "knowledge, truth and wisdom" the first thing they would do is go to Google.

Will they get better results typing "Systems theory" or "Philosophy" in the search bar?

If you seek KNOW-THAT then type "Philosophy"
If you seek KNOW-HOW then type "Systems theory"

What do you seek?

Systems theory is the interdisciplinary study of systems. A system is a cohesive conglomeration of interrelated and interdependent parts that is either natural or man-made.

Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.

So here is a question: can you use philosophy to study systems thinking, or can you use systems thinking to study philosophy?

Language is a system
The mind and reason are a system
Existence is a system
Science is a system ( for organizing human knowledge )

So choose between "Philosophy" and "Systems theory" wisely. For your time to LEARN is limited

For I learned Systems Theory first. And discovered that Philosophy offered nothing that I didn't already know.

Which is why it is so trivial to win arguments. Arguments are systems. Structured in logic. We study logic in Computer Science and we understand its limits

[Veritas Aequitas]

The name is not critical.

I disagree! To the wise the name makes no difference. To those seeking wisdom it makes all the difference in the world!

For they do not know how to tell the difference between "bullshit" and "wisdom". And so we must guide them or their precious little time on Earth shall be wasted!

If you reflect upon all the fundamental drives of a human being to facilitate survival and preservation of the species, there is one fundamental drive to evolve to improve on a current status which then proceed to collate all the relevant tools.
I call this philosophy-proper which aligns with the central sense of the term 'philosophy' as used throughout the world and times. You can call it X, Y Z rose but ...

And I call it "Systems theory".

And the reason is simple: In 2018 if an 8 year old sought "knowledge, truth and wisdom" the first thing they would do is go to Google.

Will they get better results typing "Systems theory" or "Philosophy" in the search bar?

If you seek KNOW-THAT then type "Philosophy"
If you seek KNOW-HOW then type "Systems theory"

What do you seek?

As I had stated, I traced 'Philosophy-proper] not philosophy as a subject, to that very fundamental drive which is next critical to breathing.
System theory will be used to ensure the projects of philosophy-proper are systematic thus efficient and optimal within the related constraints.

What is critical is the inherent essence.
As for what word will be used to represent this essence, anything goes.
Note once gay=joy, but the default meaning for the word 'gay' had changed suddenly and acknowledged by almost all.

[TimeSeeker]

As for what word will be used to represent this essence, anything goes.

I gave you my argument as to why that is fallacious. You are welcome to call that drive/feeling/instinct however you choose.

By calling it 'Philosophy-proper' you individuate (read: DISTANCE) yourself from other humans experiences AND knowledge despite there being no actual difference. Unless you have a valid argument as to why your word is better, I think you are making a mistake.

Look how long it has taken you to explain your position. I don't have to explain mine. I called my feeling/drive/instinct "curiosity" (KNOW-THAT) and I linked you to Wikipedia for how I implement mine (KNOW-HOW): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theory

Of course academics will tell you that Wikipedia is not "proper knowledge" (in a stupid attempt to preserve their collapsing ivory tower).

It is broad, written in plain English (and many other languages), it is generally accessible and it cites ALL of its references if you wish to dive deeper.

You decide.

[TimeSeeker]

Observe the process of individuation though. We all go through it while we try to define and understand ourselves. We strive to be better (e.g different!) and so we define ourselves in language of our own making. You've invented the term Philosophy-proper instead of using the word society has for that feeling: curiosity. You rejected society's definition of your feelings. Which is good - because you have learned to recognize them as your own without the need to label them!

But while you were doing that, you ignored (forgot?) all the ways in which you are the same as other humans. And if you ever want to communicate your feeling “curiosity” is better than “Philosophy-proper”.

We are far more similar than we are different

[HexHammer]

Your problem is you are unable to differentiate between the ideology and whether the people are practicing the ideology properly.

Note there is an increasing trend of Westerners moving towards Buddhism-proper and advaita-Vedanta proper. Why is this so?
This increasing trend in based on the principles and practices of Buddhism-proper not those abused practices by certain monk and lay-people in Buddhist majority countries.


This quote was supposedly by Einstein but that is disputed.
Nevertheless there is a lot of truth [verifiable] in the said statement.

• ”The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend a personal God and avoid dogmas and theology. ...
  If there is any religion that would cope with modern scientific needs, it would be Buddhism.”

Surely you must be able to provide some news articles about your great findings, or is it all just happening in your head?

So for thousands of years they haven't practised buddhism properly, and only in this modern information age they practice it properly? ..that doesn't make sense at all, yet there is still great suffering, so it only works for very very few on a personal lvl as I said, not as a whole for society.

It's not different than communism, still idiots to this day think communism is a good ideology, when it's proven beyond doubt that it's an utterly failure. But please prove me wrong, so far you have only provided your own delusional words.

What has Einstein to do with buddhism??? ...NOTHING!!!!!!!, so you have to use a christian source to prove buddhism, that's moronic when you can't use things from buddhism itself to prove the good of buddhism!

Please stop spewing your pure nonsense and babble here, go to a buddhist forum and live your happily life there.

[TimeSeeker]

What has Einstein to do with buddhism??? ...NOTHING!!!!!!!, so you have to use a christian source to prove buddhism, that's moronic when you can't use things from buddhism itself to prove the good of buddhism!

Asserting that the two have "NOTHING" in common is going a little too far in way of rejection.
There is a clear overlap between the principles of the Kalama Sutta and the systemic/iterative nature of the scientific method.

Whether Einstein said it or not is immaterial. It gives no credence to the argument.

The phenomenology of human experience is quite similar across cultures. Plenty of common threads exist across all religions/philosophies despite the different narratives used to describe them.

[HexHammer]

Asserting that the two have "NOTHING" in common is going a little too far in way of rejection.
There is a clear overlap between the principles of the Kalama Sutta and the scientific method.

Whether Einstein said it or not is immaterial. It gives no credence to the argument.

The phenomenology of human experience is quite similar across cultures. Plenty of common threads exist across all religions/philosophies despite the different narratives used to describe them.

What you say is true in itself, but Socrates also more or less said the same thing, so it's nothing "superior" in buddhism.

[Veritas Aequitas]

As for what word will be used to represent this essence, anything goes.

I gave you my argument as to why that is fallacious. You are welcome to call that drive/feeling/instinct however you choose.

By calling it 'Philosophy-proper' you individuate (read: DISTANCE) yourself from other humans experiences AND knowledge despite there being no actual difference. Unless you have a valid argument as to why your word is better, I think you are making a mistake.

It is said that there are as many definitions of 'what is philosophy' as the number of people who attempt to define it.
I have analyzed more than 500 definitions of 'what is philosophy' from all over the world and I noted the essence of what is defined as philosophy is reducible to what I have abstracted from them.

Look how long it has taken you to explain your position. I don't have to explain mine. I called my feeling/drive/instinct "curiosity" (KNOW-THAT) and I linked you to Wikipedia for how I implement mine (KNOW-HOW): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theory

Of course academics will tell you that Wikipedia is not "proper knowledge" (in a stupid attempt to preserve their collapsing ivory tower).

It is broad, written in plain English (and many other languages), it is generally accessible and it cites ALL of its references if you wish to dive deeper.

You decide.

I have great admiration for Wiki as a convenient good starter, appertizer and gateway to further knowledge but obviously we need to understand its limitations.
Wiki has come a long way since it started where all sorts of unpolished subjective views were thrown in.