The ontological error of Philosophy

[Univalence]

Then perhaps you could look up 'scientism,' on Wiki.

I know what the definition is. That's most definitely not what I am talking about when I talk about empiricism.

Philosophy exists because these problems exist. It is nobody's fault.

So you are necessarily claiming that problems came first, and philosophy came 2nd.

Can you explain to us what you think a "problem" is?

I don't know of any such questions.

So then all the philosophical problems have been solved?

Begs a question: Why do we need philosophy then?

Philosophy does not beg this question it attempts to answer it. Some philosophers do answer it.

But you just said "I do not know of any such questions". So has philosophy answered its own "why?" question or not?

Empiricism is usually associated with sensory data, not human experience. The data is empirical, the experience is not.

Distinction without a difference. The processing of sensory data is human experience. Computation.

I see. It seems unsurprising that you have no grasp of philosophy given that you think you already know all about it.

You can't seem to make up your mind. Do we need philosophy or not?

I can't imagine anyone disagreeing.

So then you have a methodology for answering all the questions philosophy poses.
And I can assume that it's not empiricism?
So what is it then?

Of course I do. But I can't see the point in explaining this to someone who is so full of their own beliefs and ideas.

You don't want to check if your exit criterion is mis-guided? I can tell you... I know the truth.

That there is no Truth.

[RCSaunders]

Copernicus discovered that Earth moved, the sun stayed still.

There is no absolute motion only motion of one thing relative to another thing.

Isn't that a contradiction?

As stages in the history of the idea of relativity these are cumulative ideas.
...

I'm afraid you've taken my comment much too seriously. I was only pointing out the irony of saying, "Earth moved," and, "there is no absolute motion." In relative terms, the earth only moves if it is not the point of refernce, else everything else moves relative to the earth.

But as long as you brought it up, there is absolute motion. A rotating body's rotation is not dependent on its relationship to any other body. Even if such a body were the only body in the universe, the centrifugal and gyroscope forces caused by the rotation could be measured.

[RCSaunders]

Isn't that a contradiction?

Therefore the linguistic claim "Contradictions don't exist" is a lie.

What is a lie? Isn't a lie that which contradicts what is true? You are denying your own argument.

[Univalence]

What is a lie? Isn't a lie that which contradicts what is true? You are denying your own argument.

You are deflecting. It doesn't matter what I deny or claim. It doesn't even matter what I say. I am not arguing - I am demonstrating.
I am simply pointing you to a fact of reality.

Contradictions exist. There they are! Do you not believe your own eyes?
I need not say anything about it. You simply need to observe it and recognise it for what it is.

The notion that arguments must be "free from contradictions" is simply an arbitrary criterion. Subjective choice.
And just like that - philosophy has no leg to stand on.

Least you answer this question: Why should arguments be free from contradictions?
That bloody is-ought gap...

[surreptitious57]

So then you have a methodology for answering all the questions philosophy poses

No such methodology exists simply because philosophical questions cannot be answered
Not every scientific question can be answered even though it DOES have a methodology

The purpose of philosophy is to make sure the right type of questions are being asked
But that does not automatically mean it has the answers to all those questions as well

Science can answer some questions but philosophy cannot answer any at all

[Univalence]

No such methodology exists simply because philosophical questions cannot be answered

You are going around in circles and your answer is demonstrably incorrect. There exists a machine for answering ALL questions. I call it a coin.

So back to my question: is philosophy's objective to ask questions which cannot be answered? This is a yes/no question of intent.

The purpose of philosophy is to make sure the right type of questions are being asked

So you have SOME mechanism for determining which questions are the "right" type and which questions are the "wrong" type?

Would you say that the question "What is philosophy for?" the right type of question? My coin says "yes".

Science can answer some questions but philosophy cannot answer any at all

Can't or won't?

[surreptitious57]

There exists a machine for answering ALL questions

This machine then would have to be omniscient but this is not possible in a finite Universe
It can therefore can only exist within a thought experiment but not within physical reality

But even as a thought experiment how would you falsify the hypothesis ?
For how would you know when EVERY question has actually been asked ?

Do you not think that every human question is merely a sub set of ALL questions ?
What about all the questions that are beyond the scope of human comprehension ?

[surreptitious57]

So back to my question : is philosophys objective to ask questions which cannot be answered ?

So you have SOME mechanism for determining which questions are the right type and which questions are the wrong type ?

Would you say that the question What is philosophy for ? the right type of question ?

Philosophys objective is to ask the right type of questions even if they cannot actually be answered

One simple rule would be to eliminate all metaphysical type questions since they DEFINITELY cannot be answered

Asking what is philosophy for is by contrast a perfect example of a question that can and indeed should be asked

[surreptitious57]

But even as a thought experiment how would you falsify the hypothesis ?
For how would you know when EVERY question has actually been asked ?

You could not falsify the hypothesis because you would not know if EVERY question had been asked
But given that humans are not actually omniscient it follows that SOME questions could not be asked

You would not actually need to know what the unknown questions were to know that this is not possible
For the limitation on both human imagination and human knowledge is all the evidence that is required

Even the most intelligent machines that will replace humans will not be omniscient and not even the Universe is this
Omniscience is a state without limitation but an infinite state cannot exist within a finite state for that is impossible

[surreptitious57]

There exists a machine for answering ALL questions

This thought experiment scenario of yours is therefore entirely useless
You need to come up with an alternative one which is actually testable

[surreptitious57]

Or instead why not just accept that because of the problem of induction human knowledge will never be absolute
The lack of omniscience is why philosophical questions cannot be answered and some non philosophical ones also

[Age]

Yes you did. You just explained "What X is", FIRST. You said, Let X be "knowledge".

So, knowing "What X is", FIRST, can be far more useful then knowing "How X behaves".

So let X = knowledge is an explanation?

So that is how philosophy works!

What is X? Knowledge.
What is Knowledge? P.
What is P? Q.
What is Q? R.

As long as I never circle back to "X" again it means I am winning at this game?

What game? You really can not let go of wanting to "win". To me, there is NOTHING to win here anyway.

You have just shown that knowing "What X is" FIRST is far more useful. By you showing "What X is" FIRST, proves that knowing "What X is" is more useful than knowing "How X behaves" is.

You also have not shown nor explained "How philosophy works".

Just saying, "So let X = knowledge is an explanation", does not show nor explain how philosophy works.

Are you at all able to explain "How 'philosophy' works?"

We know you are completely unable to explain "What 'philosophy' is".

By the way, considering your logic you could only go on for 26 times before you would circle back again anyway.

[Univalence]

By the way, considering your logic you could only go on for 26 times before you would circle back again anyway.

You don't know how to invent new symbols beyond the ones you were given?

What is Z? ▲
What is ▲? ⍌
What is ⍌ ? 字
What is 字 ? Щ
What is Щ ? 🤮

Also, did you know you can combine symbols to form words?

What is 🤮 ? XX

[Age]

By the way, considering your logic you could only go on for 26 times before you would circle back again anyway.

You don't know how to invent new symbols beyond the ones you were given?

What is Z? ▲
What is ▲? ⍌
What is ⍌ ? 字
What is 字 ? Щ
What is Щ ? 🤮

Also, did you know you can combine symbols to form words?

What is 🤮 ? XX

Do you know you keep having to explain "What X is" BEFORE you can explain "How X behaves"?

Therefore, the question "What is X?" is more useful than the question "How does X behave?"

And you can replace X with any other symbol in the Universe but the same fact still remains true. That is; it is still far more useful to know "What some thing is" BEFORE knowing "How that thing behaves".

[Univalence]

Do you know you keep having to explain "What X is" BEFORE you can explain "How X behaves"?

No. I am not doing that. But if you have somehow understood what X is from the indecipherable string of characters I offered, I guess it's clear you are easy to please.

Therefore, the question "What is X?" is more useful than the question "How does X behave?"

And you can replace X with any other symbol in the Universe but the same fact still remains true. That is; it is still far more useful to know "What some thing is" BEFORE knowing "What that thing does".

I guess it's settled then.

X is knowledge.
Knowledge is P.
P is Q.
Q is R.
R is Z.
Z is ▲
▲ is ⍌
⍌ is 字
字 is Щ
Щ is 🤮

And Age finds this useful.