The ontological error of Philosophy

[Age]

Well, if you've named your framework 'THE clarifying framework', then I guess I am going to name my framework 'THE UNIVERSAL clarifying framework' (for the sake of conversation).

But it is NOT "my" framework.

Why did you jump to such a ridiculous conclusion?'

'The clarifying framework' works, and is, the EXACT SAME for everyone.

So there. You've named the one framework. I've named the other framework. That's a list.

So, you could not clarify any list until AFTER I clarified some thing first. In other words on your own you had NO list at all. Your so called "many" frameworks of which you talked about was just some imaginary thing.

Well, I comprehend THE UNIVERSAL clarifying framework.

Do you really?

Unfortunately you are completely incapable of telling us about 'What exactly is THE UNIVERSAL clarifying framework'? Or can you?

Will you reveal your comprehension of THE UNIVERSAL clarifying framework?

You've told me nothing about THE clarifying framework.

You have asked me no clarifying questions about THE clarifying framework. So, what was I meant to tell you about it?

Until I ask you a clarifying question about some thing I do not expect you to tell me any thing about that thing.

Also, if you have no comprehension of what the word 'clarifying' means to you, then what would you like from me?

Perhaps we ought to ask how THE clarifying framework behaves in relation to THE UNIVERSAL clarifying framework?

Okay. Until that is asked I will just remain waiting patiently.

In the meantime I will ask you if it is at all possible for you to clarify 'What THE UNIVERSAL clarifying framework actually IS?'

If yes, then please do.
If no, then so be it.

Your answer/s to my clarifying questions, if you have any, highlight your ability, or inability, to actually clarify what you talk about.

Since, according to you, there is absolutely NO use in you clarifying 'What 'THE UNIVERSAL clarifying framework is' will you at least clarify 'How THE UNIVERSAL clarifying framework' behaves?

Your clarifying framework doesn't seem to work. It's not at all clear what your intentions are with the above response.

THE clarifying framework only works if and when you want some thing clarified.

You do not want any thing clarified because clarifying goes against every belief that you are TRYING TO hold onto here.

[surreptitious57]

I am not aware of any philosophical question that philosophy cannot answer. Philosophers are
able to prove that all metaphysical questions are undecidable and this tells us most of the answers

The function of philosophy is simply to make sure that the right type of question is being asked - that and nothing else
If you think it also has to answer them then you are not doing it correctly as philosophy cannot answer anything at all

[RCSaunders]

The function of philosophy is simply to make sure that the right type of question is being asked - that and nothing else. If you think it also has to answer them then you are not doing it correctly as philosophy cannot answer anything at all

If philosophy cannot answer anything at all, why bother with it? If it can't answer anything it all it cannot answer the question, "what is the right type of question?"

[Impenitent]

why bother? most people frown upon shooting sophists ...

-Imp

[Skepdick]

If philosophy cannot answer anything at all, why bother with it? If it can't answer anything it all it cannot answer the question, "what is the right type of question?"

Computer Science to the rescue.

The right kind of question is the decidable and tractable kind of question.
The wrong kind of question is the undecidable or intractable kind of question.

That's why computational complexity matters. So you can avoid this category error.

Contrary to what they teach in schools, there is such a thing as a stupid question. And if you ask it - you will get a stupid answer.

[Age]

If philosophy cannot answer anything at all, why bother with it? If it can't answer anything it all it cannot answer the question, "what is the right type of question?"

Computer Science to the rescue.

The right kind of question is the decidable and tractable kind of question.
The wrong kind of question is the undecidable or intractable kind of question.

That's why computational complexity matters. So you can avoid this category error.

Contrary to what they teach in schools, there is such a thing as a stupid question. And if you ask it - you will get a stupid answer.

That is your category error.

You can not see past your own simple error because of your own belief in; 'The question "How does X behave?" is infinitely more useful than the question "What is X?"' is just to strong.

You still can not recognize and see this, for the simple reason given.

You HAVE TO be able to clarify 'What is X?' first, before you can even start to explain "How does X behave'. Therefore, the question 'What is X?' is an obviously far more useful first question, then "How does X behave" ever could be.

[Skepdick]

You HAVE TO be able to clarify 'What is X?' first, before you can even start to explain "How does X behave'. Therefore, the question 'What is X?' is an obviously far more useful first question, then "How does X behave" ever could be.

I am still waiting for you to show us how that would work in practice.

Go ahead and clarify what "global warming", or what a "photon" is without using any verbs.

[Age]

You HAVE TO be able to clarify 'What is X?' first, before you can even start to explain "How does X behave'. Therefore, the question 'What is X?' is an obviously far more useful first question, then "How does X behave" ever could be.

I am still waiting for you to show us how that would work in practice.

Why would you be waiting for something that you have yet to even ask for?

By the way how that works in practice is given in the example you have just provided.

You have clarified that X is "global warming" and/or a "photon".

As already explained, "What is X?" is needed to be clarified, and known, first before "How does X behave" could even be explained.

You, yourself, are literally showing how this works in practice.

Go ahead and clarify what "global warming", or what a "photon" is without using any verbs.

Is there even such things as "global warming" and/or a "photon"?

If no, then so be it.
If yes, then what are they?

Ah that is right, you are completely incapable of clarifying what you say, correct?

Also, as to the actual accuracy of what say can be and is, once again, proven.

You have a great ability of twisting things around, and then actually believing in your own distorted thinking.

Once again, you have completely missed the mark.

I guess you are terrible at drawing the mark.

But I would be lying if I said I am interested in engaging you further.

As to the accuracy of this, this will be proven very shortly.

[Skepdick]

You HAVE TO be able to clarify 'What is X?' first, before you can even start to explain "How does X behave'. Therefore, the question 'What is X?' is an obviously far more useful first question, then "How does X behave" ever could be.

I am still waiting for you to show us how that would work in practice.

Why would you be waiting for something that you have yet to even ask for?

By the way how that works in practice is given in the example you have just provided.

You have clarified that X is "global warming" and/or a "photon".

As already explained, "What is X?" is needed to be clarified, and known, first before "How does X behave" could even be explained.

You, yourself, are literally showing how this works in practice.

Go ahead and clarify what "global warming", or what a "photon" is without using any verbs.

Is there even such things as "global warming" and/or a "photon"?

If no, then so be it.
If yes, then what are they?

Ah that is right, you are completely incapable of clarifying what you say, correct?

Also, as to the actual accuracy of what say can be and is, once again, proven.

I guess you are terrible at drawing the mark.

But I would be lying if I said I am interested in engaging you further.

As to the accuracy of this, this will be proven very shortly.

And you prove (yet again) that nothing can be gained or learned by engaging you

You are a brilliant philosopher. That's an insult I wouldn't even hurl at a my greatest enemy.

[Age]

I am still waiting for you to show us how that would work in practice.

Why would you be waiting for something that you have yet to even ask for?

By the way how that works in practice is given in the example you have just provided.

You have clarified that X is "global warming" and/or a "photon".

As already explained, "What is X?" is needed to be clarified, and known, first before "How does X behave" could even be explained.

You, yourself, are literally showing how this works in practice.

Go ahead and clarify what "global warming", or what a "photon" is without using any verbs.

Is there even such things as "global warming" and/or a "photon"?

If no, then so be it.
If yes, then what are they?

Ah that is right, you are completely incapable of clarifying what you say, correct?

Also, as to the actual accuracy of what say can be and is, once again, proven.

As to the accuracy of this, this will be proven very shortly.

And you prove (yet again) that nothing can be gained or learned by engaging you

That is because you are completely incapable of seeing anything other than what you believe.

You are a brilliant philosopher. That's an insult I wouldn't even hurl at a my greatest enemy.

How do you do define 'philospher'?

Like every thing else I do not see that as an insult at all. To me, every human being is born a brilliant philosopher. Unfortunately though this brilliance is lost through and from the system created by you adult human beings.

And you believe that you are a brilliant computational scientist, which, in a sense, speaks for itself and says about all is needed.

[Skepdick]

How do you do define 'philospher'?

I don't have to. I have an ostensive definition. You.

And you believe that you are a brilliant computational scientist, which, in a sense, speaks for itself and says about all is needed.

I think you've mistaken your belief for mine.

I believe that I am a human being.

I DO computer science, system engineering. Amongst many other things.

[Age]

How do you do define 'philospher'?

I don't have to. I have an ostensive definition. You.

Now how do 'you' define 'you'?

And you believe that you are a brilliant computational scientist, which, in a sense, speaks for itself and says about all is needed.

I think you've mistaken your belief for mine.

But I neither believe nor disbelieve any thing, as I have told you numerous times already. So, from my perspective, you are completely mistaken.

I believe that I am a human being.

I DO computer science, system engineering. Amongst many other things.

So you now believe that 'you' are a human being but believe 'I' am not.

[Skepdick]

Now how do 'you' define 'you'?

The same way you are using it right now.

So you now believe that 'you' are a human being but believe 'I' am not.

You said that you aren't. So I believed you.

[Age]

Now how do 'you' define 'you'?

The same way you are using it right now.

How do 'you' know how 'i' am using it "right now"?

Without first clarifying you could be totally wrong.

So you now believe that 'you' are a human being but believe 'I' am not.

You said that you aren't. So I believed you.

When did I say that?

[Skepdick]

How do 'you' know how 'i' am using it "right now"?

Without first clarifying you could be totally wrong.

I could ask you the exact same question about THE UNIVERSAL clarifying framework.

When did I say that?

The search function could help you remember. 13 pages of evidence where you keep saying "you, human beings" instead of "we, human beings"