The Whole Story

[Age]

Ok, the spreadsheet. There is a fundamental duality between that which is on the side of sensory experience and that which is metaphorical - an internal model of that external reality, plus emotions, priorities, etc. I call that "spiritual". The list is of concepts which exist relative to each other across that divide. Understanding the yin/yang relationship of those ideas clarifies a whole universe of philosophical questions. Each thing on one side is material (for example) and each thing on the other side is metaphorical (for example). There are probably any number of philosophers besides the ones listed there, who have ideas about the same idea, but i don't care much for academics so i don't know of them.

But so what if you or any other human being wrote a list of what is, to them, 'sensory experience' and 'metaphorical'?

What is the point of doing this?

How, exactly, does understanding the supposed 'yin/yang' relationship of those ideas, of yours or "others", supposedly clarify the WHOLE universe of philosophical questions?

Are you even yet aware that some of your own answers to some of the, so called, "philosophical questions" are completely and utterly WRONG, to some "others"?

From my perspective, what you have done is just made up a list, which suits and fits in with your already held ASSUMPTIONS about what you BELIEVE are the one and only answers to some "philosophical questions".

[Advocate]

Age, are you aware that by being skeptical of everything without ever allowing yourself to accept logical analysis as truth, you're guaranteeing you'll never find warranted answers to anything?

[Skepdick]

Age, are you aware that by being skeptical of everything without ever allowing yourself to accept logical analysis as truth, you're guaranteeing you'll never find warranted answers to anything?

Are you saying that one OUGHT to find answers? As if the universe owed us such?

If you are going to be unbiased in your intellectual pursuits, surely you aren't allowed to dismiss any possibility a priori?

Suppose you came to the realisation that some questions are meaningless? What happens next?
Suppose by some divine intervention you acquired ALL the answers to ALL the questions tomorrow. What happens next?

[Age]

Age, are you aware that by being skeptical of everything without ever allowing yourself to accept logical analysis as truth, you're guaranteeing you'll never find warranted answers to anything?

But I am NOT skeptical of everything. This is just YOUR ASSUMPTION, which is, AGAIN, ANOTHER completely and utterly WRONG ASSUMPTION.

And, what are you basing YOUR CLAIM on EXACTLY that I will never find warranted answers to anything?

After all, for all you know I might have ALREADY found warranted answers to just about every thing. Thus my claim to being able to explain EVERY (meaningful) thing, or the Everything, and not just have a "theory" of everything.

[Advocate]

Age, i'm not sure if you're aware, but your points generally come off as general refutation, which i dare say almost nobody would consider to be meaningful philosophy. I've also directly answered many of your points, and all of them if you understand the original text. Let's remain clear that this post is about My ideas, yours can fuck off to their own post. If you don't want to help me organize and clarify The Whole Story, this isn't where you belong. Refuting every single thing every person says (yes, i'm being facetious, but i can guarantee (in a non-provable way) i speak for almost everyone when i say this) is naked skepticism, not philosophy.

I am not assuming anything and that's a perfect example of how you're not being productive in this conversation. I'm Claiming you're skeptical of everything and any reasonable mind would understand that's not intended to be a strict truth claim, as are others i've made. By refuting "everything", you're far, far off course. This thread is about solving philosophy, which is a solution, not about bringing any possible problem to the table. The VAST majority of points you've raised have been addressed directly in the text that this post is all about. It's hard reading, and that's why i need help. If you don't find it worth reading as is, again, not the thread for you.

[Advocate]

Since y'all like to go meta so much:

Let's talk about the attributes and boundary conditions of the best world view (never mind whether it's called a philosophy or an ethos or a story or whatever). My contention is that TWS can meet any reasonable standards or explain why they aren't reasonable (including answering any meaningful philosophy question or explaining why it's not meaningful).

Here are a few, many of which seem sufficient individually, but all of which i can rationally defend with respect to TWS:

•logically necessary
•internally consistent (no contradictions or double standards)
•externally consistent (compatible with majority and consensus views (where available) of science)
•expressible fully in ordinary language (specific technical definitions, where necessary, all explained in ordinary language)
•comprehensible to an ordinary person
•provides actionable certainty
•is a framework for universal consilience
•is falsifiable (it is possible to find an exception of one exists)
•integrates Occam's razor for both practical and aesthetic reasons
•is elegant and beautiful

What would you add? Are those sufficient to claim the title "best" if none other can meet them?

[Age]

Age, i'm not sure if you're aware, but your points generally come off as general refutation,

How things "generally come off" may NOT be how they were 'actually put forward'. And, until clarification is made, then what appears to you may just be a complete illusion, created purposely or not.

which i dare say almost nobody would consider to be meaningful philosophy.

Why do you assume or believe that 'general refutation', supposedly, most people would not consider to be meaningful philosophy?

If your claims can be refuted, generally, by proving your statements or theories to be wrong or false, then they can. Why do you not consider this to be 'meaningful philosophy'?

What do you actually consider is 'meaningful philosophy'?

I've also directly answered many of your points, and all of them if you understand the original text. Let's remain clear that this post is about My ideas, yours can fuck off to their own post.

So, we have ANOTHER ONE who can NOT stand being SHOWN and/or PROVEN that what claim is wrong or false, through logical reasoning or prove.

If My ideas 'generally refute' [by proving your statements, ideas, or theories to be wrong or false], then me writing My ideas in their own post does NOT lessen the fact that your statements, ideas, or theories have been PROVEN wrong or false.

If you don't want to help me organize and clarify The Whole Story, this isn't where you belong.

Read the second post after the opening post, in this thread. What does it say?

How exactly would you like someone to "help you" organize AND clarify?

By telling you that EVERY you write is absolutely True, Right, AND Correct?

And, as I have explained, ONLY 'you' can CLARIFY the thoughts and views within that head.

Maybe if you were NOT so quick to ASSUME and JUDGE, then you might get the ACTUAL HELP, which you REALLY NEED.

Refuting every single thing every person says (yes, i'm being facetious, but i can guarantee (in a non-provable way) i speak for almost everyone when i say this) is naked skepticism, not philosophy.

What does the word 'refute' actually mean, to you?

And, if proving wrong or false what "another" claims, through logically reasoning and/or sound and valid arguments, or refuting, is NOT 'philosophy', to you, then that is okay.

Besides you though I do NOT know of any one "else" who calls that "skepticism".

I am not assuming anything and that's a perfect example of how you're not being productive in this conversation.

So, are you suggesting that when you wrote;
"Age, are you aware that by being skeptical of everything without ever allowing yourself to accept logical analysis as truth, you're guaranteeing you'll never find warranted answers to anything?"

You were NOT assuming absolutely ANY thing at all here?

I find that if, and when, I have ASSUMED some thing, and it is completely and utterly WRONG, and I am informed of this fact, then this is EXTREMELY PRODUCTIVE in the conversation, well at least for me it is.

I'm Claiming you're skeptical of everything and any reasonable mind would understand that's not intended to be a strict truth claim, as are others i've made.

If you are Claiming something, then I suggest that the claim is STRICTLY True, especially in a philosophy forum. I also suggest that BEFORE you make ANY Claim, and again especially in a philosophy forum, then you have at least some thing to back up and support YOUR Claim BEFORE you make the actual Claim.

Also, is there ANY actual way I can KNOW, for sure, without doubt, when you are making a, so called, "strict truth claim" and when you are NOT, PRIOR to me having to CLARIFY with you AFTER I read what you have written?

By refuting "everything", you're far, far off course.

I will AWAIT your response to what the word 'refute' actually means, to you, BEFORE I ask any other clarifying question/s here.

This thread is about solving philosophy, which is a solution, not about bringing any possible problem to the table.

But there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL in 'philosophy', which SUPPOSEDLY 'needs' solving, to me.

The VAST majority of points you've raised have been addressed directly in the text that this post is all about. It's hard reading, and that's why i need help. If you don't find it worth reading as is, again, not the thread for you.

If the alleged "VAST majority of points I have raised" have, supposedly, been addressed 'directly' in some text, which you have PREVIOUSLY written, then WHY can you NOT just address them here?

If you are serious about having a conversation, then addressing things DURING the conversation is how conversations work more easily, more simply, and far more productively.

By the way, what is your apparent impatience all about it here in regards to this? If you have, supposedly, solved ALL, or the Whole Story, which ALL other human beings have NOT been able to do for thousands upon thousands of years BEFORE 'you', then what is the seeming 'rush'. Surely you could just relax about and take some time out to just consider what I am actually saying, and pointing out, correct?

[Age]

Since y'all like to go meta so much:

Let's talk about the attributes and boundary conditions of the best world view (never mind whether it's called a philosophy or an ethos or a story or whatever). My contention is that TWS can meet any reasonable standards or explain why they aren't reasonable (including answering any meaningful philosophy question or explaining why it's not meaningful).

Will you provide examples of what you consider to be 'meaningful philosophy questions' and their answers, and which 'philosophy questions' you consider to not be meaningful ones?

If you will not, then why not?

Here are a few, many of which seem sufficient individually, but all of which i can rationally defend with respect to TWS:

Which ones do NOT seem 'sufficient', to you?

•logically necessary
•internally consistent (no contradictions or double standards)
•externally consistent (compatible with majority and consensus views (where available) of science)

But the view that the sun revolves around the earth was compatible with majority and consensus views, so this view was, so called, "externally consistent".

Are you absolutely sure this is a, so called, "reasonable standard" considering the example I just provided you?

If yes, then WHY?

•expressible fully in ordinary language (specific technical definitions, where necessary, all explained in ordinary language)

Who is the one who classifies and decides "ordinary language", or not?

•comprehensible to an ordinary person

What is a, so called, "ordinary person"? And, how can we tell the difference between a "non ordinary person"?

If what you claim is NOT comprehensible to a 'person', then does this instantly mean that they are then NOT "an ordinary person", or are "a non-ordinary person"?

If no, then why not?

•provides actionable certainty
•is a framework for universal consilience

Is the word 'consilience' part of 'ordinary language'?

And, what does the word 'consilience' actually mean, to you?

•is falsifiable (it is possible to find an exception of one exists)

I find that the actual BEST 'worldview' obtains only 'that', which is factual.

But some things, which are factual, through logical reasoning, or what you might call "logical necessity", are not actually falsifiable empirically, nor could be proven or verified empirically. This is the nature of logical reasoning.

•integrates Occam's razor for both practical and aesthetic reasons
•is elegant and beautiful

To who and/or what?

To me, ABSOLUTELY EVERY thing is relative to the observer, including elegance AND beauty.

What would you add?

To me, the 'best' worldview has less and NOT more.

Are those sufficient to claim the title "best" if none other can meet them?

I have already responded to them individually.

Contrary to what you might think or believe is true, my responses are to HELP YOU, and NOT hinder you at all.

And, just so you know I think a considerable amount of what you are saying and alluding to here, and in your story, is right and correct, and some of the better works I have seen so far. Also, and just so you are aware, I am in the EXACT SAME predicament as you are in. That is having a set of thoughts, which appears to be true, right, and correct, and VERY BENEFICIAL for and to "others" but are having EXTREME TROUBLE in learning how to express it succinctly and sufficiently.

[odysseus]

Advocate wrote
tiny.cc/TheWholeStory answers directly or by logical extension, every question in philosophy. After long effort i've worked out how to organize it on the macro level and now i need help organizing more minutely and polishing it - i'm not an author. Which of you is interested in helping me make this as good as it can be?

Of course this has been done. Have you read Heidegger's Being and Time?

It's just that, your OP seems so vacant. Tell me where your thinking is on what a self is, for example.

[Advocate]

>If your claims can be refuted, generally, by proving your statements or theories to be wrong or false, then they can. Why do you not consider this to be 'meaningful philosophy'?

Sure, but that's not what you're doing. You're just throwing shit at the wall to see if anything sticks. Most of your points which attempt to refute (aka refutations) are of things which are clearly and amply covered in the document and most of the rest are understood in relation to them. Meaning, your refutations act as thorns in the side, not meaningful intellectual discourse.

Moreover, i never asked for vetting, i asked for editing. You're in the wrong place to desconstruct. I've already deconstructed. This is the reconstruction.

>What do you actually consider is 'meaningful philosophy'?

Philosophy which attempts to arrive at certainty (which doesn't require appeal to empirical measurement, which is science) is meaningful. Anything less is navel-gazing.

>So, we have ANOTHER ONE who can NOT stand being SHOWN and/or PROVEN that what claim is wrong or false, through logical reasoning or prove.

That's not the purpose of this post. Not only that, you can't do it. The Whole Story is infallible if you'd take the time to check that contention instead of throwing pebbles.

>How exactly would you like someone to "help you" organize AND clarify?

Your posts don't come close to either. Revisiting every point of a complex topic from scratch is not clarification, quite the opposite.

In conclusion, please go away now. I find your conversation vapid and annoying. I don't believe anyone who has read any of your posts (in this topic) has received even the tiniest bit of knowledge, understanding, clarification, or anything else relevant to this post.

I appreciate that naked skepticism is a wonderful Staring Point for philosophy. I'm at the end now.

[Skepdick]

Philosophy which attempts to arrive at certainty (which doesn't require appeal to empirical measurement, which is science) is meaningful. Anything less is navel-gazing.

Uncertainty is the default position. Philosophy which attempts to minimise uncertainty without science is navel-gazing.

[Skepdick]

Here are a few, many of which seem sufficient individually, but all of which i can rationally defend with respect to TWS:

•logically necessary

Which logical system are you appealing to when you make this claim?

Classical logic?
Modal logic?
Temporal logic?
Intuitionistic logic?
Para-consistent logic?
Quantum logic?
Schrödinger logic?

By failing to recognize that many different (and incompatible) systems of logic exist, all of your arguments are tantamount to authority appeals.

You are putting logic on a religious pedestal, so it's only fair to ask - how do you know that your logical religion is the "true" religion?

You don't seem to grasp the implications of the Munchhausen trillema

[Advocate]

I'm confusing Skepdick and Age's posts now, both of whom are apparently skeptics first and philosophers second. The meta might help clarify here. I wrote The Whole Story partly out of frustration from philosophy as a whole (and most philosophers i've ever met) navel-gazing, tilting at windmills, asking questions that can't be answered, answering questions that can't be answered, not admitting answers are possible, not admitting it's possible to find them even if they exist, etc. In short, to avoid the sort of conversation that keeps coming up in this thread. I was particularly conscientious about calling it a story rather than philosophy to avoid that academic baggage.

The contention is that this is a complete work that answers every philosophical question. Whether it is infallible is a valid question, but not the one before us. My request is for organizing the ideas, not for vetting them. That was done long before this post was ever created, this is version 10 or something.

All that is needed to disprove TWS is to find one philosophical question that it cannot answer according to the stated merits it posesses (detailed in a separate response post in this thread). That is not the purpose of the post. How can it be organized so that it is more accessible to more people, is the topic before us. If you can help me beat it into shape, each piece relative to the others, then it will be ready for proper vetting in the way y'all seem to require.

[Skepdick]

I'm confusing Skepdick and Age's posts now, both of whom are apparently skeptics first and philosophers second.

I am not a philosopher. Philosophy is navel-gazing. As a scientist it's in my very nature to doubt, and it is especially in my nature to doubt what Philosophers say about anything. Don't ask a philosopher of science about science, ask a scientist.

It's precisely because we aim to reduce uncertainty, or arrive at actionable certainty is why we need science.
Reason alone is insufficient for understanding how the world works.

Newton told us

[Advocate]

>Will you provide examples of what you consider to be 'meaningful philosophy questions' and their answers, and which 'philosophy questions' you consider to not be meaningful ones?

I have done in many senses, both in the document and in various replies. I've also stated something to the effect that the contention applies to at least any of the first 10 pages of google results for things like "meaningful philosophical questions" or "unanswerable philosophical problems". So, examples have already been put forward. I take this as further evidence that you are not actually engaging with the content here.

>Which ones do NOT seem 'sufficient', to you?

Once again, the answer is in the document. Two that have been brought to my attention, though there are infinite answers to your question, are completeness in the sense of full rather than encompassing, and originality (since almost no philosophical thought is ever original and almost every philosophical thought has been independently derived many many times).

>But the view that the sun revolves around the earth was compatible with majority and consensus views, so this view was, so called, "externally consistent".

Yes, and at that time, given the best information and understanding available, that concept would meet the criteria. We cannot judge knowledge according to future hypothetical revelations.

>Who is the one who classifies and decides "ordinary language", or not?

Ordinary people.

>What is a, so called, "ordinary person"? And, how can we tell the difference between a "non ordinary person"?

Your trees are interfering with my forest. Go on.
I'm not even reading the rest of this reply. I've tried to engage with you but you're on some chip-on-the-shoulder kick that has Nothing to do with this post as far as i can tell. Go peddle your nay-saying elsewhere already. If your philosophy isn't productive it isn't useful, and yours appears to be the opposite of both, which is the opposite of everything i'm trying to do.