The Whole Story

[Advocate]

Some actual feedback, finally, from Chaz. Thanks, Chaz.

Does anyone want to weigh in on "The purpose of philosophy is actionable certainty." and how it's best explained?

There is no certainty even in action. The risk/uncertainty is simply acceptable.

Calculated risks. Skilled gambling. That's all we can ever hope for.

How is "calculated risk" different than "actionable certainty" in your eyes?

[Skepdick]

Some actual feedback, finally, from Chaz. Thanks, Chaz.

Does anyone want to weigh in on "The purpose of philosophy is actionable certainty." and how it's best explained?

There is no certainty even in action. The risk/uncertainty is simply acceptable.

Calculated risks. Skilled gambling. That's all we can ever hope for.

How is "calculated risk" different than "actionable certainty" in your eyes?

I have no idea how to answer that. "actionable certainty" is your concept, not mine - I have no idea what it means.

Calculated risk is "acceptable uncertainty", not certainty.

[Advocate]

There is no certainty even in action. The risk/uncertainty is simply acceptable.

Calculated risks. Skilled gambling. That's all we can ever hope for.

How is "calculated risk" different than "actionable certainty" in your eyes?

I have no idea how to answer that. "actionable certainty" is your concept, not mine - I have no idea what it means.

Calculated risk is "acceptable uncertainty", not certainty.

Actionable certainty means sufficient certainty to choose between available options. As i understand the words, calculated risk is synonymous.

[Skepdick]

Actionable certainty means sufficient certainty to choose between available options. As i understand the words, calculated risk is synonymous.

I am not talking about the words. I am talking about the decision-making process itself.

Given the available choices - ceteris paribus, I will action the least uncertain one. Even if the least uncertain choice is not "sufficiently certain".

I am in the game of minimising uncertainty, not meeting some sufficiency criteria that I can never really define a priori.

[Advocate]

Actionable certainty means sufficient certainty to choose between available options. As i understand the words, calculated risk is synonymous.

I am not talking about the words. I am talking about the decision-making process itself.

Given the available choices - ceteris paribus, I will action the least uncertain one. Even if the least uncertain choice is not "sufficiently certain".

I am in the game of minimising uncertainty, not meeting some sufficiency criteria that I can never really define a priori.

Minimizing uncertainty, ok, to what end? There must come a point when the reason for being as certain as Possible gives way to sufficiency, otherwise you'd end up being more and more certain for no reason.

[Skepdick]

Minimizing uncertainty, ok, to what end?

Towards any end I want. Uncertainty is what prevents me from getting there.

There must come a point when the reason for being as certain as Possible gives way to sufficiency, otherwise you'd end up being more and more certain for no reason.

Which is why I don't speak of certainty. Given the available information I act on the least uncertain option that gets me to my end.

If I act and I achieve my end - it was sufficient.
If I act and I don't achieve my end - it wasn't. Learn. Adjust. Try again.

That is how all greedy algorithms work. One local maxima at a time.

[jayjacobus]

The title, "the Whole Story" is grandiose. Criticism is to be expected.

[Age]

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?

Frederick Copelston spend his whole life on this project. In that time he wrote 11 volumes from "Greece and Rome" to "Logical Positivism and Existentialism".
He died with his work unfinished.
To date this is the most comrehensive history of philosophy, but cannot answer "every question in philosophy", not could it.

If you are not an author, then you need to keep writing. But never kid yourself that you are going to achieve your goal.

Also, never "kid yourself" that you can not achieve your goal.

If you have a goal and Truly WANT to achieve it, then YOU CAN, OBVIOUSLY.

[Sculptor]

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?

Frederick Copelston spend his whole life on this project. In that time he wrote 11 volumes from "Greece and Rome" to "Logical Positivism and Existentialism".
He died with his work unfinished.
To date this is the most comrehensive history of philosophy, but cannot answer "every question in philosophy", not could it.

If you are not an author, then you need to keep writing. But never kid yourself that you are going to achieve your goal.

Also, never "kid yourself" that you can not achieve your goal.

If you have a goal and Truly WANT to achieve it, then YOU CAN, OBVIOUSLY.

My goal is to walk on the surface of the sun. I've about as much chance of achieving that as some character answering all the questions in philosophy.

Philosophy is less about answering questions as pointing out where questions exist.
So, NO, "OBVIOUSLY" there are goals that cannot be achieved

[Age]

Au contraire, almost everything was independently derived and in most cases i couldn't tell you which philosophers they correspond to.

I can. I just reviewed your, "The Whole Story," page and there is not an original idea on it, and most of those ideas are derived from the worst of philosophers, whether you are aware of it or not.

If you really want to write a useful philosophy, begin with answering the question of what philosophy is for. Why do human beings need the kind of knowledge we call philosophical, in contrast to scientific, technical, literary, or historical knowledge?

I'm not trying to discourage you. I'm encouraging you to think for yourself. What do you need philosophy for?

Whether it's independently derived is nothing at all to do with its value. The value is in being a cohesive collection of ideas, regardless of who thought of them first, than answers all philosophical questions. if you judge it by that standard you'll be more than satisfied. Originality is less and less possibly a valid criteria every day because new thoughts are being had everywhere all the time.

As for where to start, that's why i'm publishing now, even though it's obviously incomplete in several senses. It has taken me a very long time to work out how to present it to work everything in, in a manageable way. I could have started literally anywhere. The purpose of philosophy is whatever someone wants it to be, and that's also covered in a few ways, in metaphysics and epistemology sections.

So, YOUR answer to some of the, so called, "philosophical questions" is just; "whatever someone wants it to be", correct?

If yes, then NOT very original, NOT very cohesive, and NOT very useful, AT ALL.

[Age]

Frederick Copelston spend his whole life on this project. In that time he wrote 11 volumes from "Greece and Rome" to "Logical Positivism and Existentialism".
He died with his work unfinished.
To date this is the most comrehensive history of philosophy, but cannot answer "every question in philosophy", not could it.

If you are not an author, then you need to keep writing. But never kid yourself that you are going to achieve your goal.

Also, never "kid yourself" that you can not achieve your goal.

If you have a goal and Truly WANT to achieve it, then YOU CAN, OBVIOUSLY.

My goal is to walk on the surface of the sun.

If that is a "goal", which you Truly WANT to achieve, then, if 'I' was 'you', then I would question WHY I would, supposedly, "Truly WANT" to achieve such a thing.

I've about as much chance of achieving that as some character answering all the questions in philosophy.

What 'you' are actually capable of achieving, AND, what "another" is actually capable of achieving is NOT, necessarily, the exact same thing.

Philosophy is less about answering questions as pointing out where questions exist.

AND, 'philosophy' means MANY other different things to MANY other different people.

So, NO, "OBVIOUSLY" there are goals that cannot be achieved

Do you Truly WANT to "walk on the surface of the sun"?

Your Honest answer, by the way, would be MUCH appreciated.

Also, I NEVER even remotely suggested that ALL goals can be achieved, let alone specifically said such a thing.

If thee Truth be KNOW I NEVER even thought that.

[Sculptor]

Also, never "kid yourself" that you can not achieve your goal.

If you have a goal and Truly WANT to achieve it, then YOU CAN, OBVIOUSLY.

My goal is to walk on the surface of the sun.

If that is a "goal", which you Truly WANT to achieve, then, if 'I' was 'you', then I would question WHY I would, supposedly, "Truly WANT" to achieve such a thing.

I've about as much chance of achieving that as some character answering all the questions in philosophy.

What 'you' are actually capable of achieving, AND, what "another" is actually capable of achieving is NOT, necessarily, the exact same thing.

Philosophy is less about answering questions as pointing out where questions exist.

AND, 'philosophy' means MANY other different things to MANY other different people.

So, NO, "OBVIOUSLY" there are goals that cannot be achieved

Do you Truly WANT to "walk on the surface of the sun"?

Your Honest answer, by the way, would be MUCH appreciated.

Also, I NEVER even remotely suggested that ALL goals can be achieved, let alone specifically said such a thing.

If thee Truth be KNOW I NEVER even thought that.

When a person says something inherently stupid It is admirable that they admit that is was pur hyperbole.
How utterly graceless of you

[Age]

My goal is to walk on the surface of the sun.

If that is a "goal", which you Truly WANT to achieve, then, if 'I' was 'you', then I would question WHY I would, supposedly, "Truly WANT" to achieve such a thing.

I've about as much chance of achieving that as some character answering all the questions in philosophy.

What 'you' are actually capable of achieving, AND, what "another" is actually capable of achieving is NOT, necessarily, the exact same thing.

Philosophy is less about answering questions as pointing out where questions exist.

AND, 'philosophy' means MANY other different things to MANY other different people.

So, NO, "OBVIOUSLY" there are goals that cannot be achieved

Do you Truly WANT to "walk on the surface of the sun"?

Your Honest answer, by the way, would be MUCH appreciated.

Also, I NEVER even remotely suggested that ALL goals can be achieved, let alone specifically said such a thing.

If thee Truth be KNOW I NEVER even thought that.

When a person says something inherently stupid It is admirable that they admit that is was pur hyperbole.
How utterly graceless of you

I have NO idea what you are 'trying to' get at here, and really do NOT care, but as I have previously stated:
Never "kid yourself" that you can not achieve your goal.

If you have a goal and Truly WANT to achieve it, then YOU CAN, OBVIOUSLY. remains True.

Your refusal or INABILITY to answer my clarifying questions Honestly further reinforces this Truth.

[Advocate]

The title, "the Whole Story" is grandiose. Criticism is to be expected.

I get that, and i welcome it. However, the "criticism" so far, all but one or two exceptions, is points that simply don't apply from people who either haven't read it at all and reject the premise by default or who don't understand it and don't care to try. It's not "unique" despite that EVERY answer in philosophy has been independently derived many times. That's a "criticism" that comes up a lot. Bollocks.

Nevertheless, this is the final answer to philosophy. If you (as per usual i'm using that in the generic sense) want to be on the right side of history, read it, understand it, and you'll see it validated more and more as time progresses, because the criteria it Does meet are things like perfect coherence, scope, consistency, logical necessity, and other things nobody here has the ability or desire to vet. The things i was trying to find help with are organisation/layout particulars, an answering of everything without being unnecessarily verbose, and of course writing style generally.

[Advocate]

Frederick Copelston spend his whole life on this project. In that time he wrote 11 volumes from "Greece and Rome" to "Logical Positivism and Existentialism".
He died with his work unfinished.
To date this is the most comrehensive history of philosophy, but cannot answer "every question in philosophy", not could it.

If you are not an author, then you need to keep writing. But never kid yourself that you are going to achieve your goal.

Also, never "kid yourself" that you can not achieve your goal.

If you have a goal and Truly WANT to achieve it, then YOU CAN, OBVIOUSLY.

My goal is to walk on the surface of the sun. I've about as much chance of achieving that as some character answering all the questions in philosophy.

Philosophy is less about answering questions as pointing out where questions exist.
So, NO, "OBVIOUSLY" there are goals that cannot be achieved

The answer to all questions in philosophy isn't an infinite list of answers, it's a set of understandings that lets everyone independently find those answers for themselves in every case. If you use the proper benchmark for judging things, you'll have a lot more luck making them better. This goal is achievable, and the race is won. You can deny it but it's still true and those who embrace it will be light years (yes, i know that's technically incorrect, enjoy it) ahead of you philosophically in no time.