The Whole Story

[RCSaunders]

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.

I agree that Advocate's project is unrealistic, and probably of not much use. I also agree he needs a good grounding in what already exists, like Copleston, which is not philosophy itself, but a history of it (with a very Catholic prejudice) and a bit heavy, or at least a History of Western Philosophy by Russell.

There are already a number of sites online that do what Advocate is proposing:

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Begin with this one:
Philosophy Basics

Ultimately it doesn't matter because he has no choice in the matter, as he says, "In other words, free will is an illusion," so he can't choose to do this thing even if he wants to. He's just going to have to wait to find out whatever it is that makes his choices for him decides to do.

[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.

The length of the work is meaningless when it comes to History of philosophy because history can never be encompassed.

You can cover more with more, obviously.

However, that's nothing of any relation to the value of this work. ...except to illustrate how the Proper answer to philosophy is a Simplified understanding or set of maxims that answers all philosophical questions directly or by logical extension. That, i've done.

Like fuck you have ! LOL

A work need not answer all questions directly to answer all questions. In other words, comprehensive is a) an ineffable target b) unnecessary.

Bollocks

[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.

I agree that Advocate's project is unrealistic, and probably of not much use. I also agree he needs a good grounding in what already exists, like Copleston, which is not philosophy itself, but a history of it (with a very Catholic prejudice) and a bit heavy, or at least a History of Western Philosophy by Russell.

There are already a number of sites online that do what Advocate is proposing:

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Begin with this one:
Philosophy Basics

Ultimately it doesn't matter because he has no choice in the matter, as he says, "In other words, free will is an illusion," so he can't choose to do this thing even if he wants to. He's just going to have to wait to find out whatever it is that makes his choices for him decides to do.

Despite being Jesuit, there's not much in Copelston, except the obvious that ruins his works.
Russell is a bit brief. But neither of them do the modern, expecially French stuff that has been so influentiual in the post war years.

Free will might well be an illusion, that does not stop people making choices as we do all the time. New inputs lead to new outputs; choices. Determined but life changing.

Have you seen "DEVS"?

[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.

The length of the work is meaningless when it comes to History of philosophy because history can never be encompassed.

You can cover more with more, obviously.

However, that's nothing of any relation to the value of this work. ...except to illustrate how the Proper answer to philosophy is a Simplified understanding or set of maxims that answers all philosophical questions directly or by logical extension. That, i've done.

Like fuck you have ! LOL

A work need not answer all questions directly to answer all questions. In other words, comprehensive is a) an ineffable target b) unnecessary.

Bollocks

Your argument appears to be well-founded and irrefutable.

[Advocate]

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.

I agree that Advocate's project is unrealistic, and probably of not much use. I also agree he needs a good grounding in what already exists, like Copleston, which is not philosophy itself, but a history of it (with a very Catholic prejudice) and a bit heavy, or at least a History of Western Philosophy by Russell.

There are already a number of sites online that do what Advocate is proposing:

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Begin with this one:
Philosophy Basics

Ultimately it doesn't matter because he has no choice in the matter, as he says, "In other words, free will is an illusion," so he can't choose to do this thing even if he wants to. He's just going to have to wait to find out whatever it is that makes his choices for him decides to do.

Au contraire, almost everything was independently derived and in most cases i couldn't tell you which philosophers they correspond to. That's the sort of project you're talking about but it's also why philosophy goes nowhere. Forget the people. Let's talk about the ideas, the whole ideas, and nothing but the ideas. But of course, not only is this project meaningless, we're also Doomed!, so there's that.

[RCSaunders]

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.

I agree that Advocate's project is unrealistic, and probably of not much use. I also agree he needs a good grounding in what already exists, like Copleston, which is not philosophy itself, but a history of it (with a very Catholic prejudice) and a bit heavy, or at least a History of Western Philosophy by Russell.

There are already a number of sites online that do what Advocate is proposing:

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Begin with this one:
Philosophy Basics

Ultimately it doesn't matter because he has no choice in the matter, as he says, "In other words, free will is an illusion," so he can't choose to do this thing even if he wants to. He's just going to have to wait to find out whatever it is that makes his choices for him decides to do.

Despite being Jesuit, there's not much in Copelston, except the obvious that ruins his works.
Russell is a bit brief. But neither of them do the modern, expecially French stuff that has been so influentiual in the post war years.

Free will might well be an illusion, that does not stop people making choices as we do all the time. New inputs lead to new outputs; choices. Determined but life changing.

Have you seen "DEVS"?

I haven't, if you mean the TV program. I haven't had a TV for over 25 years. (My wife and I are readers--three to five books a week, usually. Have nothing against TV, just find it not worth our time.) You have raised my curiosity now. What do you think I missed?

[Sculptor]

I agree that Advocate's project is unrealistic, and probably of not much use. I also agree he needs a good grounding in what already exists, like Copleston, which is not philosophy itself, but a history of it (with a very Catholic prejudice) and a bit heavy, or at least a History of Western Philosophy by Russell.

There are already a number of sites online that do what Advocate is proposing:

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Begin with this one:
Philosophy Basics

Ultimately it doesn't matter because he has no choice in the matter, as he says, "In other words, free will is an illusion," so he can't choose to do this thing even if he wants to. He's just going to have to wait to find out whatever it is that makes his choices for him decides to do.

Despite being Jesuit, there's not much in Copelston, except the obvious that ruins his works.
Russell is a bit brief. But neither of them do the modern, expecially French stuff that has been so influentiual in the post war years.

Free will might well be an illusion, that does not stop people making choices as we do all the time. New inputs lead to new outputs; choices. Determined but life changing.

Have you seen "DEVS"?

I haven't, if you mean the TV program. I haven't had a TV for over 25 years. (My wife and I are readers--three to five books a week, usually. Have nothing against TV, just find it not worth our time.) You have raised my curiosity now. What do you think I missed?

Probably the most cerebral Sci-fi thing on the screen, from the director of Ex Machina.

[RCSaunders]

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?

[Advocate]

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.

[RCSaunders]

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.

If what you have written so far is what you think, "answers all philosophical questions," all your answers will be wrong because you do not have a single fundamental right.

"Your consciousness is an awareness fairy. It only notices one thing at a time," means you have no idea what consciousness is.

"In other words, free will is an illusion," means you have no idea what the human mind is.

"Epistemology is all about certainty, not 'Truth,'" means you have no idea what knowledge is. You don't know what a, "concept," is. You use the word, but apparently don't know what it means.

I really am not trying to discourage you, but you have obviously swallowed a lot of modern philosophical nonsense and you really need to question what you've been taught.

[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?

[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?

The doc has been updated to add a purpose section under Truth.

[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.

[Skepdick]

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.

....

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

In the same spirit. What do you need ideas for? Let alone original ones.

[RCSaunders]

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.

....

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

In the same spirit. What do you need ideas for? Let alone original ones.

If your question is serious and not rhetorical, apparently you don't need ideas, because, if you did, you would know why you need them.