For the discussion of all things philosophical, especially articles in the magazine Philosophy Now.
https://forum.philosophynow.org/
HELL_OAdvocate wrote: ↑Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:37 am If someone developed a world view which was internally and externally consistent, logically necessary in every respect, used common English for most purposes, could be explained at any level of detail, was perfectly compatible with the best understandings of science, and which answers the vast majority of questions in ontology, epistemology, and metaphysics, would you say that had "solved" the latter?
All questions correctly answered then yes but anything less than that then noAdvocate wrote:
If someone developed a world view which was internally and externally consistent logically necessary in every respect used common
English for most purposes could be explained at any level of detail was perfectly compatible with the best understandings of science
and which answers the vast majority of questions in ontology epistemology and metaphysics would you say that had solved the latter
So what you're asking is, if someone came up with the answer to everything would it answer everything. Well I suppose potentially it could, otherwise it wouldn't be the answer to everything. Of course, I'm assuming that everything has an answer, which it very well may not have, especially if it doesn't have a question in the first place.Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:37 am If someone developed a world view which was internally and externally consistent, logically necessary in every respect, used common English for most purposes, could be explained at any level of detail, was perfectly compatible with the best understandings of science, and which answers the vast majority of questions in ontology, epistemology, and metaphysics, would you say that had "solved" the latter?
No. They would have created a story based on the empirical evidence which, like all such stories, would be underdetermined. You can make up any story you like that is consistent with the facts. Anyway; let's hear yours.Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:37 am If someone developed a world view which was internally and externally consistent, logically necessary in every respect, used common English for most purposes, could be explained at any level of detail, was perfectly compatible with the best understandings of science, and which answers the vast majority of questions in ontology, epistemology, and metaphysics, would you say that had "solved" the latter?
W0_rld
Since part of epistemology is that full knowledge is impossible in any sense, i find your condition untenable, if not facetious.surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 12, 2017 1:28 pm All questions correctly answered then yes but anything less than that then no
For the smallest gap in knowledge would mean it could not be fully accepted
What if i phrase it "Are these conditions necessary and sufficient?"Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Sep 12, 2017 2:44 pm So what you're asking is, if someone came up with the answer to everything would it answer everything. Well I suppose potentially it could, otherwise it wouldn't be the answer to everything. Of course, I'm assuming that everything has an answer, which it very well may not have, especially if it doesn't have a question in the first place.
All such things are essentially metaphorical, which is part of the answer (to be posted in a different threads) but my contention here is that such a set of axioms, or whatever, would be far beyond anything yet posited, that i know of..
From what I gather, you believe you have such a set of axioms. Well, the stage is yours; there's a bit of murmuring in the crowd, but this is your moment. Whaddya got?
What you ask isn't philosophy (love of wisdom) but merely something fairytale nonsense, it's too unspecific.Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:37 am If someone developed a world view which was internally and externally consistent, logically necessary in every respect, used common English for most purposes, could be explained at any level of detail, was perfectly compatible with the best understandings of science, and which answers the vast majority of questions in ontology, epistemology, and metaphysics, would you say that had "solved" the latter?
No, i'm explicitly trying to elicit ideas about what it would mean before i rise to the challenge.
Naysaying is a worthless commodity, but is there something specific you had in mind? The universe isn't specific so i don't know why the answers to the mysteries of it would be.