Philosophy, If You Want It

[RCSaunders]

When I said truth is false, I was using shorthand. I did not think I'd have to spell it out. Truth is not facts. What people hold to be truth is often false, as well you must know. It is philosophy's greatest asset to demonstrate conditions for showing this to be the case.
In the list you give, I'd list Hegel alone as losing cogency.
But NONE of them say black is white or any of the other rather silly things you claimed above.
Example of that exactly! Who the fuck ever said black is white, or war is peace?

Just as you were using, "shorthand," when you said truth is false, I was using rhetoric to illustrate that philosophers say things that are contradictory when I use the expression, black is white and ware is peace. But I think you are too bright not to have known that.

I'll use Hume as an example, since most of Kant's contradictions follow his in spite of the fact Kant claimed to be correcting Hume. Here are two obvious ones:

Abstract Ideas

Hume denied "abstract" concepts, that is, concepts that identified anything except immediate percepts (which he called, "impressions"). In his words: "... it seems to be not impossible to avoid these absurdities and contradictions, if it be admitted, that there is no such thing as abstract or general ideas, properly speaking; but that all general ideas are, in reality, particular ones ..."

Here is his discussion of how abstract ideas, which he denies, are formed: "... all this creative power of the mind amounts to no more than the faculty of compounding, transposing, augmenting, or diminishing the materials afforded us by the senses and experienced. When we think of a golden mountain, we only join two consistent ideas, gold, and mountain, with which we were formerly acquainted. A virtuous horse we can conceive; because, from our own feeling, we can conceive virtue; and this we may unite to the figure and shape of a horse, which is an animal familiar to us. In short, all the materials of thinking are derived either from our outward or inward sentiment: the mixture and composition of these belongs alone to the mind and will. Or, to express myself in philosophical language, all our ideas or more feeble perceptions are copies of our impressions or more lively ones."

The whole paragraph is one huge contradiction. To deny abstract ideas, he uses all the following abstract ideas: creative, power, mind, faculty, compounding, transposing, augmenting, diminishing, materials, afforded, consistent, ideas, formerly, acquainted, virtuous, conceive, unite, shape, familiar, outward, inward, sentiment, mixture, composition, alone, philosophical, language, feeble, and lively.

No Individual Self or Identity

Hume not only denied the existence of an individual self, conscious or otherwise, but that there is even such a concept (idea).

"It must be some one impression, that gives rise to every real idea. But self or person is not any one impression, but that to which our several impressions and ideas are supposed to have a reference. If any impression gives rise to the idea of self, that impression must continue invariably the same, through the whole course of our lives; since self is supposed to exist after that manner. But there is no impression constant and invariable. Pain and pleasure, grief and joy, passions and sensations succeed each other, and never all exist at the same time. It cannot, therefore, be from any of these impressions, or from any other, that the idea of self is derived; and consequently there is no such idea."

But in explaining he writes: "For my part, when I enter most intimately into what I call myself, I always stumble on some particular perception or other, of heat or cold, light or shade, love or hatred, pain or pleasure. I never can catch myself at any time without a perception, and never can observe any thing but the perception. When my perceptions are removed for any time, as by sound sleep; so long am I insensible of myself, and may truly be said not to exist."

So remove all the non-existent ideas of "self" from the paragraph, and it reads thus:

"For ..., when ... enter most intimately into what ... call ..., ... always stumble on some particular perception or other, of heat or cold, light or shade, love or hatred, pain or pleasure. ... never can catch ... at any time without a perception, and never can observe any thing but the perception. When ... perceptions are removed for any time, as by sound sleep; so long am ... insensible of ..., and may truly be said not to exist."

[Sculptor]

When I said truth is false, I was using shorthand. I did not think I'd have to spell it out. Truth is not facts. What people hold to be truth is often false, as well you must know. It is philosophy's greatest asset to demonstrate conditions for showing this to be the case.
In the list you give, I'd list Hegel alone as losing cogency.
But NONE of them say black is white or any of the other rather silly things you claimed above.
Example of that exactly! Who the fuck ever said black is white, or war is peace?

Just as you were using, "shorthand," when you said truth is false, I was using rhetoric to illustrate that philosophers say things that are contradictory when I use the expression, black is white and ware is peace. But I think you are too bright not to have known that.

Fair enough

I'll use Hume as an example, since most of Kant's contradictions follow his in spite of the fact Kant claimed to be correcting Hume. Here are two obvious ones:

Abstract Ideas

Hume denied "abstract" concepts, that is, concepts that identified anything except immediate percepts (which he called, "impressions"). In his words: "... it seems to be not impossible to avoid these absurdities and contradictions, if it be admitted, that there is no such thing as abstract or general ideas, properly speaking; but that all general ideas are, in reality, particular ones ..."

Here is his discussion of how abstract ideas, which he denies, are formed: "... all this creative power of the mind amounts to no more than the faculty of compounding, transposing, augmenting, or diminishing the materials afforded us by the senses and experienced. When we think of a golden mountain, we only join two consistent ideas, gold, and mountain, with which we were formerly acquainted. A virtuous horse we can conceive; because, from our own feeling, we can conceive virtue; and this we may unite to the figure and shape of a horse, which is an animal familiar to us. In short, all the materials of thinking are derived either from our outward or inward sentiment: the mixture and composition of these belongs alone to the mind and will. Or, to express myself in philosophical language, all our ideas or more feeble perceptions are copies of our impressions or more lively ones."

The whole paragraph is one huge contradiction. To deny abstract ideas, he uses all the following abstract ideas: creative, power, mind, faculty, compounding, transposing, augmenting, diminishing, materials, afforded, consistent, ideas, formerly, acquainted, virtuous, conceive, unite, shape, familiar, outward, inward, sentiment, mixture, composition, alone, philosophical, language, feeble, and lively.

First thing to say is that this is nothing like saying black is white or war is peace.
He is drawing attention to the ontology of conceptions in an historical context of neo-platonism. The Theory of Forms of Plato insists that our use of these words are pale compared to their absolute and irrefutable existence on a non-specified place we can only assume is the mind of god.
In refuting this absurd position, Hume is simply insisting that these concepts are not essential but derive FROM experience; whereas Plato insisted that our praxis is a failed attempt to reach the perfection of these concepts which can only be attained with philosophical contemplation.
Hume was right.
I see no problem here. In using such concepts he is simply using the experience of the cultural milieu in which he has received these words in practice. And as we all know these concepts change over time in language which tends to be a fine rejection of Plato.

No Individual Self or Identity

Hume not only denied the existence of an individual self, conscious or otherwise, but that there is even such a concept (idea).

"It must be some one impression, that gives rise to every real idea. But self or person is not any one impression, but that to which our several impressions and ideas are supposed to have a reference. If any impression gives rise to the idea of self, that impression must continue invariably the same, through the whole course of our lives; since self is supposed to exist after that manner. But there is no impression constant and invariable. Pain and pleasure, grief and joy, passions and sensations succeed each other, and never all exist at the same time. It cannot, therefore, be from any of these impressions, or from any other, that the idea of self is derived; and consequently there is no such idea."

But in explaining he writes: "For my part, when I enter most intimately into what I call myself, I always stumble on some particular perception or other, of heat or cold, light or shade, love or hatred, pain or pleasure. I never can catch myself at any time without a perception, and never can observe any thing but the perception. When my perceptions are removed for any time, as by sound sleep; so long am I insensible of myself, and may truly be said not to exist."

You need to heed this sentence; "But there is no impression constant and invariable.". Hume is once again denying the absolute, insisting that we are ever changing. It does not follow that we cannot at any one point in time refer to ourselves.

So remove all the non-existent ideas of "self" from the paragraph, and it reads thus:

"For ..., when ... enter most intimately into what ... call ..., ... always stumble on some particular perception or other, of heat or cold, light or shade, love or hatred, pain or pleasure. ... never can catch ... at any time without a perception, and never can observe any thing but the perception. When ... perceptions are removed for any time, as by sound sleep; so long am ... insensible of ..., and may truly be said not to exist."

As I said at the outset it's not a fault with the philosophy but with your understanding of it.
IT seems to me that G E Morton has similar difficulties with thinking in absolute terms.
It is not that people are saying that black is white, but in reality most things are actually neither black or white, and you think in Black and white terms.
You are like a judge whose only verdict is freedom or death by hanging.

[Eodnhoj7]

Sheila: Uncle, Can human beings live without philosophy?

Uncle: They can survive, if that's what you mean, Darling, but they cannot live very well, and only as something less than human beings.

Sheila: Then we need to teach them philosophy, don't we Uncle?

Uncle: No, Darling. It's not possible. Humans generally are nescient, vacuous, gullible, and mentally stagnant. They cannot be taught much of anything of real value."

Uncle is right, and his niece understood exactly what he said, but you probably do not. There is no point in teaching philosophy to those who can neither understand or appreciate it. Philosophy is for the exceptional. Everyone else, those Mencken called, "the common man," but today are referred to as the, "TV viewing public," are what Uncle referred to as "humans generally." Uncle's terms may not be obvious to you but they mean simply that most people are ignorant, stupid, superstitious, and choose to be stuck in that condition.

It's not a necessary condition. People choose to be what they are. They are mostly poor, unhappy, and always in some kind of trouble but never make the connection between their misery and their moral failures. To be stupid, ignorant, and superstitious is a moral failure.

No one has to be ignorant. They could all learn more than they do. Ignorant does not mean not knowing everything, it means not learning all one can learn, or learning as little as one thinks they can get away with.

No one has to be stupid. They could all think better than they do. Stupid doesn't mean unable to think, it means not thinking as well as one can and not bothering to learn how.

No one has to be gullible. They could all see what they believe cannot possibly be true. Superstitious does not mean being afraid of black cats and Friday the 13th, it means believing things without evidence or reason, based on nothing more than one's feelings, sentiments, irrational fears, baseless impressions, or credulity in some experts or authorities.

[NOTE: Ignorance does not mean knowing nothing. Everyone knows enough to live from day to day, but they make little or no effort to learn any more. Stupid does not mean unable to think at all. Everyone is able to think well enough to get along if there are no really difficult problems to solve or decisions to make. Some of the things people believe are true, but about all the major issues of life, what they believe does not even resemble reality. They believe, for example, the little they've learned, the thinking they are able to do, and what they believe is, "good enough." "It is about the same as everyone else knows, thinks and believes;" they're, "just as good as anyone else." That, at least, is true. It's just that they and everyone else are not much good.]

Philosophy They Will Not Like

With few exceptions no one is interested in philosophy. They don't mind what passes for philosophy in academia, however. The academic perversions of philosophy are written and taught by those who use the methods of philosophy, not to discover the truth, but to evade and obfuscate it. They are just as ignorant, stupid, and superstitious as everyone else.

They hate true philosophy because it describes reality as it actually is and it is reality the sophists and cynics, passing themselves off as intellectuals and philosophers despise.

Reality is immutable, absolute, and ruthless. Immutable means the nature of reality cannot be changed or ever be other than what it is. Absolute means reality is complete and unconditional; it is all there is and is not contingent on anything. Ruthless means reality determines what is true and not true, and no human feelings, desires, choices, acts, beliefs, or wishes can change it.

No one wants to learn about that kind of reality, but it is the only reality there is. No one wants philosophy because the reality it describes is not nice:

• The real world is a very difficult place to live.

• There are no shortcuts to life, success or happiness.

• You must earn everything by your own effort.

• Anything less than your best is failure.

• You cannot do wrong and get away with it.

• There is no forgiveness.

• There is no mercy.

• Neither your feelings nor your desires matter.

• Reality is all there is, the way it is.

• The truth is whatever correctly describes any aspect of reality.

Does that make reality sound harsh? Well, it is. The proper name for that harshness is justice.

Reality is neither cruel or kind, reality is just what is. It is neither malevolent nor benevolent, but it is the means to all that is worth living for and the source of all that is possible. That possibility includes the fact that every individual is provided with all they need to live successfully and happily and to be all they can be as a human being. It means, your every shortcoming and failure is the result of your own choices and actions. It means, if you are not happy, it is your own fault. Reality provides you the means to all good things, but you cannot achieve either success or happiness if you defy reality, or refuse to even learn what it is.

The Reality of All Possibility

As ruthless and implacable as reality is, it is also the source of infinite possibility. No success is possible in defiance of reality, but knowing what reality is and ordering one's life by the principles that describe it makes the achievement of anything possible.

If you are going to conform to reality, however, you must know what it is, what its nature is, and what the principles determined by that nature are, because it is those principles which must be one's guide in all one's thinking, choices, and actions if one is to live successfully and happily in this real world. There is only one field of study that provides that knowledge, the field of philosophy.

Philosophical Knowledge

Philosophical knowledge is a very small part of human knowledge, but it is the most important, because all other knowledge is dependent on it. It is to all other knowledge what counting, addition and subtraction are to all of mathematics. All of higher mathematics depends on the principles of simple arithmetic, and all other knowledge in the arts, humanities, and sciences depends on the principles of philosophy.

Philosophical knowledge begins with the nature of all that we call existence. Is that existence real? Exactly what is reality? Can the nature of reality be known? If it can be known, what is the nature of reality that makes it knowable, and what is it about our own natures that makes it possible for us to know it? These are the fundamental questions of philosophy and the branch of philosophy that answers those questions is called metaphysics.

If reality is immutable, absolute, and ruthless, it exists independently of anyone's knowledge or consciousness of it, and any aspect of it that we are conscious of must be exactly what we are conscious of, or what we are conscious of is not reality. The absolute reality we are directly conscious of is physical existence. The study of the physical world is not philosophical, but the province of the physical sciences. It is those aspects of reality we cannot be directly conscious of that philosophy studies and includes life, consciousness, and the human mind. The study of the nature of life, the nature of consciousness, and the human mind is philosophical psychology. Life, consciousness, and the human mind, like all other aspects of reality, including the physical, exist independently of anyone's knowledge or consciousness of them and make up "material existence." The philosophical study of the nature of material existence is a subset of metaphysics called ontology.

All of these, metaphysics, ontology, and philosophical psychology, describe the reality all our knowledge is about, and the nature of the human mind that makes knowledge possible. What knowledge actually is and how we can know what is true, and what is not true, is the branch of philosophy called epistemology. It is the most important branch of philosophy.

Epistemology is not just the study of knowledge, but all aspects of the human mind, including the nature of the mind: volition (the ability and necessity of conscious choice), rationality (the ability and necessity to think and reason), and intellect (the ability and necessity to gain, hold, and use knowledge).

It is the mind that distinguishes human beings from all other creatures and determines how they must live if they are to live successfully. The principles by which human beings must make their choices if they are to be successful and enjoy their lives as human beings are called moral principles and make up the branch of philosophy called ethics.

Ethical principles pertain only to individual human beings and every individual's nature requires them to live by those principles, and would, even if they were the only human being on the planet. But no one is a solitary human being, and it is natural to desire and enjoy the society of others, and social interactions are necessary to a fulfilled human life. The principles that determine how ethical individuals relate to other human beings are delineated in the branch of philosophy called politics. It is the least well understood branch of philosophy with the possible exception of aesthetics.

Epistemology is the most important branch of philosophy; the most sublime branch of philosophy and the one toward which all the others converge is the branch of philosophy called aesthetics which describes the purpose and objective of life itself, which are beauty and the highest forms of joy called bliss and ecstasy.

The following is an outline of philosophy:

• Metaphysics (The nature of existence and reality.)
  • Ontology (The nature of material existence.)
  • Psychology (The natures of life, consciousness, and mind.)

• Epistemology (The nature of knowledge.)

• Ethics (The nature of moral principles.)

• Politics (The nature of ethics in human relationships.)

• Aesthetics (The nature of beauty.)

The Science of Human Living

Philosophy and the sciences are disciplines of discovery, not authority. The question, in these fields, "who decides," what is true or correct is not only invalid, but viciously deceptive. No one decides what truth is, because truth is what describes reality as it is. No expert, authority, peer review, or consensus determines what is true. It is reality alone that determines what is true; the philosopher or scientist can only discover that truth, not determine or dictate it.

Philosophy, like science, is entirely objective. The difference between the sciences and philosophy is that the sciences are restricted to the study of that aspect of reality we refer to as the physical, and philosophy studies the relationship of the physical to everything else, including the ultimate nature of reality and all that exists that is not physical such as life, consciousness, and the human mind, and the principles determined by the nature of reality identified as ethics, politics, and aesthetics.

Like science, philosophy is a technical discipline, and parts of it can be tedious and demanding. Like science, there are no short-cuts or easy ways to master it. Many philosophical principles can be popularized, just as many scientific principles can be, but philosophy itself will never be a popular subject.

Attempts to popularize philosophy are bound to end disastrously. Such attempts end as half-truths and almost always devolve into ideologies which are promoted like religions. One test for the validity of any supposed knowledge is the extent to which it is debated, promoted, or propagandized. The validity of any science or philosophy is proved by its practical success. The final arbiter of truth is not the number of people who believe or agree with it; the final arbiter of truth is reality itself. If one knows the truth, they know it, even if they are the only person in the world who does.

In general, philosophy is not as difficult as most of the sciences, and anyone willing to make the effort can learn the general principles of philosophy. Professional philosophers and academics have made philosophy much more difficult than it needs to be, but it is not a subject that can be fully appreciated without effort. It is the most important of all knowledge, yet most people are not willing to make the effort to learn it, and spend most of their lives evading it and suffering the consequences.

Yet, everyone has a philosophy. Most could not identify their philosophy or explain what it is. One's philosophy is all one believes about the nature of reality, what one assumes life is, the value they put on knowledge and the ability to reason and what they think knowledge is and how they believe they ought to relate to others, and most of all, what they think the purpose of their life is and what they are living for. All people have such views and beliefs but they are not beliefs they came to by means of reason, but ideas picked up along the way from their parents, teachers, friends, their favorite "authorities", or various media—and most of what they have picked up is wrong; and they never learn that since one's philosophy is the basis for all their choices and actions in life, it is their philosophy that is the reason for their failures and unhappiness.

Interesting assumptions.

Philosophy failed because it failed to tackle it's own assumed premises. It fails to acknowledge, much like the religions and sciences, the premises are assumed.

I was talking with, what appeared to be, a thomist the other week.

I said Thomas Aquinas is full of contradictions simply because, like the majority of philosophers, he failed to reflect on the simple fact his premises are assumed.

He took pagan philosophy, and reinterpreted it from the angle of Christianity. However the pagan philosophers have also failed in these respects, as they assume natural elements (much like today's physicists) are the starting premise through which to measure being.

Philosophy failed because it ignores it's own nature of assumption, hence starts with false premises.

It has become a system of measurement of continually diverging words, symbols and classifications (with anyone disagreeing with this statement following the same process of divergence) that connect into new patterns.

It is pattern projection and reception, pure and simple, with this projection of assumptions and the reception of assumptions being the act of assumption itself in both its dynamic and static natures.

This is all assumption of course, this argument, but that is fundamentally why it does not contradict itself. The premise assumption results in a variation of further assumptions which give further defintion to the nature of being while still maintaining its premise as inherent within the conclusion but fundamentally adapted to the divisive nature of time.

[RCSaunders]

It is not that people are saying that black is white, but in reality most things are actually neither black or white, and you think in Black and white terms.

Obviously everything is not black and white, there are many shades of grey, which are all mixtures of black and white. Fortunately, for those who care, it is possible to discover which things are black (made up, ficticious, superstitious, mystical, nonsense, and absurd) and which things are white (real, actual, objective, rational, and true) and to separate and identify them. Most people prefer the fog confusion called grey, because it relieves of the responsibility of making right choices. That's perfectly all right with me. It's rather fun to watch them muddle on.

You are like a judge whose only verdict is freedom or death by hanging.

How interesting that you think that way. I have no interest in judging others or telling them what they are like.

[Impenitent]

Who the fuck ever said black is white, or war is peace?

George Orwell

-Imp

Quote please!

1984

-Imp

[RCSaunders]

Interesting assumptions.

There is premise for this view of the nature of philosophy, but it is not an assumption. It is what used to called an, "axiom," but that word, unfrtunately, has come to mean an assumption as well. What I mean by an axiom (and what the word used to mean) is an assertion (proposition) that cannot be denied without being a contradiction. There are actually three axioms that make up my premise:

1. There is existence. (To deny this denies the there is a denier.)
2. Human beings are conscious of existence. (Consciousness of nothing is a contradiction.)
3. What exists must have some nature. (The ineffable cannot exist. To exist means to be something.)

Everything else I said is based on those axioms.

You may consider them an assumption, if you like, but the opposite would be absurd: there is no existence, human beings are not conscious of existence, and what exist has no nature. That assumption is the end of any possible inquiry.

I know these are denied all the time, but they cannot be denied without contradiction, which usually ends by resorting to some mystical or supernatural, "explanation."

Philosophy failed because it failed to tackle it's own assumed premises. It fails to acknowledge, much like the religions and sciences, the premises are assumed.

That is certainly one of the reasons for philosophy's failure. One problem is the idea of philosophy itself. When it became identified as a separate discipline from the sciences (which it certainly is) it also took on a false sense of being some esoteric thing, as though there were some God of philosophy that determine what it is supposed to be. Philosophy is just like any other human developed method like language, mathematics, the sciences, logic, history, and geography. It is, as you suggest, very much like a religion, today, driven by authority and consensus, rather than evidence and reason.

I was talking with, what appeared to be, a thomist the other week.

I said Thomas Aquinas is full of contradictions simply because, like the majority of philosophers, he failed to reflect on the simple fact his premises are assumed.

He took pagan philosophy, and reinterpreted it from the angle of Christianity. However the pagan philosophers have also failed in these respects, as they assume natural elements (much like today's physicists) are the starting premise through which to measure being.

Philosophy failed because it ignores it's own nature of assumption, hence starts with false premises.

It has become a system of measurement of continually diverging words, symbols and classifications (with anyone disagreeing with this statement following the same process of divergence) that connect into new patterns.

It is pattern projection and reception, pure and simple, with this projection of assumptions and the reception of assumptions being the act of assumption itself in both its dynamic and static natures.

This is all assumption of course, this argument, but that is fundamentally why it does not contradict itself. The premise assumption results in a variation of further assumptions which give further definition to the nature of being while still maintaining its premise as inherent within the conclusion but fundamentally adapted to the divisive nature of time.

I pretty much agree with what you have said, although I probably would not have put in quite the same way.

I do have one question, however. What does this mean, "the starting premise through which to measure being," in particular, what does it mean, "to measure being?"

Thanks for the comment.

[Sculptor]

It is not that people are saying that black is white, but in reality most things are actually neither black or white, and you think in Black and white terms.

Obviously everything is not black and white, there are many shades of grey, which are all mixtures of black and white. Fortunately, for those who care, it is possible to discover which things are black (made up, ficticious, superstitious, mystical, nonsense, and absurd) and which things are white (real, actual, objective, rational, and true) and to separate and identify them. Most people prefer the fog confusion called grey, because it relieves of the responsibility of making right choices. That's perfectly all right with me. It's rather fun to watch them muddle on.

You are like a judge whose only verdict is freedom or death by hanging.

How interesting that you think that way. I have no interest in judging others or telling them what they are like.

You did not address the key issues.

[Sculptor]

George Orwell

-Imp

Quote please!

1984

-Imp

It's a FICTION. FFS
He is not saying it as a philosophical statement.
You need to follow a thread in order to comment on it.
You are irrelevant.

[Skepdick]

If the original meaning of philosophy was, "love of wisdom," what does "to philosophy" mean. I think most who use the term, "philosophise," mean to present or promote some philosophical view, which my article was not intended to do. It was meant, "to philosophy," in the original sense of promoting a love of wisdom, and a desire to learn, not to provide some easy answer to the most important questions of life. My whole point is that wisdom is neither easy or nice but worth pursuing if life is worth living because without it no meaningful life is possible.

If that is philosophying, I plead guilty.

You are providing easy answers to the most important questions of life.
You are unwilling to learn.
You are unwilling to consider the possibility that your account of events is incorrect.

Is that wisdom?

[PeteJ]

1. There is existence. (To deny this denies the there is a denier.)
2. Human beings are conscious of existence. (Consciousness of nothing is a contradiction.)
3. What exists must have some nature. (The ineffable cannot exist. To exist means to be something.)

Everything else I said is based on those axioms.

'The ineffable cannot exist' (at least in the usual sense of the word), and this is why it is able to explain existence. You seem to ignore the view that existence arises from what is truly and independently real, which would be what transcends the exist/not-exist distinction and be ineffable.

For example, you ignore the argument made by Bradley in his 'Appearance and Reality' and do not seem to know of the widely endorsed view he presents. It is as if the Perennial philosophy did not exist.

''Consciousness of nothing' is not at all the same thing as objectless consciousness. You're speaking only of intentional consciousness.

'What exists must have some nature' and so its origin must be the ineffable, as Kant observes.

On this matter I'm with Logik.You're dismissing all other views without providing arguments to knock them down. That would be fine if you ended up with a coherent theory that solved problems, but what metaphysical problems have you solved?

[RCSaunders]

You seem to ignore the view that existence arises from what is truly and independently real, which would be what transcends the exist/not-exist distinction and be ineffable.

What does, "independently real" mean? Something is either real, or it isn't. I'm sure your meaning of "real" is different form mine. Please see my Metaphysics for what I mean by real.

For example, you ignore the argument made by Bradley in his 'Appearance and Reality' and do not seem to know of the widely endorsed view he presents. It is as if the Perennial philosophy did not exist.

I do not accept anything on the basis of some presumed expertise or authority, and certainly not on the basis of something being, "widely endorsed." Truth is not determined by opinion, authority, expertise, or consensus. It is determined by reality. It would not matter if every authority and expert in the world taught something and everyone else in the world believed it, if it is not true, it is not true.

''Consciousness of nothing' is not at all the same thing as objectless consciousness. You're speaking only of intentional consciousness.

No. I was speaking only of actual consciousnes, seeing, hearing, feeling, smelling, tasting, and interoception.

'What exists must have some nature' and so its origin must be the ineffable, as Kant observes.

Talk about false assumptions or premises. Existence cannot have an origin, however you choose to describe existence. If existence includes a god, it cannot have an origin unless one admits their god has an origin. If existence does not include a god, it means a god does not exist (is not part of existence).

You're dismissing all other views without providing arguments to knock them down.

You are absolutely right. I am dismissing other views, because they are all nonsense. One does not have to spend their life refuting every inane and absurd thing taught in this world.

[RCSaunders]

You are providing easy answers to the most important questions of life.
You are unwilling to learn.
You are unwilling to consider the possibility that your account of events is incorrect.

I'm guilty of all a that, am I? Well, shame on me.

[RCSaunders]

He is not saying it as a philosophical statement.

No, he was saying that by 1984 that is what philosophers would be teaching. He was right.

[PeteJ]

Rc - I really don't understand your approach. You seem to have abandoned philosophy for opinion. Feel free to do so, but I don't know how to engage in a discussion if you see no need to counter opposing views before adopting one. So I have to retire from this one.

[Sculptor]

He is not saying it as a philosophical statement.

No, he was saying that by 1984 that is what philosophers would be teaching. He was right.

Rubbish.
He was saying nothing of the kind and no philosopher has EVER taught that.
You still have not addressed my points.