What is the Essence of Philosophy?

[Age]

Absolute claims can be refuted with one example to the contrary.
Since I can think of one example of philosophy NOT being "BUNK" then you have failed to make your point.

That's great, if you are satisfied with it. Of course your, "example," may not convince anyone else. I know I'd like to know just one positive contribution to human knowledge and achievement made by philosophy. I can think of endless disasters and atrocities harming both individuals and civilized societies resulting from individuals practicing their philosophies (like every government and every war and all of academia), but cannot think of one positive contribution.

As anticipated in the OP you have NOT bothered to define 'what is philosophy' but merely jumped in hastily with your conclusions that 'philosophy is bunk and useless'.

WHEN, EXACTLY did 'you', SUPPOSEDLY, 'anticipate' 'this'?

And, HOW do you KNOW that that one has not bothered to define 'what philosophy IS'? OBVIOUSLY, they did NOT define what the word 'philosophy' means, to them, 'there', BUT that does NOT mean that they have not bothered to define 'what philosophy IS' somewhere else, correct?

As explained above, philosophy-proper provides the managerial expertise for humans individually and collectively to ensure the well being of the individuals and humanity. Note the following points I raised above.

Noted the following points that you raised above. And, ALSO NOTED, is that you are provided your OWN definition for what the words 'philosophy-proper' mean or refer to, to you, ALONE.

Also, NOTED, which you may NOT have, is that just adding the word 'proper' with a hyphen - to the word 'philosophy' does NOT make the following definition NOR referral absolutely true AT ALL. What is ACTUALLY SEEN and NOTICED is how 'you', adult human beings, in the days when this was being written, would 'try' all sorts of TACTICS and DECEPTIONS to 'try to' make your OWN made-up IDEAS and CONCLUSION SEEM or APPEAR MORE true than what they REALLY WERE.

• 1. The further question is what is the proximate and ultimate of purpose science, religion, metaphysics, or any field of knowledge [models] for?
  2. On what basis and principles are these models or framework and system of knowledge established, structured, operated and controlled to be effective.
  Re 1 & 2 and others aspects that set up, operate, maintain and sustained the FSK, we need philosophy as defined above.

Therefore whatever is a net-positive contribution to humanity from science and any other fields of knowledge or technology is backed ultimately by philosophy-proper. [not the bastardized-philosophy you are so familiar with].

What we KNOW, and without so-called "philosophy-proper" is that your JUDGMENTAL and Incorrect VIEWS of "others" "veritas aequitas" is NOT positive AT ALL for humanity NOR life on earth, EXCEPT that those VIEWS are a GREAT EXAMPLE for the REST of 'humanity' of what NOT to do. That is; if they want to create and live in a MUCH BETTER life.

In any case, I am not expecting you to acknowledge what I have written but rather will continue to make noises from your ignorance.

Do 'you', "veritas aequitas", REALLY BELIEVE that 'you' are NOT ignorant of ANY thing, AT ALL?

Although Honesty would be much appreciated here, it is CERTAINLY NOT expected from 'you', "veritas aequitas".

I am posting this for my own sake, not yours.

WHY? So 'you' can RE-READ your OWN writings, and then TELL "yourself" just how good 'you' "REALLY ARE"?

[uwot]

I keep telling ya: it's story telling. There's a bunch of phenomena/behaviour you want to explain, so you make up some reason for it. If that reason can be tested experimentally it is science. If it can't, it's metaphysics and if there is some immortal being involved, it's religion.

The concept of "Story telling" is too general to be bothered with.

We've been here before Veritas Aequitas:

While it may used for something more serious it is better not to, so as to avoid any confusion with 1.
A model, a framework, a conjecture or a paradigm can be both for real or fictional things, but in this case, the reference is to real things only.

If calling a model, a framework, a conjecture or a paradigm a story confuses you, then it is better that you don't.

They're just words which mean pretty much the same thing. A great deal of what passes for original philosophy is simply repackaging essentially the same ideas that were introduced by the ancient Greeks between the 6th and 3rd century BC. 300 years is long enough to work out the fundamentals of philosophy, and they haven't change radically since.

Besides story telling is merely 'knowing' and not 'doing' to get results.

So you agree with Karl Marx: "Philosophers have interpreted the world, the point however is to change it."

1. The further question is what is the proximate and ultimate of purpose science, religion, metaphysics, or any field of knowledge [models] for?

That's the same point posed as a question. Here you use "[models]" much as I would use 'stories'.

2. On what basis and principles are these models or framework and system of knowledge established, structured, operated and controlled to be effective.

You're the one advocating it; you tell me.

Re 1 & 2 and others aspects that set up, operate, maintain and sustained the FSK, we need philosophy as defined above.

How do you suppose we have managed so far without?

[uwot]

I keep telling ya: it's story telling. There's a bunch of phenomena/behaviour you want to explain, so you make up some reason for it. If that reason can be tested experimentally it is science. If it can't, it's metaphysics and if there is some immortal being involved, it's religion.

And, if that 'reason' can be explained, logically, soundly, AND validly, then 'that reason' is thee ACTUAL, IRREFUTABLE Truth, which NO one could refute. No matter if 'that reason' is known by the names 'science', 'metaphysics', 'religion', or not.

The problem is there will always be more than one reason that can be explained in a logically valid way. The only things that you can prove sound with logic are vacuous tautologies which are only true by definition: 2+2=4 and 'all bachelors are unmarried men' being stock examples. Logic cannot tell you anything about the world that isn't already implicit.

ALL of 'those reasons' can be PROVED True or NOT, logically AND soundly and validly.

No they can't. They can only be proven 'true' within a given context, or FSK as Veritas Aequitas would have it. The fact that the hard of thinking are easily persuaded does not have any bearing on truth.

Some 'stories' are just FAR MORE True than others are. Like for the 'story' the WHOLE of thee Universe BEGAN, and is EXPANDING is OBVIOUSLY False, Wrong, AND Incorrect, as this has ALREADY been PROVED True. Though some are YET to LEARN of this Fact. That is; in the days when this was being written.

Dear readers from the days after this was being written
Perhaps you are party to some information that refutes the evidence we currently have that strongly implies the visible universe is expanding. If by any chance you have also invented a time machine, could you send the data back to us?
Yours in anticipation

The long since dead

[Age]

I keep telling ya: it's story telling. There's a bunch of phenomena/behaviour you want to explain, so you make up some reason for it. If that reason can be tested experimentally it is science. If it can't, it's metaphysics and if there is some immortal being involved, it's religion.

And, if that 'reason' can be explained, logically, soundly, AND validly, then 'that reason' is thee ACTUAL, IRREFUTABLE Truth, which NO one could refute. No matter if 'that reason' is known by the names 'science', 'metaphysics', 'religion', or not.

The problem is there will always be more than one reason that can be explained in a logically valid way.

Did you PURPOSELY leave the 'soundly' word out here?

If yes, then when you add that word back in, then there can only be One logically, valid AND sound reason. Unless, OF COURSE, ANOTHER logically, valid AND sound reason comes to light.

But, if you did NOT PURPOSELY leave the 'soundly' word out here, then did you 'try' to do it DECEPTIVELY?

Also, that may be a 'problem', for you, but that is CERTAINLY, literally, NOT a 'problem' to, NOR for, me, AT ALL.

The only things that you can prove sound with logic are vacuous tautologies which are only true by definition: 2+2=4 and 'all bachelors are unmarried men' being stock examples.

And that is the VERY POINT I have been making. That is; Thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things' can be FOUND, can be KNOWN, and are ACTUALLY VERY EASILY and VERY SIMPLE FOUND and KNOWN.

For example, the Fact that thee Universe can NOT be ANY other than INFINITE and ETERNAL IS ACTUALLY thee Truth of 'things' by DEFINITION. Which has ALREADY been PROVED True, but NOT YET to ALL of 'you', in the days when this was being written.

Logic cannot tell you anything about the world that isn't already implicit.

Okay.

ALL of 'those reasons' can be PROVED True or NOT, logically AND soundly and validly.

No they can't.

And when I say, 'Yes they CAN'.

What type of 'arguing' do you call this?

Is this logically, sound, and valid arguing, and/or arguments, to you?

Or, is this type of arguing/discussing just sound like little children in the playground, to you?

They can only be proven 'true' within a given context, or FSK as Veritas Aequitas would have it.

And. 'that context' ALREADY EXISTS. Most of 'you', human beings, however, in the days when this was being written, had just NOT YET come across NOR recognized 'it'.

The fact that the hard of thinking are easily persuaded does not have any bearing on truth.

Is that the 'hard of thinking', like "yourself", "uwot", who writes and BELIEVES 'things' like; The Universe BEGAN, and IS EXPANDING, which is based on ABSOLUTELY NOTHING than the words and BELIEFS of some "other" of 'you', human beings?

SEE, 'you', have been PERSUADED to BELIEVE that this is true, and VERY, VERY EASILY I will add. Especially considering for the Fact that there is NO ACTUAL PROOF absolutely ANYWHERE for this BELIEF of 'yours', which you STILL, laughably, PERSIST WITH.

Some 'stories' are just FAR MORE True than others are. Like for the 'story' the WHOLE of thee Universe BEGAN, and is EXPANDING is OBVIOUSLY False, Wrong, AND Incorrect, as this has ALREADY been PROVED True. Though some are YET to LEARN of this Fact. That is; in the days when this was being written.

Dear readers from the days after this was being written
Perhaps you are party to some information that refutes the evidence we currently have that strongly implies the visible universe is expanding.

LOL 'Now' you decide to bring the 'visible universe' words into this.

Also, OF COURSE I am so-called 'party to some information', which REFUTES the extremely laughable, so-called, "evidence" which 'you', human beings, MADE UP and USED, back then. I did, after all, say; Has ALREADY been PROVED True.

Remember you are ONLY going on 'evidence', which I have ALREADY STATED can be SHOWN to be False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect. The so-called "evidence", which 'you' and "others" use and refer to ONLY 'implies' some thing, and what this 'implies' ONLY refers to a tiny insignificant PART of thee ACTUAL Universe, Itself.

Also, what is CLEARLY OBVIOUS and True is that ACTUAL PROOF will ALWAYS REFUTE so-called "evidence", which strongly, or weakly, implies something different.

If by any chance you have also invented a time machine, could you send the data back to us?
Yours in anticipation

The long since dead

It is 'you', human beings, who invented, designed, and created the so-called, and misnamed, "time travel". NOT 'me'.

But this ONLY happens AFTER 'you', adult human beings, CHANGE 'your' GREEDY and SELFISH WAYS, and then 'time travel' became possible. And, when this CHANGE did OCCUR, ALL future generations then KNEW to NEVER do ANY thing, like 'send data back to 'you', in those days, BEFORE 'you', human beings, were ALREADY living thee Truly Peaceful AND Harmonious life, which 'you' had ALL Truly WANTED, WISHED FOR, and DESIRED.

'you', adult human beings, in the days when this was being written, could NOT be TRUSTED with such information, as can be CLEARLY SEEN and OBSERVED here.

Also, this is just MORE TACTIC to 'try to' DEFLECT AWAY from the Fact that some of 'you', adult human beings, ACTUALLY BELIEVED that thee Universe, Itself, BEGAN, and WAS EXPANDING, and that there was ACTUAL "evidence" for this RIDICULOUS CLAIM.

Oh, and by the way, if you 'now' just want the data or information that refutes the 'evidence' that the 'visible universe' began or is expanding, then you will NEVER get that data/information, and this is because there is NONE.

What 'you', human beings, can 'visibly see', in relation to the Universe, HAD TO have A BEGINNING, AND, HAS TO BE EXPANDING, OBVIOUSLY.

But, what 'you', human beings, can 'visibly see', or in other words, the 'visible universe', itself, is NOT NECESSARY ANY 'thing' AT ALL like what thee ACTUAL Universe IS.

[RCSaunders]

As anticipated in the OP you have NOT bothered to define 'what is philosophy' ...

My comments are only for those who already know what philosophy is; that is, those who do not need it defined for them. If you don't know what philosophy is, what are you doing on a philosophy forum?

[RCSaunders]

What does the word 'philosophy' even mean, or refer to, to you, EXACTLY?

Anything that goes by the name, "philosophy." It's all bunk.

[Age]

What does the word 'philosophy' even mean, or refer to, to you, EXACTLY?

Anything that goes by the name, "philosophy." It's all bunk.

Well that is ONE WAY of LOOKING AT and SEEING 'things'.

So, to "rcsaunders", one thing that goes by the name of 'philosophy' is just the framework of LOOKING AT and DISCUSSING what is ACTUALLY True from what is not, and, again to "rcsaunders", this 'framework' is so-called "bunk".

Another thing that goes by the name of 'philosophy' is just a study into what "others" have actually meant, in what they have said or written, and again to "rcsaunders", this 'study' is also "bunk".

I wonder now if "rcsaunders" is able to explain what the word 'bunk' actually means or refers to, to them?

[Age]

As anticipated in the OP you have NOT bothered to define 'what is philosophy' ...

My comments are only for those who already know what philosophy is; that is, those who do not need it defined for them. If you don't know what philosophy is, what are you doing on a philosophy forum?

Here is a PERFECT EXAMPLE of just how a LOT of the adult human beings were, back in the days when this was being written. That is; they would say or write words down while making truth claims, but when challenged on those claims and asked for clarification of what the words actually mean to them, they would completely and utterly 'STUMBLE and FALL', as some would say. As evidenced and PROVED True in the above example.

These people, literally, REALLY did NOT know what they were talking about, and saying and writing.

They were so accustomed to just USING words that they had NEVER STOPPED to just think about what those words ACTUALLY MEANT, to them.

And the reason for NOT STOPPING and 'thinking about things', like what words ACTUALLY MEAN was partly due to the fact, in the days when this was being written, these people were just far to busy rushing around trying to obtain as much money as they could, to satisfy their learned selfish and greedy ways.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I keep telling ya: it's story telling. There's a bunch of phenomena/behaviour you want to explain, so you make up some reason for it. If that reason can be tested experimentally it is science. If it can't, it's metaphysics and if there is some immortal being involved, it's religion.

The concept of "Story telling" is too general to be bothered with.

We've been here before Veritas Aequitas:

While it may used for something more serious it is better not to, so as to avoid any confusion with 1.
A model, a framework, a conjecture or a paradigm can be both for real or fictional things, but in this case, the reference is to real things only.

If calling a model, a framework, a conjecture or a paradigm a story confuses you, then it is better that you don't.

They're just words which mean pretty much the same thing. A great deal of what passes for original philosophy is simply repackaging essentially the same ideas that were introduced by the ancient Greeks between the 6th and 3rd century BC. 300 years is long enough to work out the fundamentals of philosophy, and they haven't change radically since.

Besides story telling is merely 'knowing' and not 'doing' to get results.

So you agree with Karl Marx: "Philosophers have interpreted the world, the point however is to change it."

1. The further question is what is the proximate and ultimate of purpose science, religion, metaphysics, or any field of knowledge [models] for?

That's the same point posed as a question. Here you use "[models]" much as I would use 'stories'.

2. On what basis and principles are these models or framework and system of knowledge established, structured, operated and controlled to be effective.

You're the one advocating it; you tell me.

Re 1 & 2 and others aspects that set up, operate, maintain and sustained the FSK, we need philosophy as defined above.

How do you suppose we have managed so far without?

Note the analogy of the Subject of Management with Philosophy.

Management (or managing) is the administration of an organization, whether it is a business, a non-profit organization, or a government body. It is the art and science of managing resources.

The impulse on 'management' is inherent in all humans [dormant in most and active in some] but humans have been doing that spontaneously on an ad hoc basis since >10,000 years ago as evident from how buildings, structures had been built, civilizations, families, various organizations, wars, etc. had been handled albeit not so efficiently.

It was only very recently that the essence and subject of management, e.g. Henri Fayol (1841–1925) Peter Drucker (1909–2005), and others had been systematized and organized as a subject-proper.

The impulse for management is the same as philosophy.
However the impulse for philosophy at present has not been clearly identified, thus we are still beating around the bush with philosophy-proper leading a wide variety of definition of what is philosophy.

My point is we need to track and identify that inherent impulse of philosophy-proper.


In the future re the potential of the Human Connectome Project we will be able to track its [philosophy-proper] activities to the relevant neurons.
Once the specific neural networks are identified to this specific function, then we can call it [philosophy] by any other names in reference to that specific neural network.

At present to call it [whatever that is] 'story telling' [ineffective metaphor] is making it worse in its identification.

[Veritas Aequitas]

As anticipated in the OP you have NOT bothered to define 'what is philosophy' ...

My comments are only for those who already know what philosophy is; that is, those who do not need it defined for them. If you don't know what philosophy is, what are you doing on a philosophy forum?

What sort of intellectual thinking is that?

The point as I had stated is, the number of definition of 'what is philosophy' is the same as the number of philosophy who attempt to define 'what is philosophy'.
I have done the research and can attest to that and the numbers of definitions can be classified into many categories which has no common features.

To join a philosophy forum does not imply one already knows 'what is philosophy'.
One can join a Quantum Physic Forum without knowing precisely what is QM, but the purpose could be to learn about what is QM. If the person has the wrong definition, he would be made aware what is the proper definition of QM. It is the same with for some who are ignorant of what is philosophy to join a philosophy forum to learn more about what is philosophy.

The problem with philosophy-proper is the term 'philosophy' is a very loose term.
As such there is a need in this case to determine the essence of what is philosophy.
Otherwise everyone will be talking pass each other without a common definition.

That is the problem with you is your twisted idea of 'what is philosophy' and thus spewing 'shit' based on your ignorance of what is philosophy-proper.

[uwot]

The only things that you can prove sound with logic are vacuous tautologies which are only true by definition: 2+2=4 and 'all bachelors are unmarried men' being stock examples.

And that is the VERY POINT I have been making. That is; Thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things' can be FOUND, can be KNOWN, and are ACTUALLY VERY EASILY and VERY SIMPLE FOUND and KNOWN.

For example, the Fact that thee Universe can NOT be ANY other than INFINITE and ETERNAL IS ACTUALLY thee Truth of 'things' by DEFINITION.

Ah, so you are a lexicographer rather than a cosmologist.

Also, what is CLEARLY OBVIOUS and True is that ACTUAL PROOF will ALWAYS REFUTE so-called "evidence", which strongly, or weakly, implies something different.

You said it yourself: your 'proof' is just a definition.

[uwot]

Note the analogy of the Subject of Management with Philosophy.

Management (or managing) is the administration of an organization, whether it is a business, a non-profit organization, or a government body. It is the art and science of managing resources.

Yep, there are different stories about how we should interact economically, politically and socially.

In the future re the potential of the Human Connectome Project we will be able to track its [philosophy-proper] activities to the relevant neutrons.

You can't make firm predictions based on "potential".

Once the specific neural networks are identified to this specific function, then we can call it [philosophy] by any other names in reference to that specific neural network.

What will we do with the people who don't have the specific neural network necessary to agree with you?

At present to call it [whatever that is] 'story telling' [ineffective metaphor] is making it worse in its identification.

Well, no metaphor is perfect, so none will work for everyone. All you are saying by "[ineffective metaphor]" is that you don't get it.

[Dubious]

Creating the metaphors of thought and experience in whichever way the age decides. Philosophy has very little to do with truth and absolutely nothing to do with proof just as it isn't the function of science to prove anything.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Note the analogy of the Subject of Management with Philosophy.

Management (or managing) is the administration of an organization, whether it is a business, a non-profit organization, or a government body. It is the art and science of managing resources.

Yep, there are different stories about how we should interact economically, politically and socially.

You missed my point on this.
What I am trying to convey there is an essence to certain main fields of knowledge, e.g. the essence of science is the impulse "to know".
There is also an essence to efficient organization of resources towards a goal, i.e. management-proper.
Analogically with the above, there is an essence to 'philosophy' as I had defined in the OP.

However the majority of people at present are ignorant of this essence which is 'philosophy-proper' which ultimately will be traced to the specific neural networks within the human brain.

In the future re the potential of the Human Connectome Project [HCP] we will be able to track its [philosophy-proper] activities to the relevant neutrons.

You can't make firm predictions based on "potential".

The potential possibilities from the HCP upon its completion [reasonable progress] is well defined thus predict its own results, i.e. humanity will be able to trace and connect to the specific neural networks more precisely [not necessary 100% exactly] due to the complexity of the brain.

So my point stays, i.e. when the HCP has achieved reasonable progress [in the next few generations] humanity will be able to track philosophy-proper activities to the relevant neutrons as predicted.

Therefrom if the individual target to improve on the activation of these neurons his philosophical-quotient will gradually increase. [voluntarily and fool proof].

Once the specific neural networks are identified to this specific function, then we can call it [philosophy] by any other names in reference to that specific neural network.

What will we do with the people who don't have the specific neural network necessary to agree with you?

When we are able to track the neural networks to say the fundamental of breathing or other human functions, this can be verified and justified empirically via testing and repeatability.

As I had stated, the philosophy-proper neural network is inherent in all humans [dormant in most and active in some]. Its location and activity can be verified and justified empirically when we have achieved reasonable progress from the Human Connectome Project.

At present to call it [whatever that is] 'story telling' [ineffective metaphor] is making it worse in its identification.

Well, no metaphor is perfect, so none will work for everyone. All you are saying by "[ineffective metaphor]" is that you don't get it.
[/quote]

[uwot]

As I had stated, the philosophy-proper neural network is inherent in all humans [dormant in most and active in some]. Its location and activity can be verified and justified empirically when we have achieved reasonable progress from the Human Connectome Project.

That is based on a belief/paradigm/hypothesis/story about consciousness. We don't yet know if it is true. I personally doubt there is any more to consciousness that brain function, but even I would be surprised to find out that "philosophy proper" is some tangle of neurons.