What is the Essence of Philosophy?

[Age]

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.

NO, NOT AT ALL.

Your ASSUMPTION and CLAIM here could NOT be further from thee ACTUAL Truth of things.

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.

But I NEVER said ANY such thing as thing.

The PROOF I have and use speaks for itself. That that PROOF happened to coincide with what is written in dictionaries just makes this ALL the FAR EASIER and SIMPLER to EXPLAIN and SHOW.

[uwot]

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.

But I NEVER said ANY such thing as thing.

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

[Age]

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.

But I NEVER said ANY such thing as thing.

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

It REALLY would be BENEFICIAL, to you, if you CLARIFIED, BEFORE you ASSUMED.

I NEVER said ANY such thing as, "my 'proof' is just a definition". As can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVED True, in the quote YOU provided above here.

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

Which is just ONE PROOF, and NOT the "only" PROOF, as your CLAIM, "my 'proof' is JUST 'a' definition. There are OTHER PROOFS besides JUST that one.

And, to add to this, that ONE PROOF is ALSO NOT "my" PROOF, AT ALL, but is, literally, an AGREED UPON and ACCEPTED DEFINITION, and thus AN AGREED UPON and ACCEPTED PROOF by 'you', human beings.

Just so you are absolutely CLEAR, THAT PROOF by DEFINITION is NOT the ONLY PROOF there is.

So, contrary to your CLAIM and/or BELIEF, I NEVER said ANY such thing as what you SAID and CLAIMED here.

[uwot]

Just so you are absolutely CLEAR, THAT PROOF by DEFINITION is NOT the ONLY PROOF there is.

The proof of the proof is the provision of the proof. If you can't provide the proof, that proves there's no proof.

[Dontaskme]

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

Infinity cannot define itself as a fact known by that which can only be known as a conceived thing. The above statement is a conceived thing...which is inseparable from infinity that cannot conceive itself. A conceived thing can no more know it's conceiver as an object can know it's an object.
Infinity is known as a concept that has no beginning nor end, so in that knowledge, infinity cannot inform itself it exists, except in this conception.

Conceived things know nothing...objects have absolutely no knowledge of their existence. Knowledge can only point to the illusory nature of CONCEPTION...in the same context a 'dream character' cannot know of it's existence, a dream's existence is just a projection of the dreamer which cannot know itself, the dreamer can only see AS AND THROUGH image, as IN a dream. Which is an image of the imageless.

It is not 'i' or 'I' that knows, these are concepts known. Concepts know no-thing, concepts are known by the ONLY knowing there is which is not a thing. Knowing is a verb, not a noun. Knowing is sometimes used as a noun but it is more often an adjective or a form of the verb to know. As No thing can know itself.

That which has no beginning nor end has no way of conceiving itself into a known, which implies a knower.

There is only KNOWING, one without a second, in other words, no one knows this.

.

[Walker]

The essence:

For the guy with the cardboard sign asking for money at the intersection, philosophy provides peace of mind by finding both personal answers to fundamental questions, and justifications that answer such questions as:

- “Why am I baking out here in the sun (or freezing in the cold) and begging for money?”
- “Does this begging bring me happiness and if so, why? If not, why?”
- “If it’s a bad day begging and my name is Socrates, barring peace of mind is there any escape from the petty tyrant other than hemlock?”

[Age]

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

Infinity cannot define itself as a fact known by that which can only be known as a conceived thing.

I KNOW this and I think EVERY one here would KNOW this, so WHY say it?

The above statement is a conceived thing...

Absolutely EVERY thing is a 'conceived thing' to 'you', including 'you', and this EXPLAINS WHY 'you' do NOT even KNOW who NOR what 'you' ARE, EXACTLY, correct?

which is inseparable from infinity that cannot conceive itself.

There is absolute NO 'thing' that can conceive itself, to 'you', the UNKNOWN, to 'you', 'thing' here, correct. So, WHY continue to say and ONLY say this sort of thing, at some particular times? WHY NOT just keep saying this EXACT SAME 'thing' that 'conceived things' can NOT know 'things', AND, keep saying them for as long as that 'thing', known as "dontaskme' keeps existing here for?

A conceived thing can no more know it's conceiver as an object can know it's an object.

We KNOW that this is what 'you' BELIEVE is true. But WHY say this in this reply and NOT in the previous one for example?

Infinity is known as a concept

AND an ACTUAL 'thing'. As 'you' have been previously INFORMED of but can NOT seem to COMPREHEND nor MAKE SENSE OF and UNDERSTAND.

that has no beginning nor end, so in that knowledge, infinity cannot inform itself it exists, except in this conception.

OF COURSE NOT, and as far as I am AWARE there is absolutely NO human being that has EVER claimed that a 'concept', itself, KNOWS ANY thing.

So, WHY AGAIN, do you keep RE-REPEATING 'this thing', which NO one DISAGREES with?

Conceived things know nothing...

OKAY, ONCE AGAIN.

objects have absolutely no knowledge of their existence.

OKAY.

Knowledge can only point to the illusory nature of CONCEPTION...in the same context a 'dream character' cannot know of it's existence, a dream's existence is just a projection of the dreamer which cannot know itself, the dreamer can only see AS AND THROUGH image, as IN a dream. Which is an image of the imageless.

I have QUESTIONED and CHALLENGED you about this "dreamer" thing BEFORE, and BEFORE you FAILED to back up and support YOUR CLAIM here.

It is not 'i' or 'I' that knows, these are concepts known.

To 'you' there is NOTHING that is KNOWN, correct? OH, except when 'you' TELL us 'you' KNOW the truth.

Concepts know no-thing, concepts are known by the ONLY knowing there is which is not a thing. Knowing is a verb, not a noun. Knowing is sometimes used as a noun but it is more often an adjective or a form of the verb to know. As No thing can know itself.

That which has no beginning nor end has no way of conceiving itself into a known, which implies a knower.

There is only KNOWING, one without a second, in other words, no one knows this.

.

Okay. And ONCE AGAIN, if 'you' SAY and BELIEVE SO, then it MUST BE SO, correct?

[Age]

The essence:

For the guy with the cardboard sign asking for money at the intersection, philosophy provides peace of mind by finding both personal answers to fundamental questions, and justifications that answer such questions as:

- “Why am I baking out here in the sun (or freezing in the cold) and begging for money?”
- “Does this begging bring me happiness and if so, why? If not, why?”
- “If it’s a bad day begging and my name is Socrates, barring peace of mind is there any escape from the petty tyrant other than hemlock?”

Through 'philosophy' that human being could become wiser and LEARN that 'we', human beings, do NOT actually 'need' money AT ALL in order to live and to survive.

Now, that, to some, is the 'essence of philosophy'.

[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?

What sort of intellectual thinking is that?

Apperently the sort that is beyond you.

[Dontaskme]

Okay. And ONCE AGAIN, if 'you' SAY and BELIEVE SO, then it MUST BE SO, correct?

Is there here now a conception, belief and assumption that there is an entity known as 'YOU' that can speak, and believe what it speaks must be so...Is that correct?

[Dontaskme]

I have QUESTIONED and CHALLENGED you about this "dreamer" thing BEFORE, and BEFORE you FAILED to back up and support YOUR CLAIM

I'm sorry, but I thought you already knew that ''Dreamer'' is just a word known.

Can a ''word'' question, or challenge, back-up, support or claim anything?

Words are known, they are ideas, no one has ever seen a literal ''dreamer'' as an actual thing except as a written word known.

Now it seems you are assuming this word ''dreamer'' can question, challenge and not fail to support some claim it is known by some I...so the begging question is, can words do that? can the word ''dreamer'' know there is an I that knows it?

Dreamer is known, but not by the dreamer, because a dreamer is just a word, and words know nothing, they are known by the only knowing there is which is the knowing that is one without a second.

So why are you now questioning, challenging, and demanding back-up and support and reclaiming something that you already know to be a concept known to you? why do you need to do that again?

Why are you such a mindfuck even to yourself? why can't you stop fucking around with your mind, and just leave it be, why do you always have to challenge it, demanding back-up and support that what you claim to exist, actually does exist or not...why can't you just know absolutely and stop with all the midfuckery business.

.

[Dontaskme]

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

So, WHY AGAIN, do you keep RE-REPEATING 'this thing', which NO one DISAGREES with?



Repeat after me... Squawk!! ad infinitum....

[henry quirk]

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

So, WHY AGAIN, do you keep RE-REPEATING 'this thing', which NO one DISAGREES with?

I disagree with age: the universe is finite, had a beginning, and will end

[RCSaunders]

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

So, WHY AGAIN, do you keep RE-REPEATING 'this thing', which NO one DISAGREES with?

I disagree with age: the universe is finite, had a beginning, and will end

It depends on what you mean by, "universe."

If, "universe," means, "all there is," then that universe would include, if there were any, any or all gods. If the universe were finite and had a beginning, every part of that universe would be finite and have a beginning, including any god or gods.

You either do not mean, "everything there is," by the word universe, or believe your God is finite and has a beginning. But, if the universe is not all there is, why call it, "the universe." It's not the universe, just part of what exists, if you believe gods or such exist.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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. [HCP]

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.

All human activities [other than autonomic ones] are traceable to the brain with extensions to other part of the body.
In addition the relevant neural network responsible for specific functions are not located in a specific location but spread all over the different parts of the brain.

The problem of consciousness is much more complex than the impulse for philosophy-proper [continual improvement re well being] as such the latter will be easier to trace via the HCP.

I have the confidence the HCP can answer the 'hard problem of consciousness' but it should narrow our ignorance-gap in the issue.

Btw, your talk of 'surprise' 'don't know,' resistance to explore, infer, speculate and know' and pessimism are based on your present ignorance and failure to do the relevant readings and research.