solving metaphysics

[Advocate]

In the metaphysics section i put a set of posts that together coherently answer everything in metaphysics and everything else in philosophy by logical extension, and yet there had been no particular notice.

What good is Anyone doing philosophy if the answers can be put right in front of their face and nothing in the universe changes.

What good is Anyone seeking out knowledge if they don't care to get the basics right?, if they don't recognize answers when they see them?

How can society possibly progress if it ignores the most important things entirely? And especially when it's so called seekers doing most of the ignoring?

That extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence is identical to extraordinary claims being irrelevant in a world that doesn't care to examine the evidence for such claims even when it's regarding the most important questions. If finding answers is only available for the mundane, why bother?

[Peter Kropotkin]

I think the problem lies within the nature of your posting..
frankly, it is rather scattershot.. a whole lot of posts that
don't seem to have any coherence.... you may have more success
with longer post and less of them... rewrite your thesis and
change the nature of your thread.. from a million little posts,
to a few larger posts.. don't make people work so hard to get/understand
your point..

Kropotkin

[Advocate]

[quote="Peter Kropotkin" post_id=587911 time=1659552467 user_id=22684]
I think the problem lies within the nature of your posting..
frankly, it is rather scattershot.. a whole lot of posts that
don't seem to have any coherence.... you may have more success
with longer post and less of them... rewrite your thesis and
change the nature of your thread.. from a million little posts,
to a few larger posts.. don't make people work so hard to get/understand
your point..

Kropotkin
[/quote]

You've also missed the point. I've presented it in many ways, many times. That i have to try at all to offer what any rational person would consider the crown jewels of philosophy is the point.

[Iwannaplato]

In the metaphysics section i put a set of posts that together coherently answer everything in metaphysics and everything else in philosophy by logical extension, and yet there had been no particular notice.

What good is Anyone doing philosophy if the answers can be put right in front of their face and nothing in the universe changes.

What good is Anyone seeking out knowledge if they don't care to get the basics right?, if they don't recognize answers when they see them?

How can society possibly progress if it ignores the most important things entirely? And especially when it's so called seekers doing most of the ignoring?

That extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence is identical to extraordinary claims being irrelevant in a world that doesn't care to examine the evidence for such claims even when it's regarding the most important questions. If finding answers is only available for the mundane, why bother?

Is the only possible explanation the failings of others?

Further, there are forums all over the place, publishers who would love to publish the answers to all philosophical questions, journals, professors who would meet you at their colleges and universities and so on.

And then again: it seems the only possible explanation you'll consider is the failings of others.

[Advocate]

[quote=Iwannaplato post_id=587917 time=1659555225 user_id=3619]
[quote=Advocate post_id=587890 time=1659542967 user_id=15238]
In the metaphysics section i put a set of posts that together coherently answer everything in metaphysics and everything else in philosophy by logical extension, and yet there had been no particular notice.

What good is Anyone doing philosophy if the answers can be put right in front of their face and nothing in the universe changes.

What good is Anyone seeking out knowledge if they don't care to get the basics right?, if they don't recognize answers when they see them?

How can society possibly progress if it ignores the most important things entirely? And especially when it's so called seekers doing most of the ignoring?

That extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence is identical to extraordinary claims being irrelevant in a world that doesn't care to examine the evidence for such claims even when it's regarding the most important questions. If finding answers is only available for the mundane, why bother?
[/quote]Is the only possible explanation the failings of others?

Further, there are forums all over the place, publishers who would love to publish the answers to all philosophical questions, journals, professors who would meet you at their colleges and universities and so on.

And then again: it seems the only possible explanation you'll consider is the failings of others.
[/quote]

After long search for those unicorns of which you speak, i have made this post.

[Iwannaplato]

After long search for those unicorns of which you speak, i have made this post.

I don't know what you mean.

[FlashDangerpants]

I think the problem lies within the nature of your posting..
frankly, it is rather scattershot.. a whole lot of posts that
don't seem to have any coherence.... you may have more success
with longer post and less of them... rewrite your thesis and
change the nature of your thread.. from a million little posts,
to a few larger posts.. don't make people work so hard to get/understand
your point..

Kropotkin

You've also missed the point. I've presented it in many ways, many times. That i have to try at all to offer what any rational person would consider the crown jewels of philosophy is the point.

Is it possible you only think your banal spreadsheet "solves metaphysics" because you have a Narcissistic Personality Disorder and you think all of your own output is magnificent, even when it is kind of total shit?

You know, like that time you thought you had "solved" the no-true-Scotsman thing by showing that Scotsmen truly exist?

There are people who can help you, but you have to accurately identify the frustration you are feeling about being ignored for them to be able to.

[Advocate]

[quote=FlashDangerpants post_id=587931 time=1659560536 user_id=11800]
[quote=Advocate post_id=587915 time=1659554766 user_id=15238]
[quote="Peter Kropotkin" post_id=587911 time=1659552467 user_id=22684]
I think the problem lies within the nature of your posting..
frankly, it is rather scattershot.. a whole lot of posts that
don't seem to have any coherence.... you may have more success
with longer post and less of them... rewrite your thesis and
change the nature of your thread.. from a million little posts,
to a few larger posts.. don't make people work so hard to get/understand
your point..

Kropotkin
[/quote]

You've also missed the point. I've presented it in many ways, many times. That i have to try at all to offer what any rational person would consider the crown jewels of philosophy is the point.
[/quote]
Is it possible you only think your banal spreadsheet "solves metaphysics" because you have a Narcissistic Personality Disorder and you think all of your own output is magnificent, even when it is kind of total shit?

You know, like that time you thought you had "solved" the no-true-Scotsman thing by showing that Scotsmen truly exist?

There are people who can help you, but you have to accurately identify the frustration you are feeling about being ignored for them to be able to.
[/quote]

That's two for two personal attacks instead of addressing the problem. I rest my case.

[Iwannaplato]

That's two for two personal attacks instead of addressing the problem. I rest my case.

It seemed, in the OP, that the problem, as you saw it, was that people were not interested enough in your posts, where you now claim you have answered most of the major issues in philosophy. If you have overestimated your ability to communicate or the value of your answers, then people pointing out this possibility are right on the problem in the OP. I did look at a few of them, but they seemed vague and unclear.

You seem to think you understand the answers to dozens of philosophical issues. Yet, you are surprised by how human beings are reacting to your answers and/or the way you communicate them.

This, it seems to me, means that you don't understand your fellow humans very well, or you would have a better response. Perhaps not many would agree, right off the bat, if you understood humans better, but it would be much more likely that a dialogue would take place.

There is something huge you don't know or the situation would not be what it is.

And, it seems, you haven't noticed that your OP is a personal attack on everyone here except you.

[Advocate]

[quote=Iwannaplato post_id=587935 time=1659562338 user_id=3619]
[quote=Advocate post_id=587934 time=1659561691 user_id=15238]
That's two for two personal attacks instead of addressing the problem. I rest my case.
[/quote]
It seemed, in the OP, that the problem, as you saw it, was that people were not interested enough in your posts, where you now claim you have answered most of the major issues in philosophy. If you have overestimated your ability to communicate or the value of your answers, then people pointing out this possibility are right on the problem in the OP. I did look at a few of them, but they seemed vague and unclear.

You seem to think you understand the answers to dozens of philosophical issues. Yet, you are surprised by how human beings are reacting to your answers and/or the way you communicate them.

This, it seems to me, means that you don't understand your fellow humans very well, or you would have a better response. Perhaps not many would agree, right off the bat, if you understood humans better, but it would be much more likely that a dialogue would take place.

There is something huge you don't know or the situation would not be what it is.

And, it seems, you haven't noticed that your OP is a personal attack on everyone here except you.
[/quote]

Still, the problem is that most Philosophers, much less people, don't have the ability to get to a fucking point and stay there. I have the answers, i've made them obvious. The problem is not mine.

[Advocate]

I've confronted every charge directly on many occasions. This time i'm coming at it laterally. Still here we are, not getting to the point.. ad nauseum.

[Iwannaplato]

Still, the problem is that most Philosophers, much less people, don't have the ability to get to a fucking point and stay there. I have the answers, i've made them obvious. The problem is not mine.

Well, enjoy that certainty.

[Walker]

Still, the problem is that most Philosophers, much less people, don't have the ability to get to a fucking point and stay there. I have the answers, i've made them obvious. The problem is not mine.

I forgot about your writing style, but I remember now. It's the quotes. There was a go-around for awhile about that, about how the formatting, by you, was creating a problem for readers.

But, regarding your point about nuggets of gold being ignored. The simple fact is, truth is inherently self-protected. That's just the way it is in the world. For example, Blake is not writing in metaphor when he says ...

To see a World in a Grain of Sand
And a Heaven in a Wild Flower
Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand
And Eternity in an hour

... however the literal understanding is self-protected truth.

[Walker]

What good is Anyone doing philosophy if the answers can be put right in front of their face and nothing in the universe changes.

- Single words are often equated with concepts.
- For instance, the single word God. Or Truth. Lots of other instances.
- “Equating” one word to complex concepts is one of Truth’s shields, that self-protects Truth.
- There is a way to reach past that particular shield.

[Age]

In the metaphysics section i put a set of posts that together coherently answer everything in metaphysics and everything else in philosophy by logical extension, and yet there had been no particular notice.

What good is Anyone doing philosophy if the answers can be put right in front of their face and nothing in the universe changes.

What did you expect would happen, when 'your' answers were seen?

What good is Anyone seeking out knowledge if they don't care to get the basics right?, if they don't recognize answers when they see them?

I, for one, recognized that they were 'your' answers. Now what is 'it' you were expecting or wanting to happen?

How can society possibly progress if it ignores the most important things entirely?

Let us say that 'your' answers are the most important things, entirely, how, exactly, is this going to help or make society progress? And, 'progress' in relation to what, exactly?

And especially when it's so called seekers doing most of the ignoring?

Reading some things does not mean that they are necessarily being ignored, but what is 'it' exactly are you expecting or wanting to happen?

Are you waiting for Everyone to congratulate you and/or applaud you? Or, put you on a pedestal, give you a prize, and/or worship you? Or, are you waiting for Someone to dispute and/or debate you? Or, something else?

That extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence is identical to extraordinary claims being irrelevant in a world that doesn't care to examine the evidence for such claims even when it's regarding the most important questions.

How could we examine the so-called 'evidence', for 'your' claims, when none has been provided?

And what, exactly, are the most important questions.

If finding answers is only available for the mundane, why bother?

Where were the actual questions?


How about you write down and show us the exact question?

Then, inform us of what 'your' answer is, exactly?

And then, provide us with the actual evidence for 'your' claim?

Also, it would be extremely helpful if you provide us with why 'your' answers and claims will help, or make, society progress, and tell us what 'your' answers will supposedly progress society towards, exactly.

When, and if, you do, then we literally have some 'thing' to discuss.