Age wrote: ↑Mon Sep 07, 2020 9:56 am
Advocate wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2020 5:47 pm
The further contention is that my formation is more useful, answers more philosophical questions, is a better definition and understanding that does more work. Apply your skepticism to that and i'm sure you'll be more that satisfied.
Is it at all possible that "another" has answered MORE philosophical questions than you and/or has BETTER definitions and understanding that does ACTUALLY work, then you have and do?
Or do you BELIEVE that 'you', the self called "advocate", REALLY are the "ultimate guru" and "true arbiter of truth"?
fuck i hate this formatting bullshit
No, it is not possible. If anyone else has a way to answer all philosophical questions they're either wrong (and my story can explain exactly how and why) or they're telling the same story in a different way. As for what a better understanding could be, that is also part of The Whole Story. As mentioned, it answers everything. (The answer to what it means to answer everything is also in there.)
I am a Disciple of Truth. I respect it and value it as my highest priority. I understand it and can explain it at every level of detail. I do not own truth and i have seen many examples of people understanding it in part. I have never seen an example of anyone understanding it as completely. I do not call myself "the best philosopher" despite having a grasp on The Best Philosophy in deference to any others who may also be out there, undiscovered. The truth belongs to everyone. I'm just trying to explain it into usefulness. When Utopia comes based on The Whole Story, you need not mention my name.
Maybe you're thinking of the same story from a different perspective? As long as there's no woo (god, etc.), it likely could be.
>I can back up AND support, with actual EVIDENCE and PROOF, what I say and claim. So, I suggest to "others" that they be able to do this ALSO.
As can i. There are some caveats: a) I won't respond to requests for evidence that are vague. "Prove it" is entirely too open-ended to admit of a meaningful response - it's a time waster and a space filler, not philosophy. b) appeals to statistics, etc. are a conversation-ender. You can prove or disprove anything with statistics and the conversation about sources is an infinite bog. The conversation has to stick close to logical necessity to be productive, and that must assume a certain core of common understanding at least in vocabulary. c) If the answer to the request for evidence is already in the original document/post. d) ?
>What is your understanding of the words 'logically salient' here?
logically salient - the inherent and necessary rationality of the idea is immediately obvious
>To me, your, so called, "arguments" are neither sound, valid, or both. We are in a philosophy forum. So, if you do not like having this pointed out or are NOT YET able to back up and support your claims and arguments, then I suggest not producing them here, or going away and working on them and then bringing them back here.
You have never given me any indication of what sort of response might count as evidence for you. I'm not willing to get all technical and specific and draw things out in analytical detail - that would defeat the larger purpose of The Truth being made accessible to all; and i'm not willing to throw shit at the wall to see what sticks.
>I have absolutely NO idea what this means.
>What is this in reference to, and what does this mean, to you?
Someone mentioned you self-identify as autistic so this could be an issue. I'll try to stick closer to ordinary speech but i have a habit of mixing metaphors quite freely, and The Whole Story is entirely a metaphor; a metaphor explaining metaphors. (I mention TWS quite frequently because everything else i say is a part of it already and that's the central reference point that ties it all together.)
From an Autistic perspective, you might skip to the end - Universal Taxonomy. That's really just another lens for TWS but it's one that is, as it suggests, the complete organization of everything. That's appealing, right? However... that part of TWS really doesn't have anything in it yet. That was going to be the last bit i worked on as it's a project that is only just beginning. That's also the great appeal - getting in on the ground floor of it.
This is also a sneaky test because if you respond to this in a blase manner you're either autistic or unusually self-restrained. Someone who is not will probably respond with a heightened emotional state at having their inner workings publicly discussed by a complete stranger. Also, if you're autistic you'll probably appreciate my over-analysis of things. But to take it back to the point - i'll try to use less metaphors with you so that the logical train-of-thought that i consider to be both evidence and proof is more obvious.
That's the kind of editing help i'm looking for with TWS too...