The ontological error of Philosophy

[Dontaskme]

Science can answer some questions but philosophy cannot answer any at all

There is no thing asking questions.

All questions arise from nowhere nothingness - within which all answers are contained, namely, there isn't any.

All questions therefore are fictional conceptual labels no thing is thinking.

Life for human activity is a fictional play. No different to a video game or a movie.

[Age]

Do you know you keep having to explain "What X is" BEFORE you can explain "How X behaves"?

No. I am not doing that. But if you have somehow understood what X is from the indecipherable string of characters I offered, I guess it's clear you are easy to please.

Therefore, the question "What is X?" is more useful than the question "How does X behave?"

And you can replace X with any other symbol in the Universe but the same fact still remains true. That is; it is still far more useful to know "What some thing is" BEFORE knowing "What that thing does".

I guess it's settled then.

X is knowledge.
Knowledge is P.
P is Q.
Q is R.
R is Z.
Z is ▲
▲ is ⍌
⍌ is 字
字 is Щ
Щ is 🤮

And Age finds this useful.

You have a great ability of twisting things around, and then actually believing in your own distorted thinking.

Once again, you have completely missed the mark.

[Univalence]

You have a great ability of twisting things around, and then actually believing in your own distorted thinking.

Once again, you have completely missed the mark.

I guess you are terrible at drawing the mark.

But I would be lying if I said I am interested in engaging you further.

[Age]

You have a great ability of twisting things around, and then actually believing in your own distorted thinking.

Once again, you have completely missed the mark.

I guess you are terrible at drawing the mark.

But I would be lying if I said I am interested in engaging you further.

As to the accuracy of this, this will be proven very shortly.

[PeteJ]

Science can answer some questions but philosophy cannot answer any at all

Pardon me? How do you arrive at this idea?

I'm not aware of any philosophical question that philosophy cannot answer. Philosophers are able to prove that all metaphysical questions are undecidable and this tells us most of the answers. Of course, the answers need interpretation and this is where things get murky.

[Skepdick]

Philosophers are able to prove that all metaphysical questions are undecidable and this tells us most of the answers. Of course, the answers need interpretation and this is where things get murky.

Lets accept this premise for the sake of argument...

I'm not aware of any philosophical question that philosophy cannot answer.

Hence it follows that the philosophical question which philosophy can't answer is as follows: which is the correct interpretative framework?

[PeteJ]

Hence it follows that the philosophical question which philosophy can't answer is as follows: which is the correct interpretative framework?

This seems correct. Logic can arrive at conclusions but cannot interpret them.

Thus almost all philosophers can agree that positive metaphysical theories fail in logic but can disagree wildly on whether this proves philosophy is incomprehensible or that the Perennial philosophy is true. Carnap and Russell adopt the former interpretation, along with most university philosophers, and this renders philosophy useless leading to your low opinion of it. I completely understand why this opinion arises. What I cannot understand is why students are not taught it is unnecessary.

This assumes that 'philosophy' is an a purely analytical process. If we use the word to mean the pursuit of wisdom and truth then it can deal with interpretation as well, but only by adventuring beyond analysis.

[Age]

Hence it follows that the philosophical question which philosophy can't answer is as follows: which is the correct interpretative framework?

But that is extremely easy to answer.

The clarifying framework is the correct and accurate answer.

[Skepdick]

Hence it follows that the philosophical question which philosophy can't answer is as follows: which is the correct interpretative framework?

But that is extremely easy to answer.

The clarifying framework is the correct and accurate answer.

THE clarifying framework or A clarifying framework?

So many frameworks to choose from. They all promise clarity.

[Age]

Hence it follows that the philosophical question which philosophy can't answer is as follows: which is the correct interpretative framework?

But that is extremely easy to answer.

The clarifying framework is the correct and accurate answer.

THE clarifying framework or A clarifying framework?

So many frameworks to choose from.

If you believe there is more than one clarifying framework, then list them.

[Skepdick]

But that is extremely easy to answer.

The clarifying framework is the correct and accurate answer.

THE clarifying framework or A clarifying framework?

So many frameworks to choose from.

If you believe there is more than one clarifying framework, then list them.

If you believe there is only one framework - name it.

[Age]

THE clarifying framework or A clarifying framework?

So many frameworks to choose from.

If you believe there is more than one clarifying framework, then list them.

If you believe there is only one framework - name it.

Once again, I neither believe nor disbelieve any thing.

I have already named the one framework, which you believe can not be answered. THE clarifying framework.

Unfortunately for you though no matter what name you use you are still totally incapable of clarifying your own strongly held onto position/s.

You obviously can not comprehend the clarifying framework because it goes against every thing you believe. That is; you believe that the question "How does X behave?" is infinitely more useful than the question "What is X?"

You believe that clarifying, and gaining clarity, has absolutely no use. This can be clearly seen in the underlined words.

You have to believe this otherwise everything else you believe just collapses in on itself. Your computer "logic" and computational view of the "world" is nothing if and when clarification is brought into the picture.

[Skepdick]

I have already named the one framework, which you believe can not be answered. THE clarifying framework.

Well, if you've named your framework 'THE clarifying framework', then I guess I am going to name my framework 'THE UNIVERSAL clarifying framework' (for the sake of conversation).

So there. You've named the one framework. I've named the other framework. That's a list.

You obviously can not comprehend the clarifying framework because it goes against every thing you believe. That is; you believe that the question "How does X behave?" is infinitely more useful than the question "What is X?"

Well, I comprehend THE UNIVERSAL clarifying framework. You've told me nothing about THE clarifying framework.

Perhaps we ought to ask how THE clarifying framework behaves in relation to THE UNIVERSAL clarifying framework?

[Age]

I have already named the one framework, which you believe can not be answered. THE clarifying framework.

Well, if you've named your framework 'THE clarifying framework', then I guess I am going to name my framework 'THE UNIVERSAL clarifying framework' (for the sake of conversation).

But it is NOT "my" framework.

Why did you jump to such a ridiculous conclusion?'

'The clarifying framework' works, and is, the EXACT SAME for everyone.

So there. You've named the one framework. I've named the other framework. That's a list.

So, you could not clarify any list until AFTER I clarified some thing first. In other words on your own you had NO list at all. Your so called "many" frameworks of which you talked about was just some imaginary thing.

You obviously can not comprehend the clarifying framework because it goes against every thing you believe. That is; you believe that the question "How does X behave?" is infinitely more useful than the question "What is X?"

Well, I comprehend THE UNIVERSAL clarifying framework.

Do you really?

Unfortunately you are completely incapable of telling us about 'What exactly is THE UNIVERSAL clarifying framework'? Or can you?

Will you reveal your comprehension of THE UNIVERSAL clarifying framework?

You've told me nothing about THE clarifying framework.

You have asked me no clarifying questions about THE clarifying framework. So, what was I meant to tell you about it?

Until I ask you a clarifying question about some thing I do not expect you to tell me any thing about that thing.

Also, if you have no comprehension of what the word 'clarifying' means to you, then what would you like from me?

Perhaps we ought to ask how THE clarifying framework behaves in relation to THE UNIVERSAL clarifying framework?

Okay. Until that is asked I will just remain waiting patiently.

In the meantime I will ask you if it is at all possible for you to clarify 'What THE UNIVERSAL clarifying framework actually IS?'

If yes, then please do.
If no, then so be it.

Your answer/s to my clarifying questions, if you have any, highlight your ability, or inability, to actually clarify what you talk about.

Since, according to you, there is absolutely NO use in you clarifying 'What 'THE UNIVERSAL clarifying framework is' will you at least clarify 'How THE UNIVERSAL clarifying framework' behaves?

[Skepdick]

I have already named the one framework, which you believe can not be answered. THE clarifying framework.

Well, if you've named your framework 'THE clarifying framework', then I guess I am going to name my framework 'THE UNIVERSAL clarifying framework' (for the sake of conversation).

But it is NOT "my" framework.

Why did you jump to such a ridiculous conclusion?'

'The clarifying framework' works, and is, the EXACT SAME for everyone.

So there. You've named the one framework. I've named the other framework. That's a list.

So, you could not clarify any list until AFTER I clarified some thing first. In other words on your own you had NO list at all. Your so called "many" frameworks of which you talked about was just some imaginary thing.

You obviously can not comprehend the clarifying framework because it goes against every thing you believe. That is; you believe that the question "How does X behave?" is infinitely more useful than the question "What is X?"

Well, I comprehend THE UNIVERSAL clarifying framework.

Do you really?

Unfortunately you are completely incapable of telling us about 'What exactly is THE UNIVERSAL clarifying framework'? Or can you?

Will you reveal your comprehension of THE UNIVERSAL clarifying framework?

You've told me nothing about THE clarifying framework.

You have asked me no clarifying questions about THE clarifying framework. So, what was I meant to tell you about it?

Until I ask you a clarifying question about some thing I do not expect you to tell me any thing about that thing.

Also, if you have no comprehension of what the word 'clarifying' means to you, then what would you like from me?

Perhaps we ought to ask how THE clarifying framework behaves in relation to THE UNIVERSAL clarifying framework?

Okay. Until that is asked I will just remain waiting patiently.

In the meantime I will ask you if it is at all possible for you to clarify 'What THE UNIVERSAL clarifying framework actually IS?'

If yes, then please do.
If no, then so be it.

Your answer/s to my clarifying questions, if you have any, highlight your ability, or inability, to actually clarify what you talk about.

Since, according to you, there is absolutely NO use in you clarifying 'What 'THE UNIVERSAL clarifying framework is' will you at least clarify 'How THE UNIVERSAL clarifying framework' behaves?

Your clarifying framework doesn't seem to work. It's not at all clear what your intentions are with the above response.