The Whole Story

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Advocate
Posts: 646
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

The Whole Story

Post by Advocate »

tiny.cc/TheWholeStory answers directly or by logical extension, every question in philosophy. After long effort i've worked out how to organize it on the macro level and now i need help organizing more minutely and polishing it - i'm not an author. Which of you is interested in helping me make this as good as it can be?
Age
Posts: 5033
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The Whole Story

Post by Age »

Advocate wrote: Fri Jul 31, 2020 8:43 pm tiny.cc/TheWholeStory answers directly or by logical extension, every question in philosophy. After long effort i've worked out how to organize it on the macro level and now i need help organizing more minutely and polishing it - i'm not an author. Which of you is interested in helping me make this as good as it can be?
Me.
Age
Posts: 5033
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The Whole Story

Post by Age »

How can your story be a Theory Of Everything if, as you say, there is 'that', which you cannot know?

Also, you claim that 'we' cannot know some things. Now, I suggest if you want to make claims, especially in some theory/story of yours, then you are able to back up and support these claims. So, WHY do you claim that there is 'that', which 'we' cannot know? What evidence and/or proof do you have for this claim?

Also a Theory Of Everything would surely be an assumption or proposal about EVERY thing and not just about some things.

A Theory Of Everything would be about how EVERY thing is intertwined or how they are all related or connected in some way or not.

So, could a True Theory Of Everything really be only about what you can know and not be about 'that' what you can not know? Surely EVERY 'thing' would be included in a Theory Of Everything, correct?
Advocate
Posts: 646
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: The Whole Story

Post by Advocate »

Age wrote: Sat Aug 01, 2020 2:06 am How can your story be a Theory Of Everything if, as you say, there is 'that', which you cannot know?

Also, you claim that 'we' cannot know some things. Now, I suggest if you want to make claims, especially in some theory/story of yours, then you are able to back up and support these claims. So, WHY do you claim that there is 'that', which 'we' cannot know? What evidence and/or proof do you have for this claim?

Also a Theory Of Everything would surely be an assumption or proposal about EVERY thing and not just about some things.

A Theory Of Everything would be about how EVERY thing is intertwined or how they are all related or connected in some way or not.

So, could a True Theory Of Everything really be only about what you can know and not be about 'that' what you can not know? Surely EVERY 'thing' would be included in a Theory Of Everything, correct?
It is a theory of everything as far as any theory can be, including what it means to be the best theory of everything.

Everything in there is logical necessity as far as i can tell. Obviously there's a long way to go on formatting and filling in the gaps, but it's "feature complete". If you scroll down to the ontology section, you'll find a discussion of what things are, and in fact my theory does encompass all of them. There is an obvious caveat (also in the document) about time and resources permitting. A story of literally everything would be a carbon copy of the universe.

I include plenty about what knowledge is and how to justify that which can be justified.

I'm not sure i see any specific objection there, it's very esoteric. Can you point out a place where you think it's factually or logically incorrect?
Age
Posts: 5033
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The Whole Story

Post by Age »

Advocate wrote: Sun Aug 02, 2020 2:14 am
Age wrote: Sat Aug 01, 2020 2:06 am How can your story be a Theory Of Everything if, as you say, there is 'that', which you cannot know?

Also, you claim that 'we' cannot know some things. Now, I suggest if you want to make claims, especially in some theory/story of yours, then you are able to back up and support these claims. So, WHY do you claim that there is 'that', which 'we' cannot know? What evidence and/or proof do you have for this claim?

Also a Theory Of Everything would surely be an assumption or proposal about EVERY thing and not just about some things.

A Theory Of Everything would be about how EVERY thing is intertwined or how they are all related or connected in some way or not.

So, could a True Theory Of Everything really be only about what you can know and not be about 'that' what you can not know? Surely EVERY 'thing' would be included in a Theory Of Everything, correct?
It is a theory of everything as far as any theory can be, including what it means to be the best theory of everything.
What are you basing this; "the 'best' theory of everything" on exactly?
Advocate wrote: Sun Aug 02, 2020 2:14 am Everything in there is logical necessity as far as i can tell.
Is "logical necessity" in relation to 'what', exactly?
Advocate wrote: Sun Aug 02, 2020 2:14 am Obviously there's a long way to go on formatting and filling in the gaps, but it's "feature complete".
Are you 100% absolutely SURE, without any doubt at all, of this?

Saying that there are things that you still do not yet know, shows or infers there are still some 'incomplete features'.
Advocate wrote: Sun Aug 02, 2020 2:14 am If you scroll down to the ontology section, you'll find a discussion of what things are, and in fact my theory does encompass all of them. There is an obvious caveat (also in the document) about time and resources permitting. A story of literally everything would be a carbon copy of the universe.
Therefore your theory, in fact, does NOT compass all of them at all, right?
Advocate wrote: Sun Aug 02, 2020 2:14 am I include plenty about what knowledge is and how to justify that which can be justified.
What is 'knowledge', and, how do you justify 'that', which is already justified?
Advocate wrote: Sun Aug 02, 2020 2:14 am I'm not sure i see any specific objection there, it's very esoteric.
Maybe the 'specific objection there' is very esoteric, and this is the very reason why you are not sure you see any 'specific objection there'?

By the way, how do you define the word 'esoteric'?
Advocate wrote: Sun Aug 02, 2020 2:14 am Can you point out a place where you think it's factually or logically incorrect?
Think 'what' is factually or logically incorrect?

Would you like me to go through ALL of them?

I already asked the questions;
Could a True Theory Of Everything really be only about what you can know and not be about 'that' what you can not know?

Surely EVERY 'thing' would be included in a Theory Of Everything, correct?


If and when you answer these questions Honestly, then you will see the place where I think your whole theory is factually and logically "incorrect", or in better wording, 'not really workable'.

But if you would like me to look for and find, in specific detail, factually and/or logically incorrect things, from my perspective, then I will.
Age
Posts: 5033
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The Whole Story

Post by Age »

Advocate wrote: Fri Jul 31, 2020 8:43 pm tiny.cc/TheWholeStory answers directly or by logical extension, every question in philosophy.
Are you absolutely SURE your story answers EVERY question in philosophy?

What is the meaning of Life?
What is the purpose of being here?
How does the Mind and the brain work?
Who am 'I'?
What came first, the chicken or the egg?
Evolution/Creation?
Nature/Nurture?
How does the Universe work?

Also, how many questions are there "in philosophy"?

And, what does the word 'philosophy' actually mean, to you?
Advocate wrote: Fri Jul 31, 2020 8:43 pm After long effort i've worked out how to organize it on the macro level and now i need help organizing more minutely and polishing it - i'm not an author.
I need the exact same help.
Advocate wrote: Fri Jul 31, 2020 8:43 pm Which of you is interested in helping me make this as good as it can be?
Again, me.
Advocate
Posts: 646
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: The Whole Story

Post by Advocate »

Age wrote: Sat Aug 01, 2020 1:34 am
Advocate wrote: Fri Jul 31, 2020 8:43 pm tiny.cc/TheWholeStory answers directly or by logical extension, every question in philosophy. After long effort i've worked out how to organize it on the macro level and now i need help organizing more minutely and polishing it - i'm not an author. Which of you is interested in helping me make this as good as it can be?
Me.
Thank you. Obviously the first thing that needs to be done is to fill in the gaps. Can you help by making a list of philosophical questions you'd like to have answered that you don't see addressed in it yet?
Advocate
Posts: 646
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: The Whole Story

Post by Advocate »

>What are you basing this; "the 'best' theory of everything" on exactly?

As far as possible, on logical necessity, beginning with The Cogito, but it can be approached from many directions to get the same results.

>Is "logical necessity" in relation to 'what', exactly?

Relative to any other philosophy i've ever seen. Most of the "greats" commit logical fallacies that they never address.

>Are you 100% absolutely SURE, without any doubt at all, of this?

Yes, but that's not as high a bar as you make it seem. It only means i've never seen a better attempt. Many "great" philosophers have told part of this story but none have ever brought it all together, and as far as i can tell, there are 100% no logical fallacies or gaps in this story. If i'm wrong, it would be doing me a great service to show how, but that may not be possible immediately because you may not see how the pieces fit together or how it's really all in there.

>Saying that there are things that you still do not yet know, shows or infers there are still some 'incomplete features'.

Sure it's incomplete, in that nobody has time to literally answer all questions, but to answer all the questions that matter in a way that inherently allows everything else to be solved is as complete as possible - that i've done. Likewise, i can guarantee it's not complete in any sense that operates outside the scale of what humanity can understand, or with regard to future information our instruments may uncover.

>Therefore your theory, in fact, does NOT compass all of them at all, right?

It does, it really does, with the obvious caveat regarding the limitations of the human life span and attention span. I can point to a lot of questions i simply haven't had time to answer yet, but if you understand this toolbox, you can do it yourself easily enough.

>What is 'knowledge', and, how do you justify 'that', which is already justified?

Knowledge is justified belief. It's all in the epistemology section.

>By the way, how do you define the word 'esoteric'?

Fuzzy, indistinct, hard to get a handle on, address, or solve.

>Would you like me to go through ALL of them?

I'd like you to get involved in any part that catches your interest. There are some huge obvious problems and it makes a lot more sense to work on those first despite them being more about communication than philosophy.
Advocate
Posts: 646
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: The Whole Story

Post by Advocate »

>Are you absolutely SURE your story answers EVERY question in philosophy?

As sure as possible without having tried all of them. I've never found a question that it can't answer, despite trying repeatedly. I have done google searches for "unsolved problems in philosophy" and the like. It's all in there. The thing is, this document will be far less than 50 pages when it's far more complete than it is now. There are probably less than 50 meaningful questions in philosophy anyway, so once again, it's not as high a benchmark as it seems.

>What is the meaning of Life?

Meaning is a bespoke calculus of salience, perspective, and priority. The meaning of life is that everyone must choose the answer to that question for themselves. Mine is to be fulfilled in making everything perfect for everyone, because nothing less is worth my time. It's also the impetus for this document.

>What is the purpose of being here?

Questions of "why" are problematic because there are literally infinite ways to answer it depending on what sort of causality is relevant. But, it's basically the same answer as above.

>How does the Mind and the brain work?
>Who am 'I'?

The mind is the patterns in the brain and those questions are the realm of psychology and neuroscience, not philosophy. As for who you are, that's fully addressed in the self & consciousness portion. I'll be happy to spend my energy on that, or any other section you prefer. It all has to be done, may as well do what people are most interested in first.

>What came first, the chicken or the egg?

This isn't a meaningful question. Whatever came first, it wasn't a chicken the way we understand chickens today, and eggs had been around long before whatever that creature was. Do you want to know whether the glass is half-full or half-empty too?

>Evolution/Creation?

Creation is a non-starter. The universe never had a beginning and it will never have an end, it's simply existence itself. As for evolution, that's for science again, things that can be measured, and for people who care a whole lot more about that particular topic than me. It's hard enough trying to keep up with advances in neuroscience.

>Nature/Nurture?

Nature sets the ultimate boundaries of what's possible and nurture sets where you fall within those boundaries.

>How does the Universe work?

That question requires rephrasing. At the most basic level, everything is change itself. Time, space, energy, matter, entropy, causality, mass, all are variations on how things change.

>Also, how many questions are there "in philosophy"?

I'm guessing here but i'd bet a dollar it's less than 50 as most are the same thing rephrased over and over, or at least are answered in the same way because they're really about the same thing even if they don't seem like it. I'd be happy to address your doubts by continuing to answer questions but that's an infinite regress. It would be much easier for you to try to understand and apply it yourself, and if you still run into something that seems contradictory, i can help clarify, especially with definitions, or rewrite it so it makes more sense to you.

>And, what does the word 'philosophy' actually mean, to you?

Something like deep thinking about anything that cannot be empirically measured.
Age
Posts: 5033
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The Whole Story

Post by Age »

Advocate wrote: Sun Aug 02, 2020 6:42 am
Age wrote: Sat Aug 01, 2020 1:34 am
Advocate wrote: Fri Jul 31, 2020 8:43 pm tiny.cc/TheWholeStory answers directly or by logical extension, every question in philosophy. After long effort i've worked out how to organize it on the macro level and now i need help organizing more minutely and polishing it - i'm not an author. Which of you is interested in helping me make this as good as it can be?
Me.
Thank you. Obviously the first thing that needs to be done is to fill in the gaps. Can you help by making a list of philosophical questions you'd like to have answered that you don't see addressed in it yet?
Have those questions, in my post immediately before this post of yours, which I am replying to here right now, been addressed in your story?

If no, then I would like them answered, in this forum.

But if yes, then I would like them also answered, in this forum.
Age
Posts: 5033
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The Whole Story

Post by Age »

Advocate wrote: Sun Aug 02, 2020 6:53 am >What are you basing this; "the 'best' theory of everything" on exactly?

As far as possible, on logical necessity, beginning with The Cogito, but it can be approached from many directions to get the same results.
To me, the 'best' theory of everything is one that is written 'better', or is more accurate, than any other theory has been.

You have NOT read NOR heard EVERY other theory of everything.

To you, what, exactly, is 'logical necessity'? And, what is 'The Cogito', and could what is 'logically necessary' to "another", Cogito, being override what is 'logically necessary' to that, The Cogito, being?
Advocate wrote: Sun Aug 02, 2020 6:53 am >Is "logical necessity" in relation to 'what', exactly?

Relative to any other philosophy i've ever seen. Most of the "greats" commit logical fallacies that they never address.
How many, so called, "philosophies" are there?

How do you differentiate between the "great" and the "not so great" "philosophies"?

Will you provide some examples of these, supposed, "different philosophies"?

'you' and 'I' have totally different definitions for the word 'philosophy', and so from just about the outset your 'theory of everything' does NOT explain 'things', to me, nor from my perspective.
Advocate wrote: Sun Aug 02, 2020 6:53 am >Are you 100% absolutely SURE, without any doubt at all, of this?

Yes, but that's not as high a bar as you make it seem.
I only asked a question.

So, how high a bar does the words 'feature' AND 'complete' mean, and refer to exactly?
Advocate wrote: Sun Aug 02, 2020 6:53 am It only means i've never seen a better attempt.
To me, 'feature COMPLETE' means that 'it' (whatever) is COMPLETE of 'features'.

This takes us back to my first question in regards to what you are basing this 'best', theory of everything, on exactly. If it is only the 'best' based on what you have actually seen, then this is one thing, but this certainly does NOT mean that 'your' theory of everything is actually the 'best'.
Advocate wrote: Sun Aug 02, 2020 6:53 am Many "great" philosophers have told part of this story but none have ever brought it all together, and as far as i can tell, there are 100% no logical fallacies or gaps in this story.
Being a, so called, "great" philosopher or not has absolutely NO bearing at all on whether a theory of everything is the 'best' or even close to thee actual Truth of things.

A Theory Of Everything brings EVERY thing together, united as One. If that assumption/guess is in valid, sound, and logical form, then that is the One True view of Everything. The story, which is in AGREEMENT with EVERY one, brings EVERY 'thing' together as One.

Do you think or believe that 'your' story will be AGREED with by EVERY one?

If yes, then great.

But if no, then your story still has logical fallacies and/or gaps in it. You may not yet be able to see these fallacies and/or gaps, but if you want to see them, then I can help you to, that is; if you want me to SHOW them to you?
Advocate wrote: Sun Aug 02, 2020 6:53 am If i'm wrong, it would be doing me a great service to show how, but that may not be possible immediately because you may not see how the pieces fit together or how it's really all in there.
This may be very true. So, for me to be able to see how the pieces fit together or how 'it' is really all in there, then you will NEED to be able to CLARIFY what you have written, be able to BACK UP and SUPPORT your claims with actual EVIDENCE and/or PROOF, and be able to elaborate on and explain what you say in a very simple and easy understandable way.
Advocate wrote: Sun Aug 02, 2020 6:53 am >Saying that there are things that you still do not yet know, shows or infers there are still some 'incomplete features'.

Sure it's incomplete, in that nobody has time to literally answer all questions, but to answer all the questions that matter in a way that inherently allows everything else to be solved is as complete as possible - that i've done.
I would like to SEE this.

So, what are the questions, which you propose 'matter', and, what is the way that inherently allows everything else to be solved?
Advocate wrote: Sun Aug 02, 2020 6:53 am Likewise, i can guarantee it's not complete in any sense that operates outside the scale of what humanity can understand, or with regard to future information our instruments may uncover.
So, when you say it is "feature complete", then what you really mean is that it is NOT 'feature complete' and that is only 'feature complete' in very particular ways, correct?
Advocate wrote: Sun Aug 02, 2020 6:53 am >Therefore your theory, in fact, does NOT compass all of them at all, right?

It does, it really does, with the obvious caveat regarding the limitations of the human life span and attention span.
But this just 'tries to' "justify" that your story does NOT in fact encompass all of them.

If you can provide the answer to the question; 'What is the solution, which will answer/solve all questions/problems?' for example, then there is NO limitations, in the way that you propose, or attempt to "justify", here.

The Answer to this question, which is a very simple and easy one to obtain, then that WILL and DOES encompass them ALL. So, if and when you want to make claims like, "This encompasses ALL of them", then it is best to actually be able to back up and support this claim BEFORE making the claim itself.
Advocate wrote: Sun Aug 02, 2020 6:53 am I can point to a lot of questions i simply haven't had time to answer yet, but if you understand this toolbox, you can do it yourself easily enough.
Will you provide examples of some these questions?

If yes, then great.

But if no, then why not?
Advocate wrote: Sun Aug 02, 2020 6:53 am >What is 'knowledge', and, how do you justify 'that', which is already justified?

Knowledge is justified belief. It's all in the epistemology section.
Okay, but I also asked how do you justify 'that', which is already justified, anyway?

Also, why is 'belief' necessary? To me, some thing is either justified or it is not. And, 'belief' is NOT needed anywhere.
Advocate wrote: Sun Aug 02, 2020 6:53 am >By the way, how do you define the word 'esoteric'?

Fuzzy, indistinct, hard to get a handle on, address, or solve.
That is one of many definitions. Another definition is; intended for or likely to be understood by only a small number of people with a specialized knowledge or interest. So, this might be the very reason why you are not sure what you see, or understand.

intended for or likely to be understood by only a small number of people with a specialized knowledge or interest.>Would you like me to go through ALL of them?
Advocate wrote: Sun Aug 02, 2020 6:53 am I'd like you to get involved in any part that catches your interest. There are some huge obvious problems and it makes a lot more sense to work on those first despite them being more about communication than philosophy.
Okay, the first huge obvious problem I noticed, and which brings us back again to my first question, is; How can your write a theory of everything if there are some things, which you claim cannot be known? Also, if as you claim Real Truth is inaccessible to human beings, then how could you even begin to know if you have some thing, which even resembles Everything?
Age
Posts: 5033
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The Whole Story

Post by Age »

Advocate wrote: Sun Aug 02, 2020 7:07 am >Are you absolutely SURE your story answers EVERY question in philosophy?

As sure as possible without having tried all of them. I've never found a question that it can't answer, despite trying repeatedly.
What is the 'it', exactly, which you claim can answer EVERY question that you have tried 'it' on?
Advocate wrote: Sun Aug 02, 2020 7:07 am I have done google searches for "unsolved problems in philosophy" and the like. It's all in there.
What is 'all in there'?

The answer to each and every of these "unsolved problems in philosophy", which you found in google searches, the answer on how to find the answer to all of these questions, or some thing else?
Advocate wrote: Sun Aug 02, 2020 7:07 am The thing is, this document will be far less than 50 pages when it's far more complete than it is now. There are probably less than 50 meaningful questions in philosophy anyway, so once again, it's not as high a benchmark as it seems.
But it NEVER seemed a high benchmark at all, to me anyway.
Advocate wrote: Sun Aug 02, 2020 7:07 am >What is the meaning of Life?

Meaning is a bespoke calculus of salience, perspective, and priority.
What does 'bespoke calculus of salience, perspective, and priority' actual mean, to you?
Advocate wrote: Sun Aug 02, 2020 7:07 am The meaning of life is that everyone must choose the answer to that question for themselves.
I am not sure how this would relate to a theory of everything, but if this is your view, then so be it.
Advocate wrote: Sun Aug 02, 2020 7:07 am Mine is to be fulfilled in making everything perfect for everyone, because nothing less is worth my time. It's also the impetus for this document.
I can see WHERE this is coming from.
Advocate wrote: Sun Aug 02, 2020 7:07 am >What is the purpose of being here?

Questions of "why" are problematic because there are literally infinite ways to answer it depending on what sort of causality is relevant.
To me, there can be as many different answers to a question as there are answering beings. But there is also One True Answer, which is just thee One that EVERY one agrees with.

By the way, the question you are responding to here is a 'what' question and NOT a 'why' question.
Advocate wrote: Sun Aug 02, 2020 7:07 am But, it's basically the same answer as above.
I can agree with this.
Advocate wrote: Sun Aug 02, 2020 7:07 am >How does the Mind and the brain work?
>Who am 'I'?

The mind is the patterns in the brain and those questions are the realm of psychology and neuroscience, not philosophy.
What patterns are there in the brain, and which brain are you referring to exactly?

A theory of everything would encompass all things, like psychology, neuroscience, and philosophy to name just a few.
Advocate wrote: Sun Aug 02, 2020 7:07 am As for who you are, that's fully addressed in the self & consciousness portion.
Okay, so what was that answer.

Also, I did NOT ask, Who are 'you'? I asked, Who am 'I'?
Advocate wrote: Sun Aug 02, 2020 7:07 am I'll be happy to spend my energy on that, or any other section you prefer. It all has to be done, may as well do what people are most interested in first.
Okay, so what is your reason for NOT just answering the question, which you say you are happy to "spend your energy" on?
Advocate wrote: Sun Aug 02, 2020 7:07 am >What came first, the chicken or the egg?

This isn't a meaningful question. Whatever came first, it wasn't a chicken the way we understand chickens today, and eggs had been around long before whatever that creature was.
So, eggs, correct?
Advocate wrote: Sun Aug 02, 2020 7:07 am Do you want to know whether the glass is half-full or half-empty too?
I already have and KNOW thee answers to these questions. I am just trying to gain your answers.

You seem to now have a very particular idea of what are 'philosophical' question is compared to other questions. So, how do you define what is a 'meaningful', and a 'philosophical', question, exactly?
Advocate wrote: Sun Aug 02, 2020 7:07 am >Evolution/Creation?

Creation is a non-starter.
Is this an absolute, irrefutable fact?
Advocate wrote: Sun Aug 02, 2020 7:07 am The universe never had a beginning and it will never have an end, it's simply existence itself. As for evolution, that's for science again, things that can be measured, and for people who care a whole lot more about that particular topic than me.
But these things ALL have to fit in perfectly with Everything, and therefore all of these things would have to be explained sufficiently within a Theory Of Everything.

Remember your story is meant to be a Theory Of Everything.
Advocate wrote: Sun Aug 02, 2020 7:07 am It's hard enough trying to keep up with advances in neuroscience.
But there is nothing 'hard' here, well to me anyway.
Advocate wrote: Sun Aug 02, 2020 7:07 am >Nature/Nurture?

Nature sets the ultimate boundaries of what's possible and nurture sets where you fall within those boundaries.
But is there any real boundary of what is possible?

And, where your response 'falls' within that "boundary" would have been set by nurture, and therefore NOT necessarily True, correct?
Advocate wrote: Sun Aug 02, 2020 7:07 am >How does the Universe work?

That question requires rephrasing.
WHY?

How the Universe actually works is very SIMPLISTIC.
Advocate wrote: Sun Aug 02, 2020 7:07 am At the most basic level, everything is change itself.
To me, 'Everything' is just the sum of EVERY thing.

Everything might change, but 'Everything' is just EVERY thing, and, 'change' is just change.

To me, Everything is NOT change, itself.
Advocate wrote: Sun Aug 02, 2020 7:07 am Time, space, energy, matter, entropy, causality, mass, all are variations on how things change.
To me, how the Universe IS, in way, shape, and form is just the variation, itself, on how things have changed.
Advocate wrote: Sun Aug 02, 2020 7:07 am >Also, how many questions are there "in philosophy"?

I'm guessing here but i'd bet a dollar it's less than 50 as most are the same thing rephrased over and over, or at least are answered in the same way because they're really about the same thing even if they don't seem like it. I'd be happy to address your doubts by continuing to answer questions but that's an infinite regress.
What are my, supposed, "doubts" in regards to exactly?
Advocate wrote: Sun Aug 02, 2020 7:07 am It would be much easier for you to try to understand and apply it yourself,
When you say things like you have here, then it makes it much harder to understand, and apply, 'it', rather than much easier.

Until you inform us of what 'it' is, exactly, then trying to understand and apply 'it' is just about impossible, if not impossible.
Advocate wrote: Sun Aug 02, 2020 7:07 am and if you still run into something that seems contradictory, i can help clarify, especially with definitions, or rewrite it so it makes more sense to you.
Okay great. So, what is 'it'?
Advocate wrote: Sun Aug 02, 2020 7:07 am >And, what does the word 'philosophy' actually mean, to you?

Something like deep thinking about anything that cannot be empirically measured.
'Something like ..."?

Also, in your first sentence in this thread you speak of 'every question in philosophy', which, if the word 'philosophy' actually means to you "deep thinking about ANYTHING, which cannot be empirically measured", then EVERY question I asked above is reasonably a 'philosophical' question, and which you have said that your story, your theory of everything, then answers, directly or by logical extension, EVERY one of my questions above.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 2173
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: The Whole Story

Post by Sculptor »

Advocate wrote: Fri Jul 31, 2020 8:43 pm tiny.cc/TheWholeStory answers directly or by logical extension, every question in philosophy. After long effort i've worked out how to organize it on the macro level and now i need help organizing more minutely and polishing it - i'm not an author. Which of you is interested in helping me make this as good as it can be?
Frederick Copelston spend his whole life on this project. In that time he wrote 11 volumes from "Greece and Rome" to "Logical Positivism and Existentialism".
He died with his work unfinished.
To date this is the most comrehensive history of philosophy, but cannot answer "every question in philosophy", not could it.

If you are not an author, then you need to keep writing. But never kid yourself that you are going to achieve your goal.
Advocate
Posts: 646
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: The Whole Story

Post by Advocate »

>Have those questions, in my post immediately before this post of yours, which I am replying to here right now, been addressed in your story?

Mostly. You'll notice a lot of placeholders in the document. So if the answers not there yet, it's because i haven't put it in yet. I have a handful of related documents to integrate.

>If no, then I would like them answered, in this forum.

>But if yes, then I would like them also answered, in this forum.

I answered each of them in my response, as far as i know. But this thread isn't for that purpose.
Advocate
Posts: 646
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: The Whole Story

Post by Advocate »

Sculptor wrote: Sun Aug 02, 2020 1:51 pm
Advocate wrote: Fri Jul 31, 2020 8:43 pm tiny.cc/TheWholeStory answers directly or by logical extension, every question in philosophy. After long effort i've worked out how to organize it on the macro level and now i need help organizing more minutely and polishing it - i'm not an author. Which of you is interested in helping me make this as good as it can be?
Frederick Copelston spend his whole life on this project. In that time he wrote 11 volumes from "Greece and Rome" to "Logical Positivism and Existentialism".
He died with his work unfinished.
To date this is the most comrehensive history of philosophy, but cannot answer "every question in philosophy", not could it.

If you are not an author, then you need to keep writing. But never kid yourself that you are going to achieve your goal.
The length of the work is meaningless when it comes to History of philosophy because history can never be encompassed. However, that's nothing of any relation to the value of this work. ...except to illustrate how the Proper answer to philosophy is a Simplified understanding or set of maxims that answers all philosophical questions directly or by logical extension. That, i've done. A work need not answer all questions directly to answer all questions. In other words, comprehensive is a) an ineffable target b) unnecessary.
Post Reply