The Whole Story

[Advocate]

I can. I just reviewed your, "The Whole Story," page and there is not an original idea on it, and most of those ideas are derived from the worst of philosophers, whether you are aware of it or not.

If you really want to write a useful philosophy, begin with answering the question of what philosophy is for. Why do human beings need the kind of knowledge we call philosophical, in contrast to scientific, technical, literary, or historical knowledge?

I'm not trying to discourage you. I'm encouraging you to think for yourself. What do you need philosophy for?

Whether it's independently derived is nothing at all to do with its value. The value is in being a cohesive collection of ideas, regardless of who thought of them first, than answers all philosophical questions. if you judge it by that standard you'll be more than satisfied. Originality is less and less possibly a valid criteria every day because new thoughts are being had everywhere all the time.

As for where to start, that's why i'm publishing now, even though it's obviously incomplete in several senses. It has taken me a very long time to work out how to present it to work everything in, in a manageable way. I could have started literally anywhere. The purpose of philosophy is whatever someone wants it to be, and that's also covered in a few ways, in metaphysics and epistemology sections.

So, YOUR answer to some of the, so called, "philosophical questions" is just; "whatever someone wants it to be", correct?

If yes, then NOT very original, NOT very cohesive, and NOT very useful, AT ALL.

The answers to some questions are contingent. My god, i do believe you haven't read the thing at all.

Once again, originality is NOT a benchmark for this, because every answer in philosophy has been independently derived many times. I think it obvious that this judgement is being used to unfairly dismiss a serious proposition to sooth the emotional requirements of those who cannot allow anyone else to be better than them for any reason. It's an ego problem, but there is help - in my document that you never read.

It's cohesive because it explains why it can't explain the things it can't explain - nobody can. An answer that is contingent means the necessary information needed to solve it is particular to the person or circumstance - and i don't have it.

[jayjacobus]

Whether it's independently derived is nothing at all to do with its value. The value is in being a cohesive collection of ideas, regardless of who thought of them first, than answers all philosophical questions. if you judge it by that standard you'll be more than satisfied. Originality is less and less possibly a valid criteria every day because new thoughts are being had everywhere all the time.

As for where to start, that's why i'm publishing now, even though it's obviously incomplete in several senses. It has taken me a very long time to work out how to present it to work everything in, in a manageable way. I could have started literally anywhere. The purpose of philosophy is whatever someone wants it to be, and that's also covered in a few ways, in metaphysics and epistemology sections.

So, YOUR answer to some of the, so called, "philosophical questions" is just; "whatever someone wants it to be", correct?

If yes, then NOT very original, NOT very cohesive, and NOT very useful, AT ALL.

The answers to some questions are contingent. My god, i do believe you haven't read the thing at all.

Once again, originality is NOT a benchmark for this, because every answer in philosophy has been independently derived many times. I think it obvious that this judgement is being used to unfairly dismiss a serious proposition to sooth the emotional requirements of those who cannot allow anyone else to be better than them for any reason. It's an ego problem, but there is help - in my document that you never read.

It's cohesive because it explains why it can't explain the things it can't explain - nobody can. An answer that is contingent means the necessary information needed to solve it is particular to the person or circumstance - and i don't have it.

I think you are on to something. Perhaps not the truth but an opinion that is worth exploring.

[Advocate]

So, YOUR answer to some of the, so called, "philosophical questions" is just; "whatever someone wants it to be", correct?

If yes, then NOT very original, NOT very cohesive, and NOT very useful, AT ALL.

The answers to some questions are contingent. My god, i do believe you haven't read the thing at all.

Once again, originality is NOT a benchmark for this, because every answer in philosophy has been independently derived many times. I think it obvious that this judgement is being used to unfairly dismiss a serious proposition to sooth the emotional requirements of those who cannot allow anyone else to be better than them for any reason. It's an ego problem, but there is help - in my document that you never read.

It's cohesive because it explains why it can't explain the things it can't explain - nobody can. An answer that is contingent means the necessary information needed to solve it is particular to the person or circumstance - and i don't have it.

I think you are on to something. Perhaps not the truth but an opinion that is worth exploring.

There's the rub. What criteria would the best world view have to meet? (and originality isn't one of them)

Logically necessary - i can explain the logical necessity of every part of the story all the way to each person's individual cogito. This isn't as hard as it sounds since it is by nature a simplified understanding of everything that fits in a small book and, like the universe, is an infinitely recursive meta-mobius in which everything interconnects.

Internally and externally consistent - Are there any contradictions? (i doubt so but there are no doubt plenty of apparent ones for those who don't understand how the parts fit together or have different definitions of some of the terms)

Leads to actionable certainty - Where this story does not lead directly to an answer it either explains what information is missing or why the question cannot be answered. It puts everything in context relative to everything else, and the answers flow from there.

Elegant - Not precisely a logical criteria, but a simplified understanding of everything that meets a ream of other critera, such as those above, certaintly deserves this approbation as well.

What else?

[Age]

Whether it's independently derived is nothing at all to do with its value. The value is in being a cohesive collection of ideas, regardless of who thought of them first, than answers all philosophical questions. if you judge it by that standard you'll be more than satisfied. Originality is less and less possibly a valid criteria every day because new thoughts are being had everywhere all the time.

As for where to start, that's why i'm publishing now, even though it's obviously incomplete in several senses. It has taken me a very long time to work out how to present it to work everything in, in a manageable way. I could have started literally anywhere. The purpose of philosophy is whatever someone wants it to be, and that's also covered in a few ways, in metaphysics and epistemology sections.

So, YOUR answer to some of the, so called, "philosophical questions" is just; "whatever someone wants it to be", correct?

If yes, then NOT very original, NOT very cohesive, and NOT very useful, AT ALL.

The answers to some questions are contingent. My god, i do believe you haven't read the thing at all.

Well considering that ABSOLUTELY EVERY thing is relative to the observer, then it is just a plain and SIMPLE ALREADY KNOWN FACT that "some questions are contingent". But are you able to finish that statement? That is; What are these "some questions" EXACTLY, and what are they 'contingent' on, EXACTLY?

Once again, originality is NOT a benchmark for this,

I am glad you made this CLEAR. I agree with this. I NEVER disagreed with this.

because every answer in philosophy has been independently derived many times.

BUT, EVERY answer has to come about originally the FIRST time. So, what you wrote here does NOT make sense and does NOT logically follow on from the first part of your sentence.

I think it obvious that this judgement is being used to unfairly dismiss a serious proposition to sooth the emotional requirements of those who cannot allow anyone else to be better than them for any reason.

For ANY human being to think that ANY "other" human being is, so called, "better than them" (for any reason) is just absurd and illogical.

It's an ego problem, but there is help - in my document that you never read.

I read ENOUGH to ask you some CLARIFYING QUESTIONS. Until you CLARIFY these questions, then I will NOT be able to understand the rest of what you wrote as proficiently as I could.

It's cohesive because it explains why it can't explain the things it can't explain - nobody can.

LOL EVERY human being uses that most OBVIOUS illogical and nonsensical excuse.

"I cannot explain some thing because no one can."

If you can NOT YET explain some thing, then you OBVIOUSLY still NEED to learn and understand MORE.

An answer that is contingent means the necessary information needed to solve it is particular to the person or circumstance - and i don't have it.

BUT, you do HAVE 'it'. You are just NOT YET AWARE of what 'it' IS, and HOW 'you' actually HAVE 'it'.

'I' ALREADY informed 'you' partly of what the 'thing' IS, which can solve ALL problems/questions, but because of your currently held onto and maintained BELIEFS you were completely CLOSED OFF from inquiring into what this 'thing' is, EXACTLY.

You BELIEVE that you ALREADY KNOW thee ANSWER, so you are NOT OPEN to ANY thing else contrary to that BELIEF of yours.

You BELIEVE that there are some questions, which can NOT be answered by you now, and therefore they can NOT be answered by ANY one. Therefore, you are NOT OPEN to ANY thing else.

[Advocate]

>Well considering that ABSOLUTELY EVERY thing is relative to the observer, then it is just a plain and SIMPLE ALREADY KNOWN FACT that "some questions are contingent". But are you able to finish that statement? That is; What are these "some questions" EXACTLY, and what are they 'contingent' on, EXACTLY?

I divide the conceptual universe in twain at the appropriate spot, here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... y_X2Kbneo/ In the context of all questions, the ones on the "truth wisdom" side are non-contingent, universal. On the "practical wisdom side", where ethics, aesthetics, and politics lie, the contingencies are salience, perspective, and priority (in order of apparent controllability) and scale when applied to more than one person.

>For ANY human being to think that ANY "other" human being is, so called, "better than them" (for any reason) is just absurd and illogical.

I would reverse that and say that many people are better than many other people in many ways at many things, and that includes being a better person "on average", no matter what standards are used.

>I read ENOUGH to ask you some CLARIFYING QUESTIONS. Until you CLARIFY these questions, then I will NOT be able to understand the rest of what you wrote as proficiently as I could.

You appear to be answering in a particularly non-emotional way, which i acknowledge now as beneficial to the progression of this discussion, and appreciated.

>LOL EVERY human being uses that most OBVIOUS illogical and nonsensical excuse.

>"I cannot explain some thing because no one can."

>If you can NOT YET explain some thing, then you OBVIOUSLY still NEED to learn and understand MORE.

<pointing at the link above> The line between "reality" and "actuality" is one we cannot cross. We can move that boundary collectively by improving the resolution of our instruments and being rigorous about logical necessity, which is what i've tried to do here, in vernacular form. But not all answers will ever be available to us, because of scale. We cannot know the number of levels between us and "the bottom", help someone make decisions contingent on their priorities when they don't even know themselves, or plumb the zeitgeist of superclusters.

I make no excuses - if a philosophical question can be answered, this world view can answer it. The proof is in the pudding. The truth wants not to be believed but to be tested. One exception is all it would take to prove me wrong. As for the caveats, they're each logically necessary so that's all there really is to say about them, unless you know a way to transcend laws of physics.

>You BELIEVE that you ALREADY KNOW thee ANSWER, so you are NOT OPEN to ANY thing else contrary to that BELIEF of yours.

You are correct sir. I am here because i have The answer and i'm trying to improve it's presentation as a public service. There are many other stories that are perfectly compatible, a few of which are listed in that link up yonder. I am a Disciple of Truth, not a Seeker of Truth. This story is The Truth. If yours is compatible i'm open to hearing it but i don't have the bandwidth to integrate it right now.

[Age]

>Well considering that ABSOLUTELY EVERY thing is relative to the observer, then it is just a plain and SIMPLE ALREADY KNOWN FACT that "some questions are contingent". But are you able to finish that statement? That is; What are these "some questions" EXACTLY, and what are they 'contingent' on, EXACTLY?

I divide the conceptual universe in twain at the appropriate spot, here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... y_X2Kbneo/ In the context of all questions, the ones on the "truth wisdom" side are non-contingent, universal.

I have NO idea what this 'conceptual universe' is, how it relates to 'in twain', nor what 'in twain' actually means, and how they relate to your link, nor what 'truth wisdom side' is.

On the "practical wisdom side", where ethics, aesthetics, and politics lie, the contingencies are salience, perspective, and priority (in order of apparent controllability) and scale when applied to more than one person.

Okay.

>For ANY human being to think that ANY "other" human being is, so called, "better than them" (for any reason) is just absurd and illogical.

I would reverse that and say that many people are better than many other people in many ways at many things, and that includes being a better person "on average", no matter what standards are used.

So, you BELIEVE you saying and BELIEVING that 'you' are BETTER than "others" are is NOT absurd and is a logical thing to do, correct?

If your ONLY example is "on average", then you have NOT reversed ANY thing.

If you want to say that MANY PEOPLE are BETTER than MANY "OTHER" PEOPLE, then WHO are those 'people'?

And, HOW EXACTLY are SOME people, supposedly, BETTER than "other" people are?

I NEED evidence through examples, and I NEED PROOF of HOW you arrived at this conclusion. Until then just saying, "on average", means and explains absolutely NOTHING, AT ALL, to me.

>I read ENOUGH to ask you some CLARIFYING QUESTIONS. Until you CLARIFY these questions, then I will NOT be able to understand the rest of what you wrote as proficiently as I could.

You appear to be answering in a particularly non-emotional way, which i acknowledge now as beneficial to the progression of this discussion, and appreciated.

>LOL EVERY human being uses that most OBVIOUS illogical and nonsensical excuse.

>"I cannot explain some thing because no one can."

>If you can NOT YET explain some thing, then you OBVIOUSLY still NEED to learn and understand MORE.

<pointing at the link above> The line between "reality" and "actuality" is one we cannot cross.

I am not sure if I am actually seeing what you see.

We can move that boundary collectively by improving the resolution of our instruments and being rigorous about logical necessity, which is what i've tried to do here, in vernacular form. But not all answers will ever be available to us, because of scale.

Name some questions, and let us see if it is actually IMPOSSIBLE, or NOT, to answer them.

We cannot know the number of levels between us and "the bottom",

What are you actually referring to here?

Who and/or what is the 'us'?

What is 'the bottom', and 'the bottom' of what exactly?

What is a 'level', and a 'level' in relation to what exactly?

help someone make decisions contingent on their priorities when they don't even know themselves, or plumb the zeitgeist of superclusters.

I will not even bother 'trying to' get clarity on this here.

I make no excuses - if a philosophical question can be answered, this world view can answer it.

What 'world view'?

The proof is in the pudding.

The 'proof' is in the 'proof'. 'Pudding' is usually just food, for eating.

We are in a philosophy forum using words, so let us speak, literally, with these words. That way less things can be misinterpreted.

The truth wants not to be believed but to be tested.

To me, the 'truth' does NOT want ANY thing.

The Truth is just what is agreed upon as being true

One exception is all it would take to prove me wrong.

One exception to 'what' exactly?

If it is in regards to your statement that; "The truth wants not to be believed but to be tested", then one exception to this is; The truth does NOT want ANY thing. Unless of course you can explain, through logical sound reasoning just HOW 'the truth' could want SOME thing.

So, can you and will you explain just HOW a 'concept', itself, can WANT some thing?

As for the caveats, they're each logically necessary so that's all there really is to say about them, unless you know a way to transcend laws of physics.

So called, "laws of physics", is NOT some thing that cannot be changed, corrected, and/or made better.

>You BELIEVE that you ALREADY KNOW thee ANSWER, so you are NOT OPEN to ANY thing else contrary to that BELIEF of yours.

You are correct sir. I am here because i have The answer and i'm trying to improve it's presentation as a public service.

And, I am NOT disputing at all that you have The answer, and trying to improve its presentation as a public service might be a noble cause, I am just trying to understand what you call "The answer" more FULLY and more CORRECTLY.

Do you KNOW of a BETTER way for me to better understand you, and your answer, other than just asking you simple clarifying questions, from a Truly OPEN perspective?

If you do, then will you please share that or those way/s?

There are many other stories that are perfectly compatible, a few of which are listed in that link up yonder.

All I can see in that "link up yonder" is just separate words on a spreadsheet. Or, if you mean that "link" further "up yonder", then it would really help "others" to BETTER understand you, and understand you in a much quicker and simpler way if you just said what you mean, and just mean what you say, as well.

So, what "link" are you actually referring to "up yonder"?

And, maybe if you provide us with an example here of just some of these stories that are perfectly compatible, while also telling us what they are 'perfectly compatible' with EXACTLY also, then this will speed up the process of learning for 'me' and/or 'us'?

I am a Disciple of Truth, not a Seeker of Truth.

Okay, so by 'Disciple' what do you actually mean?

By 'Truth' what do you actually mean?

And, by 'Disciple of Truth' what do you actually mean?

To me, absolutely EVERY thing is very simple and very easy.

To me, Truth is just 'that', which could be agreement with and by ALL. And, if one is supposedly a 'disciple of Truth', then, to me, that infers that they MUST ALREADY KNOW the Truth. To me, one can NOT logically follow 'that', which they do NOT YET KNOW.

This story is The Truth.

Which 'story'?

If yours is compatible i'm open to hearing it

What are you referring to here?

If it is My Story, then OBVIOUSLY My Story would be and IS 'compatible' WITH Me.

To me it would be very strange if one's own story was NOT compatible with them. But OBVIOUSLY any story, which is compatible with any one, is NOT necessarily The Story that actually expresses thee actual Truth.

Obviously, ONLY thee Story, which IS compatible with EVERY one, IS The Story, which holds thee actual Truth.

but i don't have the bandwidth to integrate it right now.

What does 'integrate' here mean?

What is 'it' that you do not have the bandwidth to integrate, right now?

And, how does this relate to the first part of the sentence where you state that if mine is compatible then you are open to hearing 'it'?

Are you saying that if My Story is compatible with Your Story, then you are open to hearing it, but at the moment you do not have the bandwidth on your internet connection to be able to receive My Story?

If yes, then how do you KNOW how big My Story is, and WHY are you ONLY 'open' to 'that', which is compatible with Your Story?

[Advocate]

I cannot explain to you the forest when all you can see is the trees.

[Age]

I cannot explain to you the forest when all you can see is the trees.

But I have ALREADY SEEN, UNDERSTAND, KNOW the forest, ALL-THERE-IS, as well.

This is WHY I can SEE the trees, for what they REALLY ARE, so well.

[Advocate]

I cannot explain to you the forest when all you can see is the trees.

But I have ALREADY SEEN, UNDERSTAND, KNOW the forest, ALL-THERE-IS, as well.

This is WHY I can SEE the trees, for what they REALLY ARE, so well.

Grant me that it's possible to "solve philosophy". Grant that i have done it. Now validate the claim by looking for exceptions. If you've found any, i'll be happy to address them, but you're just throwing infinite questions at the wall. That's the worst possible method of validation and violates the caveat "time permitting".

[Skepdick]

Grant me that it's possible to "solve philosophy". Grant that i have done it. Now validate the claim by looking for exceptions. If you've found any, i'll be happy to address them, but you're just throwing infinite questions at the wall. That's the worst possible method of validation and violates the caveat "time permitting".

You've solved philosophy in the same way Wittgenstein solved it. Which isn't really a solution, but a dissolution.

All philosophical "problems" are only problems if you want them to be such.

https://existentialcomics.com/philosoph ... ttgenstein

But far more importantly, you don't get to claim to have "solved" philosophy for as long as even a single philosopher rejects your solution. It's how philosophical job security works - it's by design.

[surreptitious57]

Grant me that its possible to solve philosophy . Grant that i have done it . Now validate the claim by looking for exceptions

You state quite correctly that full knowledge is not possible
Not only this but you may not even know what you dont know so given this limitation you cannot be certain you have solved philosophy
You cannot see beyond your own limited knowledge base and so have absolutely no idea how limited it is in the grand scheme of things

[Atla]

He still didn't look up in the dictionary what "philosophy" means.

[surreptitious57]

Grant me that its possible to solve philosophy

And also why does philosophy actually need solving ?
Why can not it just carry on being studied like it always has ?
Love of wisdom seems a rather strange thing to want to solve

[Age]

I cannot explain to you the forest when all you can see is the trees.

But I have ALREADY SEEN, UNDERSTAND, KNOW the forest, ALL-THERE-IS, as well.

This is WHY I can SEE the trees, for what they REALLY ARE, so well.

Grant me that it's possible to "solve philosophy".

What does 'philosophy' mean, to you?

And then, how does one 'solve' this 'thing', which means 'philosophy', to you?

To me, 'philosophy' is CERTAINLY NOT some 'thing' that needs 'solving' AT ALL.

Grant that i have done it.

For me to be ABLE TO, so call, " grant you that you have 'solved philosophy' ", then I will first NEED to KNOW how you define the word 'philosophy' and why 'this' needs solving and how 'this' could even be solved. Then, I will consider if I will grant you that you have already, so called, "solved philosophy".

Now validate the claim by looking for exceptions. If you've found any, i'll be happy to address them, but you're just throwing infinite questions at the wall.

Well IF you HAVE, supposedly, "solved philosophy", then this would infer or imply that you CAN answer ALL questions, ESPECIALLY ALL of the philosophical ones. And, if you CAN "solve philosophy", then SURELY you can just CLARIFY some clarifying questions as well.

That's the worst possible method of validation and violates the caveat "time permitting".

I do NOT even KNOW what "solving philosophy" means, to you. So, I do NOT YET even KNOW what claim there is to 'validate', nor what exceptions there even could be, to go looking for.

If, and when, you CLARIFY what "solving philosophy" means, to you, then I will provide the 'exceptions', which invalidate your claim.

[Age]

Grant me that its possible to solve philosophy . Grant that i have done it . Now validate the claim by looking for exceptions

You state quite correctly that full knowledge is not possible

FULL knowledge ALREADY EXISTS.

But most people do NOT look past one's own perspective of things.

OF COURSE 'full knowledge' is possible to be known by one person. But, just as OBVIOUS is FULL knowledge is ALL knowledge that is known or has been known, up to any particular point along the evolutionary line.

Not only this but you may not even know what you dont know so given this limitation you cannot be certain you have solved philosophy

What does 'solved philosophy' mean, to you?

You cannot see beyond your own limited knowledge base and so have absolutely no idea how limited it is in the grand scheme of things

NO human being can KNOW this, WHEN they are looking at and seeing things from the perspective of the human being ONLY.