The Whole Story

[Advocate]

Uncertainty is the default position. Philosophy which attempts to minimise uncertainty without science is navel-gazing.

That's the "externally consistent" criteria - aka "compatible with science". Science is rigor in an empirical sense - externally consistent, while logic is internally consistent - no hypocrisy or double-standards. The criteria are both necessary and neither is sufficient.

[Skepdick]

That's the "externally consistent" criteria - aka "compatible with science". Science is rigor in an empirical sense - externally consistent, while logic is internally consistent - no hypocrisy or double-standards. The criteria are both necessary and neither is sufficient.

You are equivocating consistency.

The distinction between "internal" and "external" consistency is a double standard.

And for the record, internally inconsistent theories formulated in paraconsistent logic work just fine empirically.

[Advocate]

Here are a few, many of which seem sufficient individually, but all of which i can rationally defend with respect to TWS:

•logically necessary

Which logical system are you appealing to when you make this claim?

Classical logic?
Modal logic?
Temporal logic?
Intuitionistic logic?
Para-consistent logic?
Quantum logic?
Schrödinger logic?

By failing to recognize that many different (and incompatible) systems of logic exist, all of your arguments are tantamount to authority appeals.

You are putting logic on a religious pedestal, so it's only fair to ask - how do you know that your logical religion is the "true" religion?

You don't seem to grasp the implications of the Munchhausen trillema

Any system of thought that produces replicable results and does not require an appeal to external criteria (science) is logic. However, that's only one thing. All the stuff you're throwing into the gears are applications of it. Producing the same results from the same input (replication) provides certainty. If any rigorous system of thought is incompatible with any other rigorous system of thought, one of them is wrong at a fundamental level, either by extending itself beyond it's epistemological warrant or more likely due to a misunderstanding of basic epistemology and metaphysics.

For example, para-consistent logic isn't trying to do the same thing as a+b=c therefore c-b=a, it's trying to incorporate contingencies (either/or/neither/nor/both, if/and/but, etc. Uncertainties and contingencies do not allow the same level of rigor as ordinary logic. Logic is merely the internal understanding of consistency. If whatever system keeps acting the same way, it's proven within it's context. Like most philosophical problems, it is misunderstood by ignoring the boundaries between different levels and kinds of thing and likewise solved by putting them in their proper perspective - which is the entire TWS project.

The solution to the trilemma is that certainty is always certain "enough", which is a metaphysical truth that cannot be denied or refuted.
No idea that references the infinite (certainty) can ever be used by a human except as a placeholder. The infinite (including infinite reason to believe something is true) is simply beyond our capacity. Proof is always sufficient to some task and always limited by the amount of information available at that time - always subject to change if new information becomes available. This does not make knowledge any less certain than it has always been or cause any particular problem for epistemology. "Certain enough" is the ultimate pinnacle of what is available to us. The basis of knowledge can be expounded in many ways. Replication sufficient to provide actionable certainty is the point of all of them.

If something keeps providing the same output from the same input, that's as certain as it's possible to get, and it's the foundation of science in an empirical sense and logic in a general cognitive sense (logic describes stable relationships between other kinds of ideas, such as quantification).

Every bit of that is discussed in detail in TWS. But if you do decide to read and understand it, perhaps you will then be in a position to help me improve it, which is the purpose of the OP.

[Advocate]

That's the "externally consistent" criteria - aka "compatible with science". Science is rigor in an empirical sense - externally consistent, while logic is internally consistent - no hypocrisy or double-standards. The criteria are both necessary and neither is sufficient.

You are equivocating consistency.

The distinction between "internal" and "external" consistency is a double standard.

And for the record, internally inconsistent theories formulated in paraconsistent logic work just fine empirically.

You just called the solution to metaphysics a double-standard. Quaint.

The standards are different because the internal and external are the most different it's possible for things to be. Internally consistent ideas are fine for internal uses. Externally consistent ideas are required for external uses. TWS is about that distinction at its most fundamental level and builds upon it in various ways in various sections. The Cogito is perfect proof that that distinction exists and that it is meaningful. The line between them is the kernel of all possible philosophy: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... y_X2Kbneo/

[Skepdick]

You just called the solution to metaphysics a double-standard. Quaint.

The standards are different because the internal and external are the most different it's possible for things to be. Internally consistent ideas are fine for internal uses. Externally consistent ideas are required for external uses. TWS is about that distinction at its most fundamental level and builds upon it in various ways in various sections. The Cogito is perfect proof that that distinction exists and that it is meaningful. The line between them is the kernel of all possible philosophy: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... y_X2Kbneo/

Naturally. If that's your "solution" it's obviously incomplete.

Drawing and collapsing distinctions is the foundation of thought. You have only one side of the coin.

While you insist on drawing distinctions between "internal" and "external" use, I see the utility as uniform, so the internal/external distinction is unnecessary.

[Advocate]

>Naturally. If that's your "solution" it's obviously incomplete.

It's incomplete in-and-of-itself, which is why there's a whole story surrounding it. But everything else can be independently derived from it with nothing more than logical extension.

>Drawing and collapsing distinctions is the foundation of thought. You have only one side of the coin.

That is incorrect. Both the de and reconstruction are fully represented.

>While you insist on drawing distinctions between "internal" and "external" use, I see the utility of empiricism as uniform.

I don't merely insist on it, i acknowledge it as the most fundamental law of nature - the foundation of all experience, knowledge, truth, or understanding. If you do otherwise, your world-view is not compatible with those things. The value of empiricism or any other system of thought can only be understood in that dualistic context if you want to settle anything. (many versions of dualism, solipsism, materialism, compatibilism, etc. are very poorly elucidated or logically impossible)

[Sculptor]

Also, never "kid yourself" that you can not achieve your goal.

If you have a goal and Truly WANT to achieve it, then YOU CAN, OBVIOUSLY.

My goal is to walk on the surface of the sun. I've about as much chance of achieving that as some character answering all the questions in philosophy.

Philosophy is less about answering questions as pointing out where questions exist.
So, NO, "OBVIOUSLY" there are goals that cannot be achieved

The answer to all questions in philosophy isn't an infinite list of answers, it's a set of understandings that lets everyone independently find those answers for themselves in every case. If you use the proper benchmark for judging things, you'll have a lot more luck making them better. This goal is achievable, and the race is won. You can deny it but it's still true and those who embrace it will be light years (yes, i know that's technically incorrect, enjoy it) ahead of you philosophically in no time.

#
You can make the goal larger and larger until even a blind man with no legs can score. But that does not change the fact that there are things conceivable that are not achievable.

[Advocate]

You just called the solution to metaphysics a double-standard. Quaint.

The standards are different because the internal and external are the most different it's possible for things to be. Internally consistent ideas are fine for internal uses. Externally consistent ideas are required for external uses. TWS is about that distinction at its most fundamental level and builds upon it in various ways in various sections. The Cogito is perfect proof that that distinction exists and that it is meaningful. The line between them is the kernel of all possible philosophy: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... y_X2Kbneo/

Naturally. If that's your "solution" it's obviously incomplete.

Drawing and collapsing distinctions is the foundation of thought. You have only one side of the coin.

While you insist on drawing distinctions between "internal" and "external" use, I see the utility as uniform, so the internal/external distinction is unnecessary.

I don't "insist on drawing the distinction". It's the most obvious and natural distinction that Everyone experiences. We are embodied beings and as such, our sensory organs provide a different sort of information than the rest of our mind. There is nothing in this universe that the prime metaphor isn't at the root of. Not only is it a necessary understanding, it's THE necessary understanding. If you can't work with it, you can't do philosophy. All language requires understanding that difference. All psychology requires understanding that difference... and so forth. Embodied materialism is a human universal.