Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Oct 17, 2023 4:52 am
Atla, I'm afraid your thinking here shows that you are not the rightful Chief Executive Officer of the Universe.
Well thank heavens, having to spend the rest of my life baby-sitting the entire human race would pretty much be hell for me.
On a related note, shouldn't the Greatest Philosopher of All Time be vaguely familiar with human nature, human psychology, the human world? So shouldn't he see it in advance that humanity won't come together to put him on the global throne (built just for him), instead of being baffled by the fact that this isn't happening at all?
If you REALLY can NOT UNDERSTAND and COMPREHEND the ACTUAL QUESTIONS I ASK 'you', "advocate", then if 'I' was 'you', then 'i' would CONSIDER just how 'best' 'your' CLAIM to be REALLY IS. Also, 'I' would do 'this' INSTEAD of the OBVIOUS ATTEMPT AT DEFLECTION here.
'you' SAY, WRITE, and CLAIM some of the MOST OBVIOUSLY False, Wrong, AND Incorrect 'things' "advocate", in this forum, and FAIL, ABSOLUTELY, to even just ACKNOWLEDGE WHEN the Wrongness of 'your CLAIMS' are POINTED OUT and SHOWN.
This is BECAUSE unlike 'you' 'I' AM ABLE to back up and support what I SAY and CLAIM here.
What 'we' HAVE here is the 'self-recognized' and so-called "best philosopher" is ABSOLUTELY INCAPABLE of just ANSWERING some of the MOST SIMPLEST and BASIC of QUESTIONS.
OBVIOUSLY, if one is NOT ABLE TO ELABORATE ON nor CLARIFY 'its' OWN CLAIMS, the 'that INABILITY' in and of itself PROVES, IRREFUTABLY, just how much of a USELESS human being that 'that one' REALLY is, let alone how UNWORTHY of ANY 'self-proclaimed' and 'self-awarded' "best philosopher award' that 'that one' has bestowed upon 'itself'.
[/quote]
You're just wrong.
[/quote]
LOL ABOUT 'what', EXACTLY?
I ASKED you some QUESTIONS, you FAILED to ANSWER those QUESTIONS. So, WHERE and WHEN could I be, supposedly, WRONG ABOUT 'this'?
[/quote]
Like most people, i have no desire to wade through paragraphs of text with myriad unnecessary emphasis in a scavenger hunt to guess what your trying to ask with an almost guaranteed response of exactly the same stuff afterward.
Two things I have which you prominently lack are:
1. Competence in the field of philosophy.
2. Sufficient sanity to know that I am only competent.
You really should be in conversation with a mental health professional about this stuff. Hopefully you do all of your acting up on the internet because it offers some sort of release from the grind of the daily. But if your behaviour here is indicative of how you act IRL, your life must be horrible and the lives of everyone who has to put up with you must be miserable.
[/quote]
Competence at Academic Philosophy is worth exactly as much as the paper it's printed on..
My position stands. Neither you or anyone has refuted any portion of it with anything other than logical fallacies and "Nuh-uh."
[/quote]
I see now. You are the king of philosophy-proper and that makes you the owner-proper of universe-proper.
[/quote]
IDK what proper entails to you but by any reasonable standard, yes.
[quote=Iwannaplato post_id=673622 time=1697536847 user_id=3619]
[quote=Advocate post_id=673568 time=1697503420 user_id=15238]
My position stands. Neither you or anyone has refuted any portion of it with anything other than logical fallacies and "Nuh-uh."
[/quote]First, your OP is a very incomplete argument. It is primarily a batch of assertions. Then, any number of people have pointed out that you don't even meet your own idiosyncratic criteria for ownership. Your being the best philosopher has not been remotely demonstrated and the majority of your philosophizings is starting thread with pithy OPs that are assertions. That is, opinions. You expect people to refute what you haven't justified. Though they often do spent the time to do this, anyway. You're contradictions around ownership have been pointed out. You own thing/people that others own.
You seem to think that the best philosopher is someone, you, who hasn't convinced anyone of anything, who confuses assertions with arguments, who draws conclusions on very limited information - I mean, if you could be the best philosopher in the world and no one knows about your or respects your conclusions, then there could be any number of people like you who you haven't heard of - who is one of the many declaring victory and greatness types.
If you have to keep telling people you are the best, you aren't,
[/quote]
As i just pointed out, you've refuted nothing in my argument. a all my contentions remain True, deal with it.
A batch of assettions which cross-support one another is a complete argument and no argument need be exhaustive to be good. STFU with that apparent but not actual disagreement. Other than "No you're not!", which is an emotional, not a rational point, you've said nothing of consequence.
A bunch of people have utterly ignored the distinction of kinds of ownership i clearly draw. Not one has addressed it ingenuously, not one, not you, not now, not here. Actual ownership and legal ownership may be shared just like legitimate ownership, so you've said exactly nothing with "you own things/people that others own.". You don't understand the point your trying to review, which proves (proof = an evidentiary basis that sufficiently addresses all meaningful objections) you're not attempting to.
I've said what i believe the best philosopher is in exquisite detail and it's not any of what you just said i said. You're not being rational or fair, so you may safely be disregarded, like most people here. Being accepted or successful are unrelated to being good, for a person or a philosophy.
[quote=Atla post_id=673636 time=1697548290 user_id=15497]
[quote=Iwannaplato post_id=673580 time=1697514732 user_id=3619]
Atla, I'm afraid your thinking here shows that you are not the rightful [i]Chief Executive Officer of the Universe[/i].
[/quote]
Well thank heavens, having to spend the rest of my life baby-sitting the entire human race would pretty much be hell for me.
On a related note, shouldn't the Greatest Philosopher of All Time be vaguely familiar with human nature, human psychology, the human world? So shouldn't he see it in advance that humanity won't come together to put him on the global throne (built just for him), instead of being baffled by the fact that this isn't happening at all?
[/quote]
You've made unwarranted assumptions like everyone else here. I am familiar with human nature and psychology, more than most as is apparent from any discussion where they're invoked rationally, and i don't expect better of you or anyone, as is also apparent from any conversation where it's come up. But i can hope.
Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Oct 17, 2023 3:03 pm
You've made unwarranted assumptions like everyone else here. I am familiar with human nature and psychology, more than most as is apparent from any discussion where they're invoked rationally, and i don't expect better of you or anyone, as is also apparent from any conversation where it's come up. But i can hope.
If you're well aware that even if you were the legitimate owner of the universe, there's no way that people would acknowledge it, then what do you hope to achieve with these proclamations?
[quote=Atla post_id=673654 time=1697552010 user_id=15497]
[quote=Advocate post_id=673648 time=1697551384 user_id=15238]
You've made unwarranted assumptions like everyone else here. I am familiar with human nature and psychology, more than most as is apparent from any discussion where they're invoked rationally, and i don't expect better of you or anyone, as is also apparent from any conversation where it's come up. But i can hope.
[/quote]
If you're well aware that even if you were the legitimate owner of the universe, there's no way that people would acknowledge it, then what do you hope to achieve with these proclamations?
[/quote]
For one thing, letting people remain ignorant is bad. For another, explaining many concepts in relation to one another is good, regardless of the packaging it's wrapped in. And you can tell who to talk to by whether they pay attention to the packaging or the contents.
Atla wrote: ↑Tue Oct 17, 2023 2:11 pm
Well thank heavens, having to spend the rest of my life baby-sitting the entire human race would pretty much be hell for me.
Oh, you don't have to babysit us. You would just have access and control. It's a power trip.
On a related note, shouldn't the Greatest Philosopher of All Time be vaguely familiar with human nature, human psychology, the human world? So shouldn't he see it in advance that humanity won't come together to put him on the global throne (built just for him), instead of being baffled by the fact that this isn't happening at all?
It's really quite amazing. I don't know where the confidence comes from. I think I'm jealous. I wouldn't want to be the same. But a smidge would balance me.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Oct 17, 2023 4:30 pm
I don't know where the confidence comes from.
Well he honestly thinks that he's the first human in history who has developed a coherent sufficient philosophy of all things. And when we only look at the Western academic philosophers, he might even be right somewhat. I'm fairly sure though that there are many thousands of geniuses and savants outside Western academic philosophy, or outside philosophy in general even, who are at least where he is, some even beyond him, but they usually don't see a point in writing it all down.
Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Oct 17, 2023 3:30 pm
For one thing, letting people remain ignorant is bad. For another, explaining many concepts in relation to one another is good, regardless of the packaging it's wrapped in. And you can tell who to talk to by whether they pay attention to the packaging or the contents.
Why would anyone want to listen and accept you? This is a sincere question, not something intended to trap you—I really want to get an idea what would make people want to hear you and accept you.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Oct 17, 2023 4:30 pm
I don't know where the confidence comes from.
Well he honestly thinks that he's the first human in history who has developed a coherent sufficient philosophy of all things. And when we only look at the Western academic philosophers, he might even be right somewhat. I'm fairly sure though that there are many thousands of geniuses and savants outside Western academic philosophy, or outside philosophy in general even, who are at least where he is, some even further, but they usually don't see a point in writing it down.
Right. It's a collection of opinions. Sometimes there are some steps in deduction or some justification. But if one goes through his threads, for the most part he asserts things. He has philosophical opinions. When he is disagreed with, he demands people prove him incorrect. Then he dismisses the objections. He seems to see the best philosopher as having the best opinions. Opinions that work together well.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Oct 17, 2023 4:30 pm
I don't know where the confidence comes from.
Well he honestly thinks that he's the first human in history who has developed a coherent sufficient philosophy of all things. And when we only look at the Western academic philosophers, he might even be right somewhat. I'm fairly sure though that there are many thousands of geniuses and savants outside Western academic philosophy, or outside philosophy in general even, who are at least where he is, some even further, but they usually don't see a point in writing it down.
Right. It's a collection of opinions. Sometimes there are some steps in deduction or some justification. But if one goes through his threads, for the most part he asserts things. He has philosophical opinions. When he is disagreed with, he demands people prove him incorrect. Then he dismisses the objections. He seems to see the best philosopher as having the best opinions. Opinions that work together well.
Well I don't know about his social and political philosophies, not my area. The rest seems to be okay, all fairly correct I'd say, but also all fairly obvious I'd say.
Atla wrote: ↑Tue Oct 17, 2023 5:28 pm
Well I don't know about his social and political philosophies, not my area. The rest seems to be okay, all fairly correct I'd say, but also all fairly obvious I'd say. Philosophy as stating positions.
Yes, their generally reasonable opinions. I probably disagree with a number of them and also there are posts that are too vague to be useful.
a semantic taxonomy of epistemology
Post by Advocate » Sun Jul 30, 2023 4:26 pm
data = raw measurement
information = data + perspective context (how it was collected, epistemic)
knowledge = information + intent context (sufficiency, from what intent, for what purpose)
understanding = knowledge + practical context (pragmatism, necessity, restraints)
wisdom = understanding + accurate prediction
We have a lot of abstractions here, devoid even of nuanced syntax. If we look at the first 'sentence' it's not wrong or right.
Information = data plus perspective context which is explained to be 'how it was collected'. That could mean many different things. I don't think it quite makes sense, though it could if one dug for a long time.
or
(1) Is there anything that must be true of absolutely everything that exists?
For our purposes, everything is patterns, internally or externally (a critical distinction).
He tends be rational, realist, monist (as far as I can tell). But his style is oddly guru/metaphysical assertion.
Atla wrote: ↑Tue Oct 17, 2023 5:28 pm
Well I don't know about his social and political philosophies, not my area. The rest seems to be okay, all fairly correct I'd say, but also all fairly obvious I'd say. Philosophy as stating positions.
Yes, their generally reasonable opinions. I probably disagree with a number of them and also there are posts that are too vague to be useful.
a semantic taxonomy of epistemology
Post by Advocate » Sun Jul 30, 2023 4:26 pm
data = raw measurement
information = data + perspective context (how it was collected, epistemic)
knowledge = information + intent context (sufficiency, from what intent, for what purpose)
understanding = knowledge + practical context (pragmatism, necessity, restraints)
wisdom = understanding + accurate prediction
We have a lot of abstractions here, devoid even of nuanced syntax. If we look at the first 'sentence' it's not wrong or right.
Information = data plus perspective context which is explained to be 'how it was collected'. That could mean many different things. I don't think it quite makes sense, though it could if one dug for a long time.
or
(1) Is there anything that must be true of absolutely everything that exists?
For our purposes, everything is patterns, internally or externally (a critical distinction).
He tends be rational, realist, monist (as far as I can tell). But his style is oddly guru/metaphysical assertion.
Looks like a minimalist, Occam's razor skeleton of Western philosophy to me. Colourless, tasteless instrumentalist stuff, but quite correct.
I just don't understand the fuss he's making about it. I'm pretty sure there are many thousands of geniuses and savants out there who also have this stuff worked out, but it never occurs to them to consider it spectacular, or even worth writing down, or worth mentioning even in its entirety. It's just something you work out and move on.
