here's why i'm the legitimate owner of the universe

[Iwannaplato]

Looks like a minimalist, Occam's razor skeleton of Western philosophy to me. Colourless, tasteless instrumentalist stuff,

Sure, I think if many relatively smart people with his general belief system (and that's a lot of people) put down their philosophical opinions it would look very similar, except in many cases, clearer and less vague.

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.

Yes, that's another way of putting it. And there are even philosophers he would dismiss as academic who have run over the same ground, but with justification.

...and who could also deal with disagreement without mere dismissal.

There seems to be a common myth in philosophy forums that a genius philosopher could somehow manage to impress/convince no one.

[Advocate]

[quote=commonsense post_id=673674 time=1697558274 user_id=14610]
[quote=Advocate post_id=673658 time=1697553057 user_id=15238]
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.
[/quote]

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.
[/quote]

I've given a list of criteria my philosophy can meet. People should be interested because it's better than theirs. Come for the curiosity, stay for the Truth.

[Advocate]

[quote=Iwannaplato post_id=673678 time=1697559553 user_id=3619]
[quote=Atla post_id=673673 time=1697557980 user_id=15497]
[quote=Iwannaplato post_id=673669 time=1697556621 user_id=3619]
I don't know where the confidence comes from.
[/quote]
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 [i]somewhat[/i]. 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.
[/quote]
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.
[/quote]

Opinion is irrelevant. The set of answers is individually and collectively necessary and sufficient for all related purposes. When you've actually got The Truth it's literally not possible for an objection to be relevant except as to style.

[Advocate]

[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]

The logical train of thought includes many important points such as the division of kinds of ownership, an example of legitimacy, and a bunch of supporting technical stuff. Use it for whatever you need it for.

[Advocate]

[quote=Atla post_id=673680 time=1697560105 user_id=15497]
[quote=Iwannaplato post_id=673678 time=1697559553 user_id=3619]
[quote=Atla post_id=673673 time=1697557980 user_id=15497]

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 [i]somewhat[/i]. 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.
[/quote]
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.
[/quote]
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.
[/quote]

Truth usually seems obvious when it's elucidated correctly. That's one of its attributes and one of its charms, not a negative in any sense.

[Advocate]

[quote=Atla post_id=673686 time=1697561947 user_id=15497]
[quote=Iwannaplato post_id=673683 time=1697561233 user_id=3619]
[quote=Atla post_id=673680 time=1697560105 user_id=15497]
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.
[/quote]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.
[quote]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[/quote]

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
[quote](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).[/quote]

He tends be rational, realist, monist (as far as I can tell). But his style is oddly guru/metaphysical assertion.
[/quote]
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.
[/quote]

The value is in the total set of answers which answers every metaphysical question, every "unanswerable" philosophy question, and puts all knowledge in context of all other knowledge. If you don't see the value of that, how are you a philosopher?

[Iwannaplato]

Truth usually seems obvious when it's elucidated correctly.[

And often falsehood. If you actually read the posts carefully the issue wasn't that you were wrong.

[Atla]

The value is in the total set of answers which answers every metaphysical question, every "unanswerable" philosophy question, and puts all knowledge in context of all other knowledge. If you don't see the value of that, how are you a philosopher?

I'm not really a philosopher. I see a little value in working out these basics, but it's not really new and mostly lost on humanity imo.

[Advocate]

[quote=Atla post_id=673770 time=1697594883 user_id=15497]
[quote=Advocate post_id=673729 time=1697578078 user_id=15238]
The value is in the total set of answers which answers every metaphysical question, every "unanswerable" philosophy question, and puts all knowledge in context of all other knowledge. If you don't see the value of that, how are you a philosopher?
[/quote]
I'm not really a philosopher. I see a little value in working out these basics, but it's not really new and mostly lost on humanity imo.
[/quote]

I agree with both points. That's exactly who philosophy goes nowhere. It's exactly who society is evil. Those with the basics right aren't the ones on charge.

[Age]

You're just wrong.

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'?

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.

LOL ONCE MORE, 'this one' IS ABSOLUTELY TOTALLY INCAPABLE OF JUST ANSWERING A Truly VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY CLARIFYING QUESTION.

'This one' MADE UP the CLAIM that 'I am just wrong'.

So, I JUST ASK, 'WHERE and WHEN COULD I BE, supposedly, WRONG, ABOUT JUST ASKING QUESTIONS?'

AND, ONCE AGAIN, 'this one' FAILED, ABSOLUTELY and IRREFUTABLY.

In case 'you' are STILL UNAWARE here "advocate" 'you' are the one MAKING UP the CLAIMS, so what this MEANS IS that ONLY 'you' can BE Wrong here.

Whereas, BECAUSE I AM JUST ASKING CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, ALONE here, I, therefore, can NOT BE Wrong.

Which 'you' are PROVING MORE True as 'we' go along here.

The MORE 'you' do NOT back up and support 'your CLAIMS', the LESS Wrong I am SHOWN TO BE, while, at the SAME TIME, the MORE Wrong 'you' ARE PROVING "yourself" TO BE.

[Age]

My position stands. Neither you or anyone has refuted any portion of it with anything other than logical fallacies and "Nuh-uh."

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,

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.

BUT 'you' have NOT so-called 'cross supported' ANY 'thing' here, soundly AND validly.

However, in that head there 'you' have CROSS SUPPORTED ABSOLUTELY EVERY 'thing', SOUND, VALIDLY, and IRREFUTABLY, right?

Also, let us NOT FORGET that for absolutely ANY 'thing' to be ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLE, then that 'thing' HAS TO BE ABSOLUTELY IRREFUTABLE TO ABSOLUTELY EVERY one, and NOT just 'one' ALONE.

'you' are AWARE, right, "advocate" that just about EVERY 'thing' 'you' SAY and CLAIM here, if NOT EVERY 'thing', IS IRREFUTABLE, but 'you', however, are UNABLE TO SEE and RECOGNIZE 'this Fact' BECAUSE of 'your' OWN BELIEFS, which absolutely NO one here AGREES WITH NOR ACCEPTS.

A bunch of people have utterly ignored the distinction of kinds of ownership i clearly draw.

There is NO NEED TO, and this is just BECAUSE there is NO KIND OF valid AND sound 'ownership', which could be APPLIED to the Universe, Itself, from the perspective of ANY one 'human being'. AND, being the so-called "best philosopher", or not, would NOT have a single, solitary bearing ON 'this'.

Not one has addressed it ingenuously, not one, not you, not now, not here.

BECAUSE SOME CLAIMS are NOT even WORTHY OF being ADDRESSED.

AND, KNOWING, FOR SURE, that a 'self-proclaimed' "best philosopher" would NOT even ACCEPT ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing' AGAINST 'it', MEANS that there would be NO USE IN ADDRESSING 'it' ANYWAY, 'ingenuously' or not.

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.

ABSOLUTELY ANY CLAIM by ANY 'human being' that ANY one solitary 'human being' who is ONLY 'around' for a relatively NOTHING 'period of time' could OWN some 'thing' like the Universe is just ABSURDITY TO THE EXTREME.

AND, IGNORING 'these types of CLAIMS' is what ALL would be BEST OFF DOING.

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.

ALL of what 'you' SAID 'you' BELIEVE the so-called "best philosopher" IS in, ACTUAL, 'detail' is just 'you'.

JUST IMAGINING that there even COULD BE a so-called "best philosopher" is INSANITY, AGAIN, IN THE EXTREME. And, for 'one' to IMAGINE that 'it' IS 'them', just REINFORCES the BLATANTLY OBVIOUS EXTREME INSANITY here.

But, OBVIOUSLY, 'you' could NOT SEE the INSANITY here, right?

You're not being rational or fair, so you may safely be disregarded, like most people here.

HOWEVER, WHEN "others" SAY, ' 'you', "advocate", are NOT being rational, so 'you' may safely be disregarded ', then WHY is 'this' NOT ACCEPTABLE TO 'you, BUT WHEN 'you' SAY, 'the same' TO "others", then 'that' SHOULD BE ACCEPTED?

Like MOST here ACCEPT, what 'you', "advocate", SAY in 'your' opening post here 'you' are CERTAINLY NOT being 'rational'.

Being accepted or successful are unrelated to being good, for a person or a philosophy.

If 'you' SAY SO.

[Age]

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?

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.

BUT IF 'you' KNEW 'human nature and psychology' FULLY, then 'you', OBVIOUSLY, would NOT 'hope'.

[Age]

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?

For one thing, letting people remain ignorant is bad.

WHY would doing 'that' be so-called 'bad', EXACTLY?

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.

YET here 'you' ARE, STILL, talking to 'us', who are NOT 'paying attention' to 'your' contents AND claims here.

[Age]

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.

I've given a list of criteria my philosophy can meet. People should be interested because it's better than theirs. Come for the curiosity, stay for the Truth.

HOW and WHY would 'we' STAY for the, ALLEGED, Truth, WHEN CURIOUS QUESTIONS ARE posed, and ASKED, TO 'you', but 'you' DO NOT ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS?

[Age]

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.

Opinion is irrelevant. The set of answers is individually and collectively necessary and sufficient for all related purposes. When you've actually got The Truth it's literally not possible for an objection to be relevant except as to style.

MAYBE SO. But, BECAUSE 'you' do NOT ANSWER QUESTIONS, ASKED out of CURIOSITY, 'we' will NEVER come-to-know IF 'you' ACTUALLY DO have the Truth, or NOT.