The Whole Story

[PeteJ]

Advocate

If you have a global theory then you can explain why all selective conclusions about the world as a whole are undecidable.

If you can explain this then I'll take you seriously. If not, then you have not yet got off the ground.

[Age]

>I CERTAINLY DO NOT see ANY thing to be 'solved' NOR 'studied' in 'philosophy'

Why exactly are you here?

If by 'here' you mean this forum, then why I am here is to learn how to communicate better.

However, if by 'here' you mean here on earth, or here in this Life, then the exact reason why 'i' am here is for the exact same reason ALL human beings are here. That is, to learn how to make Life, Itself, better. But, if you already knew what the meaning of Life is, then you would already know this.

Anyway, why exactly are you here, in this forum?

By the way, why did you not answer my three clarifying questions, but then asked me this clarifying question?

[Age]

Advocate

If you have a global theory then you can explain why all selective conclusions about the world as a whole are undecidable.

This sounds interesting. What do you mean by 'selective conclusions about the world' and by 'as a whole are undecidable'?

Also, will you provide some examples.

When this is done, then I could explain the reason WHY.

If you can explain this then I'll take you seriously. If not, then you have not yet got off the ground.

[PeteJ]

Advocate

If you have a global theory then you can explain why all selective conclusions about the world as a whole are undecidable.

This sounds interesting. What do you mean by 'selective conclusions about the world' and by 'as a whole are undecidable'?

Also, will you provide some examples.

When this is done, then I could explain the reason WHY.

This is Kant's terminology. or at least the terminology of Korner's study of Kant. A 'selective conclusion' is an extreme or positive metaphysical theory or position. Examples would be Matereiism and idealism or Something and Nothing, Other expressions of the same proposition would be 'All positive metaphysical positions are logically indefensible' or 'Metaphysics does not endorse a positive result. This is the most basic and general fact we can know about metaphysics. If we can explain it then we have a global theory. if we cannot, then we do not.

It is the absurdity of extreme metaphysical positions that creates the antinomies of metaphysics and cripples scholastic philosophy. A fundamental theory must explain these antinomies or fail. Quite why most philosophers ignore this problem is not clear to me. I have the impression that students are not usually taught it, and I have even met professors who question it. Yet it is a demonstrable and easily verifiable.

If you can explain why this fact is a fact then you have outperformed the Western tradition of philosophical thought. The only known explanation is that the Perennial philosophy is true, but the scholastics are still hoping to find another one. There isn't one, as Kant and Russell have shown.

Thus a global theory is a failure unless it can explain the refusal of logic and reason to endorse an extreme metaphysical position.

[Age]

Advocate

If you have a global theory then you can explain why all selective conclusions about the world as a whole are undecidable.

This sounds interesting. What do you mean by 'selective conclusions about the world' and by 'as a whole are undecidable'?

Also, will you provide some examples.

When this is done, then I could explain the reason WHY.

This is Kant's terminology. or at least the terminology of Korner's study of Kant. A 'selective conclusion' is an extreme or positive metaphysical theory or position. Examples would be Matereiism and idealism or Something and Nothing, Other expressions of the same proposition would be 'All positive metaphysical positions are logically indefensible' or 'Metaphysics does not endorse a positive result. This is the most basic and general fact we can know about metaphysics. If we can explain it then we have a global theory. if we cannot, then we do not.

Are you able to explain what 'metaphysics' is, to you?

If yes, then will you?

To me, 'metaphysics' is just 'that' what is beyond or not physical.

Remember, through the wrongly called "philosophy", answers to meaningful questions have NOT YET been found, nor discovered. So, the, so called, "philosophers" do NOT have answers.

The answers to questions, however, are found and discovered in other ways.

It is the absurdity of extreme metaphysical positions that creates the antinomies of metaphysics and cripples scholastic philosophy. A fundamental theory must explain these antinomies or fail. Quite why most philosophers ignore this problem is not clear to me. I have the impression that students are not usually taught it, and I have even met professors who question it. Yet it is a demonstrable and easily verifiable.

You are using words and speaking in terminology, which I am unfamiliar with, so I am NOT able to provide you with the answers that you are seeking here.

What does 'antinomies' mean, to you?

If you can explain why this fact is a fact then you have outperformed the Western tradition of philosophical thought.

I do NOT even know what 'this fact' IS, which you are referring to here. If you tell me, however, what 'this fact' actually IS, then maybe I can explain to you WHY 'this fact' is a fact.

The only known explanation is that the Perennial philosophy is true, but the scholastics are still hoping to find another one. There isn't one, as Kant and Russell have shown.

Thus a global theory is a failure unless it can explain the refusal of logic and reason to endorse an extreme metaphysical position.

I think you have studied in a course in, so called, "philosophy", which I have NOT, and so you will really have to SIMPLE down your terminology. That is; if you REALLY do want answers to what you say you are seeking.

[PeteJ]

Are you able to explain what 'metaphysics' is, to you?

If yes, then will you?

Sure. The study of the world as a whole, first principles, fundamental truths etc.. I'm happy with the standard definition.

...answers to meaningful questions have NOT YET been found, nor discovered. So, the, so called, "philosophers" do NOT have answers.

Of course they do. I can even tell you what they are. What you mean is that Russell's 'Western' tradition has not found any answers, and in this you are correct. It is odd how parochial Western thinkers are, as if nobody has ever done better than Kant. I blame universities for blinkering their students.

You are using words and speaking in terminology, which I am unfamiliar with, so I am NOT able to provide you with the answers that you are seeking here.

Fair enough. But it means you do not have a fundamental theory.

What does 'antinomies' mean, to you?

The same as it did to Kant. It means a undecidable pair of positive theories, where the absurdity of both extremes prevents us from endorsing either.

I do NOT even know what 'this fact' IS, which you are referring to here. If you tell me, however, what 'this fact' actually IS, then maybe I can explain to you WHY 'this fact' is a fact.

The fact is the absurdity of extreme metaphysical positions. It is Metaphysics 101. It is a fact that leads most philosophers to despair.

I think you have studied in a course in, so called, "philosophy", which I have NOT, and so you will really have to SIMPLE down your terminology. That is; if you REALLY do want answers to what you say you are seeking.

My terminology could hardly be simpler, and if it is unfamiliar this is probably the reason. Most philosopher make life far too complicated. I have never followed a course in philosophy. It would be the kiss of death, I shall be eternally grateful I never studied philosophy at university.

I'm not seeking anything except to help clarify the issues on behalf of the OP. Contrary to a popular opinion not everyone is baffled by metaphysics. Nobody need be, but the professors have a monopoly on what is taught. Of course, you won't believe me, and you shouldn't do so immediately.

[Advocate]

Or we could start with logical necessity and develop answers which are certain more than contingent.

Logic is contingent, not necessary.

It's invented.

Sure, but it is invented to describe the relationships between things which we experience for ourselves. A+b=c logically necessitates that c-b=a. This isn't a contingent relationship. It works regardless of what you plug into it or how you define the boundaries between entities. That's logic. It's invented, but it's also contingent (assuming effective distinction between entities, and it's also necessary. Most of all, necessary. If it didn't produce replicable results at all times in all ways, it wouldn't be what we think of logic as today, which just happens to be one of two possible ways of obtaining justifiable certainty about anything.

[Advocate]

Why cannot one be human but not suffer in any way ?

It's not humanity that's subject to unspeakable cruelty, it's all living beings. Nature is a cruel bitch of a mistress. Make no mistake, if we ever want to eliminate suffering, we'll have to eliminate Gaia. Suffering is an inherent part of life, because living things care about stuff (avoid/approach) and the frustration of those desires is precisely what the whole scale from frustration to rage comes from.

[Skepdick]

A+b=c logically necessitates that c-b=a. This isn't a contingent relationship.

It has nothing to do with contingency, and everything to do with the asymmetry of the inverse.

If you mix yellow and blue paint you get green (yellow+blue=green)
I don't know how to unmix yellow from green to get blue (green-yellow is a nonsense).

[Advocate]

What does philosophy mean to you ?

What is there in philosophy EXACTLY to be studied ?

Philosophy to me is the love of wisdom through the eternal study of subjects that do not necessarily have definitive answers to them
Subjects such as Metaphysics - Ethics - Consciousness - Existence - and subjects comparitively more rigorous such as Logic - Language

I have asked you this clarifying question before, and you did not clarify nor answer it then, but I will try again.

Why do you just put the letter 'A' instead of the word "age" in my quotes? (When you do this I do not receive a notification that my posts have been responded to, and therefore I might miss reading your reply and miss being able to respond to you.

Anyway, to me, the 'love-of-wisdom' is very, very different to the 'love-of-wisdom', to you.

In order to love wisdom, first it is necessary to understand wisdom. The most fundamental part of understanding wisdom is the difference between truth wisdom (what is - non-contingent except in how it's expressed) and practical wisdom (entirely contingent except in how we agree to get along in the world). What is can be proven. What ought can be proven to the extent it depends on what is.

Truth questions can be addressed by rephrasing them: "Do i have sufficient justification to accept fact X/decision Y?" Normative problems can be answered by rephrasing them "IF you want X, THEN behaviour Y is your best option.

[Advocate]

Advocate

If you have a global theory then you can explain why all selective conclusions about the world as a whole are undecidable.

If you can explain this then I'll take you seriously. If not, then you have not yet got off the ground.

I have a theory of everything, yes, but it has caveats - one of which is that answering all questions means providing a framework within which all questions can be answered coherently, not that all questions can be answered literally, because neither i nor humanity have the time for that.

Having covered that, i'm ready to answer "Why all selective conclusions about the world as a whole are undecidable", but i'm not sure i understand it as you do (which is another of the caveats). Can you rephrase? In the meantime, here's my attempt to address it.

Selective conclusions are contingent by nature. They can only rely on individual salience, perspective, and priority (the three universal contingencies, as best i can put my finger on them), but this does not mean they are undecidable. The point of decision-making is either a) when you feel it's time to make a decision regardless of whether you feel epistemological warrant is sufficient or b) when you feel you have epistemological warrant. Clearly these are two distinct scenarios from either an epistemological or an ethical perspective. So, as i understand your contention, i disagree.

All conclusions are either supportable or indistinguishable from fiction depending on whether they match empirical reality or logical necessity. But again, i probably don't understand the contention yet. Nevertheless, i may have already answered it.

[Skepdick]

Advocate

If you have a global theory then you can explain why all selective conclusions about the world as a whole are undecidable.

If you can explain this then I'll take you seriously. If not, then you have not yet got off the ground.

Your claim is incoherent.

There' is no practical distinction between "conclusions" and "decisions".

If I conclude that the world is a potato, then I have decided that the world is a potato. Ergo the potato-ness of the world is decidable. Because I have decided it.
As it is also decidable (by another decider) that the world is not a potato.

The two deciders disagree on the matter is relativisation in practice. This is straight out of complexity theory.

[Advocate]

>I CERTAINLY DO NOT see ANY thing to be 'solved' NOR 'studied' in 'philosophy'

Why exactly are you here?

If by 'here' you mean this forum, then why I am here is to learn how to communicate better.

However, if by 'here' you mean here on earth, or here in this Life, then the exact reason why 'i' am here is for the exact same reason ALL human beings are here. That is, to learn how to make Life, Itself, better. But, if you already knew what the meaning of Life is, then you would already know this.

Anyway, why exactly are you here, in this forum?

By the way, why did you not answer my three clarifying questions, but then asked me this clarifying question?

The question is one that must be posed to anyone, especially those who seem to fashion themselves philosophers, who denies that solutions are possible. What then is the appeal to a system of thought to address them? I suppose communication practice is a valid goal but it's rather confusing how it's not counter-productive here, asking questions that are more hypothetical rather than intended to clarify the issue and reach actionable certainty in life. They're not necessarily mutually exclusive but a conflict of motives is apparent.

[Advocate]

Advocate

If you have a global theory then you can explain why all selective conclusions about the world as a whole are undecidable.

This sounds interesting. What do you mean by 'selective conclusions about the world' and by 'as a whole are undecidable'?

Also, will you provide some examples.

When this is done, then I could explain the reason WHY.

This is Kant's terminology. or at least the terminology of Korner's study of Kant. A 'selective conclusion' is an extreme or positive metaphysical theory or position. Examples would be Matereiism and idealism or Something and Nothing, Other expressions of the same proposition would be 'All positive metaphysical positions are logically indefensible' or 'Metaphysics does not endorse a positive result. This is the most basic and general fact we can know about metaphysics. If we can explain it then we have a global theory. if we cannot, then we do not.

It is the absurdity of extreme metaphysical positions that creates the antinomies of metaphysics and cripples scholastic philosophy. A fundamental theory must explain these antinomies or fail. Quite why most philosophers ignore this problem is not clear to me. I have the impression that students are not usually taught it, and I have even met professors who question it. Yet it is a demonstrable and easily verifiable.

If you can explain why this fact is a fact then you have outperformed the Western tradition of philosophical thought. The only known explanation is that the Perennial philosophy is true, but the scholastics are still hoping to find another one. There isn't one, as Kant and Russell have shown.

Thus a global theory is a failure unless it can explain the refusal of logic and reason to endorse an extreme metaphysical position.

Kant was one of a few people who got their metaphysics right in this sense (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... y_X2Kbneo/). He went too far and woo-ed but not so much as most who had come before, and wasn't as indecipherable as Hume, or as mundane as Nietzsche,for example, in doing so.

Metaphysics must make positive contentions to be metaphysics. Metaphysics is about what is, not about what is not. The only use of negative answers is to illustrate the direction to the positive ones, in this subject. But again, this sounds like y'all are using a very technical understanding of something. Is there a simple vernacular way to state a question or contention of whatever "selective conclusion" is such that it may be answered in a vernacular sense? "An extreme or positive metaphysical theory or position" seems to mean All metaphysical theories or positions as best i can tell.

[Skepdick]

Metaphysics is about what is, not about what is not.

Metaphysics must be about both what is and what isn't. Otherwise every positive metaphysical claim succumbs to an ontological proof - it's unfalsifiable.

You need a proof net. Speaking in hand-wavey gestures proof nets are the statistical method of hypothesis testing. You have your hypothesis and a null/alternative.