The Whole Story

[Advocate]

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.

I don't yet understand how you're using your words but by any typical or vernacular understanding of what philosophy is, i Have found the answers, all of them. That's the contention of this thread. There are only two methods to attain knowledge, logical necessity and empirical probability. There are no "other ways".

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

Logic and reason do endorse a specific, falsifiable, necessarily acceptable position. That is, again, the entire point of this post. To say it's extreme is relative. It's certainly extreme relative to those who say it's impossible. "Philosophers", on the other hand, refuse the possibility for logic and reason to endorse any metaphysical position because of society and culture, nothing to do with philosophy. In fact, i'd venture that anyone who says there are not specific answers cannot actually be a truth-seeker of any kind, and especially not a philosopher by any reasonable definition.

[Advocate]

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.

I concur that academic philosophy is inherently limiting. The certain technical understandings that academic philosophers use often raise more questions than they answer and sometimes stand in their own way indefinitely. For example, "justified true belief" isn't even a possible contention for the definition of truth, and yet it's forwarded in every Philosophy 101 classroom as a serious contender and often as the solution. Meanwhile, where technical definitions are useful, the academics haven't come up with them or cannot agree on them because as a whole they're just confused people, not intellectual geniuses, even academically. Academic philosophers barely have time to ask any deep questions of their own, much less vet actual answers. A "true philosopher" is a deep thinker regardless of subject or forum, and not being beholden to any particular system (especially one that requires as much unrelated meta-work as academics) is very much a positive in that search.

However, your insistence that never having taken a course is positive is incorrect. At the least you cannot understand what's wrong with academic philosophy without having experienced it from the inside. The reasons go far far beyond anything to do with philosophy qua philosophy. And at best academic classes help familiarize you with the terrain of the ideas, even if they're not addressed fully or appropriately. I'm not clear how this part of the discussion is relevant to the OP though. Could you elaborate?

[Advocate]

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).

While there is no practical way to separate the green and yellow in your example, that doesn't indicate it's impossibility, only that we can't do it. Try it with beach balls instead of paint. Things we could not separate before (molecules, atoms, even smaller things), now we can, because the principle is correct. That's a problem of practical application, not of logic.

[Skepdick]

While there is no practical way to separate the green and yellow in your example, that doesn't indicate it's impossibility, only that we can't do it.

I didn't use the word "impossibility". I used the word "asymmetry".

Mixing yellow+blue is easy.
Unmixing green is hard enough to be practically infeasible

If you don't distinguish between "easy" and "hard" things you are over-simplifying things, and if you are failing to distinguish the infeasible from the impossible you are making a second error. The empirical difference is trivially quantifiable with time.

Mixing blue+yellow to make green takes seconds.
Unmixing green into yellow+blue takes more than lifetime.

Try it with beach balls instead of paint. Things we could not separate before (molecules, atoms, even smaller things), now we can, because the principle is correct. That's a problem of practical application, not of logic.

You are denigrating logic to the theoretical realm devoid of any empiricism. You are treating functions and and their inverses as isomorphic despite the empirical asymmetry in time.

You are as dumb as any Mathematician when you pre-suppose "timelessness".

[Advocate]

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.

I call this a story specifically to route around such objections. If it answers every major philosophical question coherently, cohesively, etc. etc., then my contention has been proven.

But to the point of what isn't. There are infinite things that are not, and all of them are literally identical. There is no evidence of them. Things can only be considered "real" "for any intent or purpose" if there is replicable evidence. The only kind of replicable evidence that can apply to the un-empirically verifable ideas of metaphysics is logical necessity and we cannot logically consider that for which there is no empirical evidence. Either empirical evidence can be logically extended or it must be logically necessary within a framework that does not rely upon external reality at all - internal logical coherence.

You're making some technical point about how philosophy is typically practiced it seems. My contention is that the set of philosophical answers, contentions, etc. in The Whole Story answers all philosophical questions. If it can do so, the question becomes whether those answers can be refuted, not whether the story is falsifiable in a technical sense. If they cannot be refuted, the question becomes whether the answers are practical.

This is becoming just another philosophical debate about nothing that goes nowhere. I don't see how quibbling over the definitions of general philosophical terms helps verify anything, in fact the entire onus of the work is that philosophy never gets anywhere BECAUSE it gets bogged down in irrelevancies. Define things however you want, The Story still does the work it's claimed to do, and that's still the best thing that has ever happened in philosophy.

Metaphysics is typically said to be about what is, whether or not that technically entails being about what isn't, and although i don't give a hoot for what isn't except to put it in its proper place in a box in a basement, that's also explained in the story. "What isn't" includes any notion of infinity being directly accessible to us. "What isn't" includes philosophy being a positive force in the universe with academics and quibbling over terms that don't even make a difference to actual contentions. There are many "isn't's" that can be derived from the is-es that are in there, but they aren't the point - they're only useful by contrast, in the dialectic sense.

[Advocate]

I didn't use the word "impossibility". I used the word "asymmetry".

Mixing yellow+blue is easy.
Unmixing green is hard enough to be practically infeasible

If you don't distinguish between "easy" and "hard" things you are over-simplifying things, and if you are failing to distinguish the infeasible from the impossible you are making a second error. The empirical difference is trivially quantifiable with time.

Mixing blue+yellow to make green takes seconds.
Unmixing green into yellow+blue takes more than lifetime.

Again, you're moving willy-nilly back and forth between logically necessary theory and contingent practical application as though there's no difference. The difference is material. Yes, it is entirely possible to separate the blue and yellow because the logic is sound. No, it's not at all practically possible because even though we literally can do it, nobody would want to spend the time. I don't see how that isn't an obvious distinction.

You are denigrating logic to the theoretical realm devoid of any empiricism. You are treating functions and and their inverses as isomorphic despite the empirical asymmetry in time.

You are as dumb as any Mathematician when you pre-suppose "timelessness".

You've invoked ad hominem. This conversation is over.

[Skepdick]

No, it's not at all practically possible because even though we literally can do it, nobody would want to spend the time. I don't see how that isn't an obvious distinction.

Look! You are claiming that it "literally can be done". You are insisting that logical possibility is sufficient for empirical possibility.

So make a testable prediction then. How long do you think it will take?

You've invoked ad hominem. This conversation is over.

It's not an ad hominem - it's a factual claim. Surely I am allowed to utter facts?

I say you are stupid BECAUSE you are conflating logical with empirical possibility. Logically God is possible - surely that's not sufficient?!?!

If you are taking it as an insult and not as an empirically testable claim then you are making the case.

[Age]

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..

So, if, to you, 'metaphysics' is just "The study of the world as a whole, et cetera", then how can there be an 'extreme' or 'positive' metaphysical theory or position?

If one is studying some thing, like 'metaphysics', then one would not yet have any position or theory in regards to 'that', especially an 'extreme' or a 'positive' theory or position.

By the way, what do you mean with the use of the word 'positive' here?

I'm happy with the standard definition.

The word 'standard' here is extremely relative, and thus NOT absolutely true at all.

...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.

Okay, so what are they?

What you mean is that Russell's 'Western' tradition has not found any answers, and in this you are correct.

I do NOT mean this at all. I did NOT even think this, let alone mean this. So, your ASSUMPTION here is completely and utterly WRONG.

It is odd how parochial Western thinkers are, as if nobody has ever done better than Kant. I blame universities for blinkering their students.

Talk about having a limited or narrowed view of things.

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.

So, once again, you make ANOTHER ASSUMPTION, which could also be TOTALLY WRONG.

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.

But just looking at things in, so called, philosophical discussions as though they are 'one' or 'the other' is just plain absurd, to me.

When you say "undecidable", then who or what is this in reference to exactly?

And what is a 'positive' theory exactly, and how is it compared to a 'negative' theory?

By the way when people can see extremes or opposition in theories or discussions, like, for example; nature verse nurture, creation verse evolution, et cetera, then NEITHER is right or wrong.

When these discussion are looked at, properly and correctly, then what can be CLEARLY SEEN is that there is Truth and falsehoods in both "sides" of the discussion/argument.

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.

Just looking at things as though there is "one side" verse "another side", or as extreme positions, is, to me, an absurdity itself.

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.

This is "probably the reason" for 'what' EXACTLY?

Most philosopher make life far too complicated.

ALL adults make Life far to complicated and far to hard as well, when the fact is; Life, Itself, is fundamentally extremely simple and easy, indeed.

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.

How could you be actually grateful of something, like an educational course, which you have NOT YET experienced?

Also, are you aware that you do NOT have to follow nor agree with and accept what has, essentially, just been told to you?

I'm not seeking anything except to help clarify the issues on behalf of the OP.

And what are those "issues" exactly?

Contrary to a popular opinion not everyone is baffled by metaphysics.

Contrary to a popular opinion or belief 'metaphysics' is NOT the same NOR 'standard' to EVERY one.

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.

Once again, ANOTHER ASSUMPTION, which could NOT be MORE WRONG.

Also, you once mentioned that; "If we can explain it then we have a global theory. if we cannot, then we do not."

What does the word 'it' here refer to exactly?

And by the way; I do not have any theories, as I do not do theories, because of what they are fundamentally based upon. However, I can explain why all selective conclusions about the world as a whole are undecidable.

[Age]

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.

This depends on if you are looking at this through a limited or narrowed field of view or from a Truly OPEN perspective.

Nature is a cruel bitch of a mistress.

Every thing is created because this is how Nature works. This Creator is NOT cruel. Only human beings view and see some things as being "cruel".

Make no mistake, if we ever want to eliminate suffering, we'll have to eliminate Gaia.

So, what you are essentially saying is; if we want to eliminate suffering, then we will have to eliminate a mythology, correct?

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.

'I' MUST NOT be an inherent part of Life. This is because I do NOT do "suffering". 'I' am above and beyond that, to me, ONLY a 'human child experience'. And when children experience suffering this is because of some thing an adult has done, and not because of some other reason. Obviously, except of course extended periods of pain from nerve endings.

[Age]

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.

This is your view. It is CERTAINLY NOT my view.

I say ALL human beings are born naturally curious creatures, which also means being born naturally with thee love-of-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.

Seems to be making complex and hard what IS essentially just very simple, and easy, indeed.

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.

If you say so. But this appears completely unnecessary to me.

[Age]

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.

I suggest instead of making ASSUMPTIONS that you ask for CLARIFICATION, FIRST.

Why 'must' your question be posed to anyone?

When you refer to "philosophers" here, are you refer to those human beings who have attended "philosophy" classes?

And, what about those self-fashioned "philosophers" who do NOT deny solutions are possible, OR, those who say that they are NOT "philosophers" but who still claim that solutions are NOT possible?

'Must' YOUR question be posed to these ones as well?

By the way, from my perspective there is a solution, which is thee resolution to ALL problems.

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.

YOUR ASSUMPTION that questions are more hypothetical rather than intended to clarify IS JUST YOUR ASSUMPTION, which, by the way, could be COMPLETELY and UTTERLY TOTALLY WRONG.

They're not necessarily mutually exclusive but a conflict of motives is apparent.

A, so called, "conflict of motive" is YOUR ASSUMPTION ONLY.

If you can NOT just look at or receive questions, without ASSUMING something else is going on other than just a question is being posed to you for clarity, then this might be the result of some inner motive of yours?

We will just have to wait and see.

[Age]

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.

I don't yet understand how you're using your words

This is EXTREMELY OBVIOUS, to me.

What is also obviously clear is you have NO intention of understanding either.

but by any typical or vernacular understanding of what philosophy is, i Have found the answers, all of them.

Okay, so what is the meaning of 'Life'?

What came first, the chicken or the egg?

Is it nature or nurture?

Who am 'I'?

What is God? And, how did It create the Universe?

Also, and by the way, there are NO answers in regards to 'philosophy', this is; by one typical or vernacular understanding of what 'philosophy' is.

That's the contention of this thread.

What is the contention of this thread? That you have found ALL answers?

If you BELIEVE you have, then you HAVE, to you. There is NO contention, from me.

There are only two methods to attain knowledge, logical necessity and empirical probability. There are no "other ways".

Okay.

Is this an ABSOLUTE Truth, or just your truth?

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

Logic and reason do endorse a specific, falsifiable, necessarily acceptable position. That is, again, the entire point of this post. To say it's extreme is relative. It's certainly extreme relative to those who say it's impossible. "Philosophers", on the other hand, refuse the possibility for logic and reason to endorse any metaphysical position because of society and culture, nothing to do with philosophy. In fact, i'd venture that anyone who says there are not specific answers cannot actually be a truth-seeker of any kind, and especially not a philosopher by any reasonable definition.

[PeteJ]

So, if, to you, 'metaphysics' is just "The study of the world as a whole, et cetera", then how can there be an 'extreme' or 'positive' metaphysical theory or position?

I''m afraid I don't understand the question. Materialism and Idealism are extreme positions, Kant would call them 'selective conclusions' or partial theories. They make positive claims about the nature of Reality such that in some case it is this rather than that. This creates a pair of dialectical opposites. It is this pair of opposites that are undecidable. These undecidable pairs of extreme positions are Kant's antinomies.

If you ask yourself whether the world began with Something or Nothing, or is one or the other, then you'll find the question is undecidable, Neither answer survives analysis. This is why so many people give up on metaphysics.

This is tricky. As you don't accept the dictionary definition of metaphysics I'm not sure we can have a useful discussion. There's too much ground to make up.

[Advocate]

>Okay, so what is the meaning of 'Life'?

The meaning of life is that everyone must choose the answer to that question for themselves. Mine is to be fulfilled in making everything perfect for everyone. (Perfection is a direction, not a destination.) What's yours?

>What came first, the chicken or the egg?

The egg. Things we would call an egg existed before things we would call a chicken came out of them.

>Is it nature or nurture?

Yes. Nature sets the ultimate boundaries of what's physically possible and then Nurture determines where we actually end up on that scale of possibilities. But there's really only one possibility, we just don't know it until it happens. Everything that Does happen always had a 100% chance of happening. (Statistics is a measure of predictive uncertainty.)

>Who am 'I'?

That's explained in detail in the self & consciousness portion of the document this post is about which you've never read.

>What is God? And, how did It create the Universe?

God is a concept, as real as any other concept and all concepts create real-world differences. God is not the sort of concept that can be defined in such a way that it can be tested sufficient to produce agreement (igtheism), but what is clear is that the majority of effects attributed to god have simpler explanations that are more simple to understand And testable.

The universe never began. Nothing ever began in the sense you appear to mean. What we call beginnings and ends are simple changes of state, sometimes not even in a physical manner. Birth is a change of state from inside to outside the womb, not the beginning of personhood. Personhood is a change of state from morally inculpable to morally culpable, not a change in a physical state or a pattern that can be measured.

Before you being it up, I'm not answering the rest of your comments because they don't seem relevant.

[Advocate]

I''m afraid I don't understand the question. Materialism and Idealism are extreme positions, Kant would call them 'selective conclusions' or partial theories. They make positive claims about the nature of Reality such that in some case it is this rather than that. This creates a pair of dialectical opposites. It is this pair of opposites that are undecidable. These undecidable pairs of extreme positions are Kant's antinomies.

You're tilting at windmills. That person is a kindergarten philosoper, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. (Full of refutation and retort, aimed at nothing but deconstruction - a great skeptic and a terrible philosopher.)

By any standard definitely, Everything in metaphysics is extreme.