The Whole Story

[PeteJ]

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.

Well, in response to this sort of post all I can do is add you to my 'ignore' list. No point in wasting each other's time.

[surreptitious57]

so what is the meaning of Life ?
Is there an objective answer to this question because if there isnt then the question is meaningless
As the so called meaning of life could be absolutely anything that anyone wanted it to be - including nothing at all

What came first the chicken or the egg ?
All life on Earth evolved from single cell bacteria so eggs came before chickens

Is it nature or nurture ?
It is nature and nurture

Who am I ?
Is there an objective answer to this question because if there isnt then the question is meaningless
As the so called I could be absolutely anything that anyone wanted it to be - including nothing at all

What is God ?
Is there an objective answer to this question because if there isnt then the question is meaningless
As the so called God could be absolutely anything that anyone wanted it to be - including nothing at all

And how did It create the Universe ?
Is there an objective answer to this question because if there isnt then the question is meaningless

[Skepdick]

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.

You reject deconstruction.
You reject construction.

You purport "extreme metaphysics", but in the extreme case you can't even tell us what a question is (metaphysically speaking).
And you sure as hell can't even tell us what "extremity" is all about.

What are you philosophising about exactly? Do you even know?

[Advocate]

so what is the meaning of Life ?
Is there an objective answer to this question because if there isnt then the question is meaningless
As the so called meaning of life could be absolutely anything that anyone wanted it to be - including nothing at all

What came first the chicken or the egg ?
All life on Earth evolved from single cell bacteria so eggs came before chickens

Is it nature or nurture ?
It is nature and nurture

Who am I ?
Is there an objective answer to this question because if there isnt then the question is meaningless
As the so called I could be absolutely anything that anyone wanted it to be - including nothing at all

What is God ?
Is there an objective answer to this question because if there isnt then the question is meaningless
As the so called God could be absolutely anything that anyone wanted it to be - including nothing at all

And how did It create the Universe ?
Is there an objective answer to this question because if there isnt then the question is meaningless

Good of you to also respond to the meaningful part of Age's last few posts, but i fear it's for nothing. That person is both a theist and uninterested in engaging with the content of the OP. The context in which those questions is relevant is in my response a few posts back. There are objective answers to all these questions for people who can understand logic and basic vocabulary, which is the whole point of the OP. Did you read the original document all of this theoretically references?

[Skepdick]

Good of you to also respond to the meaningful part of Age's last few posts, but i fear it's for nothing. That person is both a theist and uninterested in engaging with the content of the OP. The context in which those questions is relevant is in my response a few posts back. There are objective answers to all these questions for people who can understand logic and basic vocabulary, which is the whole point of the OP. Did you read the original document all of this theoretically references?

Directly or indirectly, your document states "This maxim also applies to philosophy. This philosophy is the best philosophy because it leaves nothing out and yet is simple enough for ordinary people to understand."

So, I have a question that I don't see addressed: What is the purpose of understanding?

[Advocate]

Good of you to also respond to the meaningful part of Age's last few posts, but i fear it's for nothing. That person is both a theist and uninterested in engaging with the content of the OP. The context in which those questions is relevant is in my response a few posts back. There are objective answers to all these questions for people who can understand logic and basic vocabulary, which is the whole point of the OP. Did you read the original document all of this theoretically references?

Directly or indirectly, your document states "This maxim also applies to philosophy. This philosophy is the best philosophy because it leaves nothing out and yet is simple enough for ordinary people to understand."

So, I have a question that I don't see addressed: What is the purpose of understanding?

It's in there. It would have been better to stop by a writer's forum first, but they wouldn't be able to help me organize anything because they're not philosophers. :/

The purpose of knowledge, understanding, fact, truth, etc. is actionable certainty.

...I decided to check that and there's a placeholder for it but the text isn't fleshed out. I'll work on that now. It's also referenced as actionable truth, actionable purpose, etc. That's why i'm here, to get this sort of thing ironed out. Thx.

To summarize, the purpose of all knowledge is certainty and the purpose of all certainty is prediction and the purpose of all prediction is actionability. Even certainty for peace of mind can't stand alone. It must inform our daily activity to be meaningful as we are fundamentally embodied beings. I need to add more about embodiment to the self & consciousness section, probably.

[Skepdick]

It's in there. It would have been better to stop by a writer's forum first, but they wouldn't be able to help me organize anything because they're not philosophers. :/

The purpose of knowledge, understanding, fact, truth, etc. is actionable certainty.

Most philosophers would object to speaking about "actionable" anything.

To summarize, the purpose of all knowledge is certainty and the purpose of all certainty is prediction and the purpose of all prediction is actionability.

And the purpose of action is... ?

Even certainty for peace of mind can't stand alone. It must inform our daily activity to be meaningful as we are fundamentally embodied beings. I need to add more about embodiment to the self & consciousness section, probably.

Certainty sure is a commodity. Or humans would love it to be anyway.

As far as I can tell peace of mind comes after you accept that certainty is an unattainable goal. Death and taxes.

[Atla]

Don't you think 'philosophy' should at least attempt to figure out why we humans are here?

[Advocate]

>Most philosophers would object to speaking about "actionable" anything.

I concur. They miss the connection between forest and trees.

>Certainty sure is a commodity. Or humans would love it to be anyway.
>As far as I can tell peace of mind comes after you accept that certainty is an unattainable goal. Death and taxes.

I'm a little sad you didn't say "you humans" - missed opportunity.

Certainty is an unattainable goal as it's normally understood because the line between the immediate/local/personal/contingent and Actuality is deeply understood by almost everyone, perhaps even especially philosophers. (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... y_X2Kbneo/) Absolute certainty is only available in very proscribed circumstances to those of us with an intimate acquaintance with logic. Actionable certainty is available to anyone with common sense, which is a low-resolution, practical application of logic (and as such, can be mis-applied to deleterious effect like any tool).

There is a bit in The Whole Story about how words that reference the transcendent (perfect certainty for example) are only placeholders. This is why certain Enough is the answer to epistemology, and metaphysics - even the most elemental objects of our metaphorical understanding of the material universe, "things", are subject to "according to purpose".

The fact that facts or things are contingent does not mean they are arbitrary. "Certain enough" is always what certain means, just like "nothing" always means the lack of something specific. Actionability, the purpose of certainty, is relative to the three basic contingencies - salience, perspective, and priority. Simple priorities don't require much certainty. If something is extremely salient to you, logic is the furthest thing from part of your equation. If your perspective disallows admittance of certain facts that seem inevitable to others, what creates actionable certainty for you will be very different than for them.

You can be Certain that this understanding of certainty answers the most philosophical questions possible because it's logically necessary. The proof otherwise would be to find any other example of a story (in the larger sense) or definition of certainty (for example) that answers more philosophical questions than these.

[Advocate]

Don't you think 'philosophy' should at least attempt to figure out why we humans are here?

"Yes, but."
The "why" problem is a big one. There are many levels of possible explanation for any event. "Why did the sun rise?" Is it because that's what we use the words to mean or because of the physical/causal nature of the universe? Most "why" questions are really "how" questions which can only be answered, eventually, by physics as we increase the resolution of our instruments. Why are we here? On a species level, because stuff happened. On an individual level, whatever you choose. Meaning isn't a group thing and is only meaningful in a group context as an average.

There's no general why. There's no reason we're here as a species, and the reasons we're here as individuals isn't subject to anyone else's reasons. Meaning is an advanced complexity of the basic avoid/approach mechanism that all animate objects exhibit. The closest thing to why WE are here must be the consensus prerequisites for all the personal, individual, bespoke goals. We all need to create a peaceful and abundant society in order to maximize the potential of our individual desires.

This brings us to the is/ought problem. How we ought to collectively approach remaking the world in our image requires understanding both how things are (actionable certainty) and how we want them to be (contingent actionability). IF we want society X, THEN we ought to behave as Y.

If you grok the dynamics between external, individual, and group "why"s, the rest clears up simply. There are at least two non-related purposes to philosophy, What Is (truth wisdom) is a prerequisite for what should be (practical wisdom, intent, motive, desire, priority, etc.). Most philosophers jump right to ethics, to the detriment of everyone, especially themselves.

The meaning of life is that everyone must choose the answer to that question for themselves. No one else can write your story. Why this particular human is here is to be fulfilled in making everything perfect (a direction, not a destination) for everyone. Why i was here before i chose my own meaning of life, you'd have to ask the people who put me here because i didn't have a purpose of my own - it's probably something to do with ego and ignorance.

[Atla]

There's no general why. There's no reason we're here as a species

How do you know that? To me, and I'm far from alone on this one, attempting to find this general why (if there is one) is what 'philosophy' is mainly about. That's why last time I tried to get you into the fine-tuned universe problem, into the mindblowing improbability of human existence in general, and yet here we are.

[Belinda]

There's no general why. There's no reason we're here as a species

How do you know that? To me, and I'm far from alone on this one, attempting to find this general why (if there is one) is what 'philosophy' is mainly about. That's why last time I tried to get you into the fine-tuned universe problem, into the mindblowing improbability of human existence in general, and yet here we are.

Or you could ask "Why not?"

[Advocate]

There's no general why. There's no reason we're here as a species

How do you know that? To me, and I'm far from alone on this one, attempting to find this general why (if there is one) is what 'philosophy' is mainly about. That's why last time I tried to get you into the fine-tuned universe problem, into the mindblowing improbability of human existence in general, and yet here we are.

The original contention is that this set of understandings best answers all philosophical questions, not that it's the only answer. If you understand meaning to exist beyond minds, we're not talking the same language, Meaning, as i understand it, is mind-bound. It cannot be otherwise because it's a mind-created concept. The universe doesn't have a mind in any way relevant to our discussion here, nor does Gaia, nor the internet, nor imaginary alien species, To attribute meaning to them is to extend the meaning of the word beyond what we can verify or justify. (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... y_X2Kbneo/) clarifies that distinction. That which is beyond our current logic and instruments is beyond our knowing. That's called Actuality. What is understandable to us is Reality, and that's the bubble within which meaning has meaning.

Since meaning is a mind-bound concept (and how can it be otherwise?) and humans are the only beings to have minds capable of that level of complexity (as far as we know), meaning can only be individual or average. There is no group mind.

The incredible improbability of human existence pre-supposes external meaning. If we're happenstance, any random occurrence is equally as likely as any other. Only if some mind intended us to turn out this way could it be meaningful that it did. It is not meaningful that the dots on your ceiling are in that particular pattern because no one cares. To the dots it might be an unimaginably complex arrangement but to us, even if it was that, it wouldn't matter. In other words, the kind of being that exists on a scale so much different than ours must also have a vastly different avoid/approach mechanism relative to ours and the word meaning wouldn't apply in any recognisable manner anyway.

Everything all around us is unimaginably complex. The full answer to the fine-tuning question is that we are fine-tuned to the universe, not the reverse, and it's a ridiculously ego-centric position to think otherwise. If we weren't exactly as the universe requires, we wouldn't be here to talk about it. That's not magical.

[Advocate]

There's no general why. There's no reason we're here as a species

How do you know that? To me, and I'm far from alone on this one, attempting to find this general why (if there is one) is what 'philosophy' is mainly about. That's why last time I tried to get you into the fine-tuned universe problem, into the mindblowing improbability of human existence in general, and yet here we are.

Or you could ask "Why not?"

Sometimes you have to let the tail wag the dog to show how it doesn't work so well.

[Atla]

There's no general why. There's no reason we're here as a species

How do you know that? To me, and I'm far from alone on this one, attempting to find this general why (if there is one) is what 'philosophy' is mainly about. That's why last time I tried to get you into the fine-tuned universe problem, into the mindblowing improbability of human existence in general, and yet here we are.

Or you could ask "Why not?"

What "Why not"?