the all true philosopers problem

[Advocate]

A skeptic tears the metaphorical universe apart. A philosopher puts it back together.

By this standard, all philosophers must be skeptics but very few skeptics will ever be a philosopher.

Is the standard accurate, pragmatic, necessary, sufficient?

[Advocate]

Likewise, whether you're a "true" philosoper must lie in whether you actively pursue it and whether you're a good one must depend on whether you succeed.

[Impenitent]

success is in the eye of the beholder

-Imp

[Advocate]

Sure, but what it can't be is Not answering a lot of meaningful questions, which is something most "philosophers" seem to accept as the status quo.

[Nick_A]

Sure, but what it can't be is Not answering a lot of meaningful questions, which is something most "philosophers" seem to accept as the status quo.

Leave meaningful questions alone and concentrate on appropriate questions of the day.

Meaningful questions are divisive and disruptive. They also serve to corrupt the youth of Athens. So unless you need to drink the hemlock my advice to you is to forget meaningful questions. They aren't appropriate and disturb the peace. Why would you want to do that?

[Advocate]

Sure, but what it can't be is Not answering a lot of meaningful questions, which is something most "philosophers" seem to accept as the status quo.

Leave meaningful questions alone and concentrate on appropriate questions of the day.

Meaningful questions are divisive and disruptive. They also serve to corrupt the youth of Athens. So unless you need to drink the hemlock my advice to you is to forget meaningful questions. They aren't appropriate and disturb the peace. Why would you want to do that?

Hemlock is my death of choice but i reckon i'll have to be pretty drugged up to not care about suffocation.

[Nick_A]

You seem to be interested in a theory of everything. It does require two impartial methods of knowing. Does this seem odd to you?

In our attempt to reconcile the inner and outer world, however, we do come up against a very real difficulty, which must be faced. This difficulty is connected with the problem of reconciling different 'methods of knowing'.

Man has two ways of studying the universe. The first is by induction: he examines phenomena, classifies them, and attempts to infer laws and principles from them. This is the method generally used by science. The second is by deduction: having perceived or had revealed or discovered certain general laws and principles, he attempts to deduce the application of these laws in various studies and in life. This is the method generally used by religions.. The first method begins with 'facts' and attempts to reach 'laws'. The second method begins with 'laws' and attempts to reach 'facts'.

These two methods belong to the working of different human functions. The first is the method of the ordinary logical mind, which is permanently available to us. the second derives from a potential function in man, which is ordinarily inactive for lack of nervous energy of sufficient intensity, and which we may call higher mental function This function on rare occasions of its operation, reveals to man laws in action, he sees the whole phenomenal world as the product of laws.

All true formulations of universal laws derive recently or remotely from the working of this higher function, somewhere and in some man. At the same time, for the application and understanding of the laws revealed in the long stretches of time and culture when such revelation is not available, man has to rely on the ordinary logical mind."

[Belinda]

A skeptic tears the metaphorical universe apart. A philosopher puts it back together.

By this standard, all philosophers must be skeptics but very few skeptics will ever be a philosopher.

Is the standard accurate, pragmatic, necessary, sufficient?

Not the case! Scepticism (Am 'skepticism) protects philosophy, and all other decisions. Scepticism means the sceptic selects the more reliable information from whatever array of info is at his disposal..

[PeteJ]

A skeptic tears the metaphorical universe apart. A philosopher puts it back together.

By this standard, all philosophers must be skeptics but very few skeptics will ever be a philosopher.

Is the standard accurate, pragmatic, necessary, sufficient?

I'd say a philosopher is a sceptic and is concerned with pulling the world apart and putting it back together.

[Age]

Sure, but what it can't be is Not answering a lot of meaningful questions, which is something most "philosophers" seem to accept as the status quo.

Leave meaningful questions alone and concentrate on appropriate questions of the day.

Meaningful questions are divisive and disruptive.

What you will find is that they are not at divisive and disruptive at all, after they have been answered properly and correctly.

When the actual True, Right, Accurate, and Correct Answers are learned, then you will SEE EXACTLY how they are NOT divisive NOR disruptive at all.

They also serve to corrupt the youth of Athens. So unless you need to drink the hemlock my advice to you is to forget meaningful questions. They aren't appropriate and disturb the peace. Why would you want to do that?

[Age]

You seem to be interested in a theory of everything. It does require two impartial methods of knowing. Does this seem odd to you?

In our attempt to reconcile the inner and outer world, however, we do come up against a very real difficulty, which must be faced. This difficulty is connected with the problem of reconciling different 'methods of knowing'.

Man has two ways of studying the universe. The first is by induction: he examines phenomena, classifies them, and attempts to infer laws and principles from them. This is the method generally used by science. The second is by deduction: having perceived or had revealed or discovered certain general laws and principles, he attempts to deduce the application of these laws in various studies and in life. This is the method generally used by religions.. The first method begins with 'facts' and attempts to reach 'laws'. The second method begins with 'laws' and attempts to reach 'facts'.

These two methods belong to the working of different human functions. The first is the method of the ordinary logical mind, which is permanently available to us. the second derives from a potential function in man, which is ordinarily inactive for lack of nervous energy of sufficient intensity, and which we may call higher mental function This function on rare occasions of its operation, reveals to man laws in action, he sees the whole phenomenal world as the product of laws.

All true formulations of universal laws derive recently or remotely from the working of this higher function, somewhere and in some man. At the same time, for the application and understanding of the laws revealed in the long stretches of time and culture when such revelation is not available, man has to rely on the ordinary logical mind."

For human beings to create another theory of a theory of Everything is just ANOTHER waste of time and energy for them.

To FULLY understand Everything, then all one just needs to do is just look at and see Everything as It Truly IS, which, by the way, is one of the most basic, simplest, and easiest things to do, especially considering that just doing this is the most basic natural thing to do.

[Advocate]

You seem to be interested in a theory of everything. It does require two impartial methods of knowing. Does this seem odd to you?

In our attempt to reconcile the inner and outer world, however, we do come up against a very real difficulty, which must be faced. This difficulty is connected with the problem of reconciling different 'methods of knowing'.

Man has two ways of studying the universe. The first is by induction: he examines phenomena, classifies them, and attempts to infer laws and principles from them. This is the method generally used by science. The second is by deduction: having perceived or had revealed or discovered certain general laws and principles, he attempts to deduce the application of these laws in various studies and in life. This is the method generally used by religions.. The first method begins with 'facts' and attempts to reach 'laws'. The second method begins with 'laws' and attempts to reach 'facts'.

These two methods belong to the working of different human functions. The first is the method of the ordinary logical mind, which is permanently available to us. the second derives from a potential function in man, which is ordinarily inactive for lack of nervous energy of sufficient intensity, and which we may call higher mental function This function on rare occasions of its operation, reveals to man laws in action, he sees the whole phenomenal world as the product of laws.

All true formulations of universal laws derive recently or remotely from the working of this higher function, somewhere and in some man. At the same time, for the application and understanding of the laws revealed in the long stretches of time and culture when such revelation is not available, man has to rely on the ordinary logical mind."

For human beings to create another theory of a theory of Everything is just ANOTHER waste of time and energy for them.

To FULLY understand Everything, then all one just needs to do is just look at and see Everything as It Truly IS, which, by the way, is one of the most basic, simplest, and easiest things to do, especially considering that just doing this is the most basic natural thing to do.

OK, do you mean that in the Buddhist sense or the common sense or some other sense? Many completing ideologies claim the universe is basically simple of you can just understand it properly, mine included. The difference lies in logical necessity.

[Age]

You seem to be interested in a theory of everything. It does require two impartial methods of knowing. Does this seem odd to you?

For human beings to create another theory of a theory of Everything is just ANOTHER waste of time and energy for them.

To FULLY understand Everything, then all one just needs to do is just look at and see Everything as It Truly IS, which, by the way, is one of the most basic, simplest, and easiest things to do, especially considering that just doing this is the most basic natural thing to do.

OK, do you mean that in the Buddhist sense or the common sense or some other sense?

I mean that in the sense that it is written in. That is; The most purest basic Natural sense.

Many completing ideologies claim the universe is basically simple of you can just understand it properly, mine included. The difference lies in logical necessity.

The Universe, Itself, is NOT "basically simple". It is JUST, basically, very simple AND easy to understand.

Understanding the Universe, Itself, IS SO SIMPLE. This is because of what thee Universe actually IS, and because of how thee Universe actually works.

Also, NO human 'idea' is needed, especially considering what thee actual Truth IS speaks for Its Self, anyway.

[Advocate]

For human beings to create another theory of a theory of Everything is just ANOTHER waste of time and energy for them.

To FULLY understand Everything, then all one just needs to do is just look at and see Everything as It Truly IS, which, by the way, is one of the most basic, simplest, and easiest things to do, especially considering that just doing this is the most basic natural thing to do.

OK, do you mean that in the Buddhist sense or the common sense or some other sense?

I mean that in the sense that it is written in. That is; The most purest basic Natural sense.

Many completing ideologies claim the universe is basically simple of you can just understand it properly, mine included. The difference lies in logical necessity.

The Universe, Itself, is NOT "basically simple". It is JUST, basically, very simple AND easy to understand.

Understanding the Universe, Itself, IS SO SIMPLE. This is because of what thee Universe actually IS, and because of how thee Universe actually works.

Also, NO human 'idea' is needed, especially considering what thee actual Truth IS speaks for Its Self, anyway.

I'm curious. Lots of people believe they understand the simple truth, but none of them talk as if everyone else already concurs. How does that work out for you? What is the expected v. actual response for that style of speech?

[Age]

OK, do you mean that in the Buddhist sense or the common sense or some other sense?

I mean that in the sense that it is written in. That is; The most purest basic Natural sense.

Many completing ideologies claim the universe is basically simple of you can just understand it properly, mine included. The difference lies in logical necessity.

The Universe, Itself, is NOT "basically simple". It is JUST, basically, very simple AND easy to understand.

Understanding the Universe, Itself, IS SO SIMPLE. This is because of what thee Universe actually IS, and because of how thee Universe actually works.

Also, NO human 'idea' is needed, especially considering what thee actual Truth IS speaks for Its Self, anyway.

I'm curious. Lots of people believe they understand the simple truth, but none of them talk as if everyone else already concurs.

I also do not talk as if everyone, in the days of when this is being written, already concurs that they already understand the simple truth.

I talk about how, within EVERY one, the ability and the capacity to discover and/or learn, and understand, the VERY SIMPLE Truth is there.

How does that work out for you?

I do NOT talk as you ASSUME I do. So, 'that', WRONG ASSUMPTION, does neither works nor does not work out for me,

What is the expected v. actual response for that style of speech?

The expected AND actual response for my style of speech is; You WILL ASSUME things.

The expected AND actual response, from me, for your response is; If you REALLY want to find or learn what thee actual Truth of things IS, then do NOT ASSUME or BELIEVE absolutely ANY thing at all.