the all true philosopers problem

[Skepdick]

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?

Neither.

This "standard" is a fallacy since it dismisses just about all of analytic philosophy. Logical/mathematical analysis is effectively decomposition - "tearing the metaphorical universe apart". Skepticism and analysis/reductionism share a great overlap.

[Advocate]

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



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.

Not assuming anything is great and i can/have/do build my philosophy all the way up from The Cogito, but as for believing, there's justified belief, which is necessary for existing, and there's unjustified belief, and there's a way of understanding the scale between them.

I admit to an ulteriour motive. You don't communicate in a way i believe serves you well in typical society and i'm interested to uncover how your thought process works relative to common people's normal ways of communicating and particularly priorities. But that's psychology, not philosophy.

[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?

Neither.

This "standard" is a fallacy since it dismisses just about all of analytic philosophy. Logical/mathematical analysis is effectively decomposition - "tearing the metaphorical universe apart". Skepticism and analysis/reductionism share a great overlap.

Logic and math are both languages and languages are descriptive. They're simply restating ideas in a more specific form. We have ample deconstruction to understand and fix all of society's problems already in ordinary definitions and thought experiments. Unless they can show the application of their alchemy to ordinary life, i'd say they're missing one side of their boat. Sure there's such a thing as a true philosopher, because there's such a thing as a false philosopher. That's just logic.

[Skepdick]

Logic and math are both languages and languages are descriptive.

That's not true. Logic is prescriptive, not descriptive.

That's just logic.

That's just an appeal to authority.

Sure there's such a thing as a true philosopher, because there's such a thing as a false philosopher.

Q.E.D you are appealing to a logic which prescribes the law of excluded middle

Why are you appealing to this particular logic when there are logics which don't prescribe LEM?

[Age]

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.

Not assuming anything is great and i can/have/do build my philosophy all the way up from The Cogito,

In just a very few words, what is 'The Cogito', to you?

but as for believing, there's justified belief, which is necessary for existing,

Is this an actual, indisputable fact, or, just what you believe is true?

If it is the former, (to you), then what, so called, "justified belief" do ALL new born human babies have, and what "justified beliefs" do ALL existing things have, for that matter?

and there's unjustified belief, and there's a way of understanding the scale between them.

And what is 'that way', EXACTLY?

I admit to an ulteriour motive. You don't communicate in a way i believe serves you well in typical society and i'm interested to uncover how your thought process works relative to common people's normal ways of communicating and particularly priorities.

I communicate in very specific ways, for very specific reasons, here in this forum. These reasons will become crystal clear, soon enough.

The way I communicate, here in this forum, is serving me perfectly well. See, I am NOT here for what you would expect, assume, or nor for what you believe I am here for.

If you think or believe that this forum is a 'typical society', then 'you' and 'I' have two very different versions of a 'typical society'.

Also, if you are REALLY interested to uncover how my thought process works relative to, so called, "common" people's, so called, "normal" ways of communicating and particular priorities, then I suggest you just ask me some clarifying questions in regards to what exactly 'it' is that you want to uncover, and know.

By the way, the way I communicate outside of this forum is completely and utterly different than the way I do within this forum. But then again I am in this forum for completely different reasons and purposes than the ones I am outside of this forum.

Also, adult people's 'particular priorities' is something I oppose and which I am in the process of alleviating.

But that's psychology, not philosophy.

So, why bring it up here, in this forum?

To me, by the way, EVERY thing is intertwined. So, if one was Truly wanting to look for or formulate a theory of Everything, then they NEED to LOOK AT and DISCUSS ALL things, relatively, in order to SHOW how EVERY thing is related together as thee True One Everything. And, if and when they can actually do this, then they are actually REVEALING thee True One Everything, and not just making up just another version or theory of Everything.

See, the very thing a person says what 'philosophy'' is, is related directly to 'psychology'. So, if you want to have a 'philosophical' discussion, properly and correctly, then you NEED to KNOW and UNDERSTAND who and what the "other" 'person' is, exactly, and that comes with KNOWING 'their' 'psychology'.

But, there may be a great deal more that needs to be explained to you, before you FULLY understand this. We will just have to wait, and see.

[Age]

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?

Neither.

This "standard" is a fallacy since it dismisses just about all of analytic philosophy. Logical/mathematical analysis is effectively decomposition - "tearing the metaphorical universe apart". Skepticism and analysis/reductionism share a great overlap.

Logic and math are both languages and languages are descriptive. They're simply restating ideas in a more specific form. We have ample deconstruction to understand and fix all of society's problems already in ordinary definitions and thought experiments. Unless they can show the application of their alchemy to ordinary life, i'd say they're missing one side of their boat. Sure there's such a thing as a true philosopher, because there's such a thing as a false philosopher. That's just logic.

What do the words 'true philosopher' actually mean, to you?

[Advocate]

[quote=Age post_id=470253 time=1599695449 user_id=16237]
[quote=Advocate post_id=469682 time=1599488151 user_id=15238]
[quote=Skepdick post_id=469675 time=1599479944 user_id=17350]

Neither.

This "standard" is a [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman]fallacy[/url] since it dismisses just about all of analytic philosophy. Logical/mathematical analysis is effectively decomposition - "tearing the metaphorical universe apart". Skepticism and analysis/reductionism share a great overlap.
[/quote]

Logic and math are both languages and languages are descriptive. They're simply restating ideas in a more specific form. We have ample deconstruction to understand and fix all of society's problems already in ordinary definitions and thought experiments. Unless they can show the application of their alchemy to ordinary life, i'd say they're missing one side of their boat. Sure there's such a thing as a true philosopher, because there's such a thing as a false philosopher. That's just logic.
[/quote]

What do the words 'true philosopher' actually mean, to you?
[/quote]

I'll set this one alongside "What is art?" Certain terms are better served by negative definition.

A true philosoper is not someone who is a mere skeptic. A true philosoper is not someone who starts with a desired conclusion. A true philosoper is not mundane (except when they're first getting started, of course). A true philosoper isn't merely interested in the history of philosophy and what other people have said.

On the positive side, A true philosoper attempts to account for cognitive biases and logical fallacies. A true philosoper produces useful answers. A true philosoper can parse hypotheticals effectively...

Each of these points is necessary but insufficient. There are many simpler definitions of philosoper that account for most of these things. It's not a specific enough term to define the with the precision you seen to require, nor does it need to be for any practical purpose.

[Harbal]

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?

Rest assured that no one will ever accuse you of corrupting the youth of Athens.

[Advocate]

[quote=Harbal post_id=470362 time=1599741268 user_id=9107]
[quote=Nick_A post_id=468222 time=1598485410 user_id=7881]
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?
[/quote]

Rest assured that no one will ever accuse you of corrupting the youth of Athens.
[/quote]

uhm.. this is the internet. Someone probably already has.

[Harbal]

uhm.. this is the internet. Someone probably already has.

Well I don't have personal experience of the youth of Athens, perhaps he doesn't have the common sense I am crediting him with.