here's why i'm the legitimate owner of the universe

[attofishpi]

But certainly, one from the UK that has viewed Ancasta can never look at the UK weather on BBC again without the thought of my rather simple art:
(ps: I know because 'sane' people tell me)

Ancasta

Hmmm, various anatomical questions present themselves...

Did her tits fall off?
Why does she have T-Rex arms growin out of her hips?
Is she in a hidden wheelchair?
What happened to the Orkney's? Have you given them away to Denmark?
Can somebody buy that woman a hairbrush please.

Is Ireland a baby that she's throwing into the ocean?
Did she drop the baby because her arms are not attached to her shoulders?

lol
Yes to all of the above.

ALSO: Interesting that MAN_CHEST_ER and LIVER_POOL are in approximately the correct area..

[Age]

Here's a breakdown of the areas i in which i can answer everything coherently;

•Ontology = the most basic understanding of our place in the universe
•Mereology = how parts and wholes relate, Universal Taxonomy
•Meta-philosophy = how philosophy should be divided and understood in relation to all knowledge
•Metaphysics = all of the deepest "what is the nature of x" questions, also a general term for everything on this list
•Proto-physics = the metaphysics of physical things, metaphors for time, space, energy, matter, etc.
•Meta-epistemology = the metaphysics of knowledge, truth, certainty, etc.

slightly less certain, but probably still best;
•Meta-ethics = the metaphysics of right and wrong, how to understand what we want, and how to get it

Who and/or WHAT is 'we'?

What do 'we' want?

How do 'we' GET what 'we' WANT?

[FlashDangerpants]

Here's a breakdown of the areas i in which i can answer everything coherently;

•Ontology = the most basic understanding of our place in the universe
•Mereology = how parts and wholes relate, Universal Taxonomy
•Meta-philosophy = how philosophy should be divided and understood in relation to all knowledge
•Metaphysics = all of the deepest "what is the nature of x" questions, also a general term for everything on this list
•Proto-physics = the metaphysics of physical things, metaphors for time, space, energy, matter, etc.
•Meta-epistemology = the metaphysics of knowledge, truth, certainty, etc.

slightly less certain, but probably still best;
•Meta-ethics = the metaphysics of right and wrong, how to understand what we want, and how to get it

Is there any portion of philosophy where you are not the greatest of all time?

Academic Philosophy <spit> and Practical Wisdom.

Let's play devil's advocate for a second... suppose just for the sake of argument, that rather than being the greatest philosopher of all time, you had some sort of narcissitic personality instead. In that case, and just for the sake of argument, might you not think you were the greatest, even if you were writing bumper sticker level bland junk?

[Iwannaplato]

Is there any portion of philosophy where you are not the greatest of all time?

Academic Philosophy <spit> and Practical Wisdom.

Let's play devil's advocate for a second... suppose just for the sake of argument, that rather than being the greatest philosopher of all time, you had some sort of narcissitic personality instead. In that case, and just for the sake of argument, might you not think you were the greatest, even if you were writing bumper sticker level bland junk?

Or we could even tone that down a notch. Not saying one should. But I think setting the bar low is appropriate.
Is it possible that Advocate 1) lacks knowledge about the wide range of philosophically saavy people in the world, so when he says he is the best, he is actually comparing himself to the small range of people, likely most online in forums, he has encountered 2) might be influenced in this one area of his self-evaluation with some confirmation bias. IOW he has a lot of motivation to overestimate his strengths, as do most people, and to underestimate his weaknesses. He need not be an allround narcissist, but perhaps is making a smidge of a self-serving error in this one part of his life.

And does he know any other best in the world in any category that have not gotten some kind of general OR expert recognition/feedback for their bestness?

Can he think of any example of someone who is the best in the world at anything, who has not gone through some rigorous evaluation process of any kind?

I am not limiting this in the least to academic evaluation, but perhaps the evaulation of peers or clients or customers or anyone at all.

[FlashDangerpants]

Academic Philosophy <spit> and Practical Wisdom.

Let's play devil's advocate for a second... suppose just for the sake of argument, that rather than being the greatest philosopher of all time, you had some sort of narcissitic personality instead. In that case, and just for the sake of argument, might you not think you were the greatest, even if you were writing bumper sticker level bland junk?

Or we could even tone that down a notch. Not saying one should. But I think setting the bar low is appropriate.
Is it possible that Advocate 1) lacks knowledge about the wide range of philosophically saavy people in the world, so when he says he is the best, he is actually comparing himself to the small range of people, likely most online in forums, he has encountered 2) might be influenced in this one area of his self-evaluation with some confirmation bias. IOW he has a lot of motivation to overestimate his strengths, as do most people, and to underestimate his weaknesses. He need not be an allround narcissist, but perhaps is making a smidge of a self-serving error in this one part of his life.

And does he know any other best in the world in any category that have not gotten some kind of general OR expert recognition/feedback for their bestness?

Can he think of any example of someone who is the best in the world at anything, who has not gone through some rigorous evaluation process of any kind?

I am not limiting this in the least to academic evaluation, but perhaps the evaulation of peers or clients or customers or anyone at all.

Interesting questions. I think I can asnwer one. We know that he does indeed grant himself medals for victory over problems he never understood. This muchg was evident when he assumed that the "no true Scotsman" thing was some argument that there is no such thing as a Scotsman and went on a crazy ride with that. viewtopic.php?t=30289 So I get the big fish small pond issue, but I wonder where he found a small pond full of people discussing philosophy, yet none of them knew the incredibly famous Scotsman thing?

I believe his motivation to overestimate his own talents goes beyond basic overconfidence or even Dunning–Kruger stuff. I've seen his "grok" threads, and the spreadsheet he claims answers every question of logic and metaphysics. If he thinks those are works of genius he must think that anything he does is the product of his spectacular excellence. They belong on greetings cards.

[Advocate]

[quote=FlashDangerpants post_id=673363 time=1697442042 user_id=11800]
[quote=Advocate post_id=673301 time=1697407456 user_id=15238]
[quote=FlashDangerpants post_id=673255 time=1697391685 user_id=11800]

Is there any portion of philosophy where you are not the greatest of all time?
[/quote]

Academic Philosophy <spit> and Practical Wisdom.
[/quote]
Let's play devil's advocate for a second... suppose just for the sake of argument, that rather than being the greatest philosopher of all time, you had some sort of narcissitic personality instead. In that case, and just for the sake of argument, might you not think you were the greatest, even if you were writing bumper sticker level bland junk?
[/quote]

It's the fault of society that no one will take an evidence-based approach to my contentions, not mine. The evidence is all on the table. Examine the ideas instead of me and maybe you'll get somewhere. Until then your discontention will appropriately fall on deaf ears. If my contentions hold water its not narcissism to say so, but if they don't, I'm still the best phosphorylate in here, because none of you lot apparently have the ability to rationally dissect an argument. It's truly remarkable how many responses to my posts include issues that are already addressed in the OP. Add in straw man and ad hominem and what's left isn't a discussion much less a refutation.

[FlashDangerpants]

Academic Philosophy <spit> and Practical Wisdom.

Let's play devil's advocate for a second... suppose just for the sake of argument, that rather than being the greatest philosopher of all time, you had some sort of narcissitic personality instead. In that case, and just for the sake of argument, might you not think you were the greatest, even if you were writing bumper sticker level bland junk?

It's the fault of society that no one will take an evidence-based approach to my contentions, not mine. The evidence is all on the table. Examine the ideas instead of me and maybe you'll get somewhere. Until then your discontention will appropriately fall on deaf ears. If my contentions hold water its not narcissism to say so, but if they don't, I'm still the best phosphorylate in here, because none of you lot apparently have the ability to rationally dissect an argument. It's truly remarkable how many responses to my posts include issues that are already addressed in the OP. Add in straw man and ad hominem and what's left isn't a discussion much less a refutation.

As I was asking though ..... . suppose just for the sake of argument, that rather than being the greatest philosopher of all time, you had some sort of narcissitic personality instead.... would you not hold exactly the same conviction that you were the greatest of all time that you do happen to hold?

[Advocate]

[quote=Iwannaplato post_id=673379 time=1697452305 user_id=3619]
[quote=FlashDangerpants post_id=673363 time=1697442042 user_id=11800]
[quote=Advocate post_id=673301 time=1697407456 user_id=15238]


Academic Philosophy <spit> and Practical Wisdom.
[/quote]
Let's play devil's advocate for a second... suppose just for the sake of argument, that rather than being the greatest philosopher of all time, you had some sort of narcissitic personality instead. In that case, and just for the sake of argument, might you not think you were the greatest, even if you were writing bumper sticker level bland junk?
[/quote]
Or we could even tone that down a notch. Not saying one should. But I think setting the bar low is appropriate.
Is it possible that Advocate 1) lacks knowledge about the wide range of philosophically saavy people in the world, so when he says he is the best, he is actually comparing himself to the small range of people, likely most online in forums, he has encountered 2) might be influenced in this one area of his self-evaluation with some confirmation bias. IOW he has a lot of motivation to overestimate his strengths, as do most people, and to underestimate his weaknesses. He need not be an allround narcissist, but perhaps is making a smidge of a self-serving error in this one part of his life.

And does he know any other best in the world in any category that have not gotten some kind of general OR expert recognition/feedback for their bestness?

Can he think of any example of someone who is the best in the world at anything, who has not gone through some rigorous evaluation process of any kind?

I am not limiting this in the least to academic evaluation, but perhaps the evaulation of peers or clients or customers or anyone at all.
[/quote]

1) I do have that knowledge, which is irrelevant. I gave a list of criteria my philosophy can meet which no one else can. Either attack the criteria or show how my philosophy can't meet them or you have nothing meaningful to say about the worth of my philosophy, which is a prerequisite for evaluating my worth as a philosopher..

[Advocate]

[quote=FlashDangerpants post_id=673395 time=1697461195 user_id=11800]
[quote=Iwannaplato post_id=673379 time=1697452305 user_id=3619]
[quote=FlashDangerpants post_id=673363 time=1697442042 user_id=11800]

Let's play devil's advocate for a second... suppose just for the sake of argument, that rather than being the greatest philosopher of all time, you had some sort of narcissitic personality instead. In that case, and just for the sake of argument, might you not think you were the greatest, even if you were writing bumper sticker level bland junk?
[/quote]
Or we could even tone that down a notch. Not saying one should. But I think setting the bar low is appropriate.
Is it possible that Advocate 1) lacks knowledge about the wide range of philosophically saavy people in the world, so when he says he is the best, he is actually comparing himself to the small range of people, likely most online in forums, he has encountered 2) might be influenced in this one area of his self-evaluation with some confirmation bias. IOW he has a lot of motivation to overestimate his strengths, as do most people, and to underestimate his weaknesses. He need not be an allround narcissist, but perhaps is making a smidge of a self-serving error in this one part of his life.

And does he know any other best in the world in any category that have not gotten some kind of general OR expert recognition/feedback for their bestness?

Can he think of any example of someone who is the best in the world at anything, who has not gone through some rigorous evaluation process of any kind?

I am not limiting this in the least to academic evaluation, but perhaps the evaulation of peers or clients or customers or anyone at all.
[/quote]
Interesting questions. I think I can asnwer one. We know that he does indeed grant himself medals for victory over problems he never understood. This muchg was evident when he assumed that the "no true Scotsman" thing was some argument that there is no such thing as a Scotsman and went on a crazy ride with that. viewtopic.php?t=30289 So I get the big fish small pond issue, but I wonder where he found a small pond full of people discussing philosophy, yet none of them knew the incredibly famous Scotsman thing?

I believe his motivation to overestimate his own talents goes beyond basic overconfidence or even Dunning–Kruger stuff. I've seen his "grok" threads, and the spreadsheet he claims answers every question of logic and metaphysics. If he thinks those are works of genius he must think that anything he does is the product of his spectacular excellence. They belong on greetings cards.
[/quote]

You excel at creating straw men and attacking them as though they're me or my ideas, but they're not. The claims you said i've made are not the claims i've made, so you definitely don't understand my work. However, it is absolutely true that i've answered everything in metaphysics, and if you can't recognize the value of that, you're no philosopher at all.

[FlashDangerpants]

Or we could even tone that down a notch. Not saying one should. But I think setting the bar low is appropriate.
Is it possible that Advocate 1) lacks knowledge about the wide range of philosophically saavy people in the world, so when he says he is the best, he is actually comparing himself to the small range of people, likely most online in forums, he has encountered 2) might be influenced in this one area of his self-evaluation with some confirmation bias. IOW he has a lot of motivation to overestimate his strengths, as do most people, and to underestimate his weaknesses. He need not be an allround narcissist, but perhaps is making a smidge of a self-serving error in this one part of his life.

And does he know any other best in the world in any category that have not gotten some kind of general OR expert recognition/feedback for their bestness?

Can he think of any example of someone who is the best in the world at anything, who has not gone through some rigorous evaluation process of any kind?

I am not limiting this in the least to academic evaluation, but perhaps the evaulation of peers or clients or customers or anyone at all.

Interesting questions. I think I can asnwer one. We know that he does indeed grant himself medals for victory over problems he never understood. This muchg was evident when he assumed that the "no true Scotsman" thing was some argument that there is no such thing as a Scotsman and went on a crazy ride with that. viewtopic.php?t=30289 So I get the big fish small pond issue, but I wonder where he found a small pond full of people discussing philosophy, yet none of them knew the incredibly famous Scotsman thing?

I believe his motivation to overestimate his own talents goes beyond basic overconfidence or even Dunning–Kruger stuff. I've seen his "grok" threads, and the spreadsheet he claims answers every question of logic and metaphysics. If he thinks those are works of genius he must think that anything he does is the product of his spectacular excellence. They belong on greetings cards.

You excel at creating straw men and attacking them as though they're me or my ideas, but they're not. The claims you said i've made are not the claims i've made, so you definitely don't understand my work. However, it is absolutely true that i've answered everything in metaphysics, and if you can't recognize the value of that, you're no philosopher at all.

Lies. You made this post saying you had fixed the no true scotsman problem....

a) There is such a thing as a false Scotsman
b) There is such a thing as a true Scotsman
c) The end

If you had a grounding in philosophy you wouldn't have posted any such thing.
If you weren't a narcissist you would have admitted the error and learned from the mistake.

You only ever double down on your mistakes though.

[Advocate]

[quote=FlashDangerpants post_id=673419 time=1697465497 user_id=11800]
[quote=Advocate post_id=673409 time=1697463681 user_id=15238]
[quote=FlashDangerpants post_id=673395 time=1697461195 user_id=11800]

Interesting questions. I think I can asnwer one. We know that he does indeed grant himself medals for victory over problems he never understood. This muchg was evident when he assumed that the "no true Scotsman" thing was some argument that there is no such thing as a Scotsman and went on a crazy ride with that. viewtopic.php?t=30289 So I get the big fish small pond issue, but I wonder where he found a small pond full of people discussing philosophy, yet none of them knew the incredibly famous Scotsman thing?

I believe his motivation to overestimate his own talents goes beyond basic overconfidence or even Dunning–Kruger stuff. I've seen his "grok" threads, and the spreadsheet he claims answers every question of logic and metaphysics. If he thinks those are works of genius he must think that anything he does is the product of his spectacular excellence. They belong on greetings cards.
[/quote]

You excel at creating straw men and attacking them as though they're me or my ideas, but they're not. The claims you said i've made are not the claims i've made, so you definitely don't understand my work. However, it is absolutely true that i've answered everything in metaphysics, and if you can't recognize the value of that, you're no philosopher at all.
[/quote]
Lies. You made this post saying you had fixed the no true scotsman problem....

[quote=Advocate post_id=469683 time=1599488299 user_id=15238]
a) There is such a thing as a false Scotsman
b) There is such a thing as a true Scotsman
c) The end
[/quote]

If you had a grounding in philosophy you wouldn't have posted any such thing.
If you weren't a narcissist you would have admitted the error and learned from the mistake.

You only ever double down on your mistakes though.
[/quote]

Fixed it? No. That can only happen in the minds of those who actually read and understand the point. The No True Scotsman Fallacy is itself a Fallacy because there is Actually such a thing as a true Scotsman. That's not even slightly related to this post, however, so take it over there where it belongs.

[Advocate]

Since y'all are kindergarden philosophers, let me spell it out for you. Here are the ways you might Legitimately attempt to overcome my prima facae argument:

a) legitimate ownership cannot reasonably extend beyond the physical possibility of actual ownership
b) there are some criteria for best philosophy that most be met which are not on your list
c) there is another philosophey that can meet all those criteria
d) there is a better philosopher by some other set of criteria that is more reasonable

None of those will pass muster but since none of you apparently has the ability to rationally deconstruct an argument anyway, i'll leave you to your ramblings.

I remain, faithfully yours, The Best Philosopher and Legitimate Owner of The Universe

[Atla]

Should we tell him that there are others out there, who also have this instrumentalist skeleton of philosophy worked out roughly to the same degree that he has? This whole thing that he keeps in an Excel table and opened grok-threads about.

It's just that no one bothered to write it all down, because what would be the point? There isn't anything remarkable/outstanding in it anywhere. It's kinda like a universal ChatGPT summary.

[FlashDangerpants]

Since y'all are kindergarden philosophers, let me spell it out for you. Here are the ways you might Legitimately attempt to overcome my prima facae argument:

a) legitimate ownership cannot reasonably extend beyond the physical possibility of actual ownership
b) there are some criteria for best philosophy that most be met which are not on your list
c) there is another philosophey that can meet all those criteria
d) there is a better philosopher by some other set of criteria that is more reasonable

None of those will pass muster but since none of you apparently has the ability to rationally deconstruct an argument anyway, i'll leave you to your ramblings.

I remain, faithfully yours, The Best Philosopher and Legitimate Owner of The Universe

e) philosophy at any quality level whatsoever grants ownership of nothing because it has nothing to do with owning things.
f) your work is garbage, your spreadsheet is childish, and your output doesn't meet the requirements to even be bad philosophy, let alone the best ever.

[Advocate]

[quote=Atla post_id=673439 time=1697469475 user_id=15497]
Should we tell him that there are others out there, who also have this instrumentalist skeleton of philosophy worked out roughly to the same degree that he has? This whole thing that he keeps in an Excel table and opened grok-threads about.

It's just that no one bothered to write it all down, because what would be the point? There isn't anything remarkable/outstanding in it anywhere. It's kinda like a universal ChatGPT summary.
[/quote]

If there are, i haven't been able to find them in years of scouring the internet. I have several excel tables and various documents which present the information in various ways. That's not a negative.

A coherent set of answers to everything in metaphysics is mundane and not worth writing down? Get real, my dude. No one else is capable of it, not least of which is because no one else has meta-philosophy right.

Many have expounded most of it, like Kant, but none have done it as coherently or as completely.

As for AI, i've worked with a number of them and they're not intelligent largely because they're only fancy parrots. Still, the coherence of a typical AI philosophy conversation exceeds that of most people who call themselves philosophers. If one would be allowed to remember what it's told i could make it the second best philosopher.

Do yourself a favour. Instead of instantly trying to figure out i'm wrong, try to figure out how and why I'm right. Or not. Your loss.