solving philosopy

[Advocate]

If philosophy is stalled despite many years of all the aspects of a problem being understood, it's probably because the answer was already found but most philosophers aren't smart enough to understand it. There is only one true and correct answer to any problem given sufficiently specific starting conditions, however many ways there are to approach it or phrase it.

[surreptitious57]

Philosophy is a methodology for understanding reality so is not something that has to be solved
The specific role of philosophy is to make sure that the right types of questions are being asked

The right types of questions lead to answers that produce a deeper understanding of reality as perceived by us
However this understanding is fundamentally a subjective one since none of its answers can be truly objective
As metaphysics which is the philosophical study of reality is not that sufficient for said answers to be universal

They may be logical but in order to be true they have to be demonstrable as well but this is simply not possible
In this respect philosophy is not as rigorous a discipline as science or mathematics which are far more accurate

[Advocate]

Philosophy is a methodology for understanding reality so is not something that has to be solved
The specific role of philosophy is to make sure that the right types of questions are being asked

The right types of questions lead to answers that produce a deeper understanding of reality as perceived by us
However this understanding is fundamentally a subjective one since none of its answers can be truly objective
As metaphysics which is the philosophical study of reality is not that sufficient for said answers to be universal

They may be logical but in order to be true they have to be demonstrable as well but this is simply not possible
In this respect philosophy is not as rigorous a discipline as science or mathematics which are far more accurate

Just like science, philosophy is also a body of knowledge and in particular, questions that are widely considered unsolved or unsolvable.

No answers can be "truly objective" only because true objectivity does not exist. Neither does any other version of infinity in any way that's relevant to us. All such ideas are beyond us by definition as they cross the line of transcendence (ideas that venture into territory we can neither explore by science because it is out of reach, or by logic because there is not sufficient empirical information to apply the logic to.). But answers can be certain Enough, "for all intents and purposes".

Answers in philosophy can be demonstrated by thought experiment and when applied to real world choices that involve the point. Just because philosophical ideas aren't empirical doesn't mean they can't be tested.

I understand philosophy includes many methodologies. Which is the one you're referencing?

[surreptitious57]

I only meant philosophy as a methodology in a general sense in
the same way that science and mathematics are methodologies

[PeteJ]

If philosophy is stalled despite many years of all the aspects of a problem being understood, it's probably because the answer was already found but most philosophers aren't smart enough to understand it.

I feel this view is justifiable but a little unfair. However smart one is one cannot invent the true nature of Reality. This has to be a discovery or the report of one.

The problem is really just poor scholarship and an unwillingness to study the whole of philosophy. As you say, the answer was found long ago.

[Skepdick]

No answers can be "truly objective" only because true objectivity does not exist. Neither does any other version of infinity in any way that's relevant to us. All such ideas are beyond us by definition as they cross the line of transcendence (ideas that venture into territory we can neither explore by science because it is out of reach, or by logic because there is not sufficient empirical information to apply the logic to.). But answers can be certain Enough, "for all intents and purposes".

Which is why you can't "solve philosophy" (for all), but you can "solve philosophy" (for yourself).

Others will (naturally) reject your "solution".

[Advocate]

If philosophy is stalled despite many years of all the aspects of a problem being understood, it's probably because the answer was already found but most philosophers aren't smart enough to understand it.

I feel this view is justifiable but a little unfair. However smart one is one cannot invent the true nature of Reality. This has to be a discovery or the report of one.

The problem is really just poor scholarship and an unwillingness to study the whole of philosophy. As you say, the answer was found long ago.

I would think that any thinker who really has their head on straight would recognize the simple truth when it was presented, as you say. In a philosophy forum, for example, the truth must be presented many times in many ways and that person would have ample opportunity to root on it. Then again, most people are wrong and most philosophers are people.

The Seed of The Answer was found long ago but the pieces weren't all put together. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... y_X2Kbneo/

[Advocate]

No answers can be "truly objective" only because true objectivity does not exist. Neither does any other version of infinity in any way that's relevant to us. All such ideas are beyond us by definition as they cross the line of transcendence (ideas that venture into territory we can neither explore by science because it is out of reach, or by logic because there is not sufficient empirical information to apply the logic to.). But answers can be certain Enough, "for all intents and purposes".

Which is why you can't "solve philosophy" (for all), but you can "solve philosophy" (for yourself).

Others will (naturally) reject your "solution".

There is a contingent side and a non-contingent side (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... y_X2Kbneo/) The Solution is the story that ties them together and explains their relationship to one another. The contingencies for the "spiritual"/metaphorical side of things are salience, perspective, and priority.

[PeteJ]

Which is why you can't "solve philosophy" (for all), but you can "solve philosophy" (for yourself).

Others will (naturally) reject your "solution".

If it is a solution then it cannot be rejected on grounds of logic or experience.

[Skepdick]

If it is a solution then it cannot be rejected on grounds of logic or experience.

It can be rejected on any grounds. If you run out of grounds to reject it on, then reject it on aesthetics alone - I don't like your solution!
Least you insist aesthetics is not valid philosophical grounds.

The burden of rejection is significantly lighter than the burden of proof.

But lets not pretend that philosophy has any clear notion of what a "solution" would even look like. Least we solve the problem of criterion by accident.

[Skepdick]

The Solution is the story that ties them together and explains their relationship to one another.

Given finite evidence, an infinite number of stories "ties them together and explains their relationship to one another".

This is underdetermination at play.

[Advocate]

If it is a solution then it cannot be rejected on grounds of logic or experience.

It can be rejected on any grounds. If you run out of grounds to reject it on, then reject it on aesthetics alone - I don't like your solution!
Least you insist aesthetics is not valid philosophical grounds.

The burden of rejection is significantly lighter than the burden of proof.

But lets not pretend that philosophy has any clear notion of what a "solution" would even look like. Least we solve the problem of criterion by accident.

The discussion about what the best world view would look like is an open one but it's a foolish endeavor to say there is no such thing just because it's hard to define, or that it's not worth troubling about despite being literally the root of everything that solves all problems. tiny.cc/TheWholeStory includes a section specifically about this because it is a necessary part of the conversation. The "burden of rejection" cannot be so low that it rejects the most valid answer to a given question posed or it's not just rejection, it's inherently counter-productive rejection - a very different thing than the ordinary use of the word.

[Skepdick]

The discussion about what the best world view would look like is an open one but it's a foolish endeavor to say there is no such thing just because it's hard to define

It is foolish to endeavour such things because of induction.

What would it take for the best world view to bested?

The "burden of rejection" cannot be so low that it rejects the most valid answer to a given question posed or it's not just rejection, it's inherently counter-productive rejection - a very different thing than the ordinary use of the word.

OK. Then it's counter-productive. And I still reject it.

Your best is just not good enough.

[Advocate]

The Solution is the story that ties them together and explains their relationship to one another.

Given finite evidence, an infinite number of stories "ties them together and explains their relationship to one another".

This is underdetermination at play.

Don't be ridiculous. The amount of information you're trying to play off as limited is vastly more than any individual can comprehend and is for philosophical purposes indistinguishable from infinite. It is not limited relative to how much someone can reasonably do with it in their short life-span, which is the problem that a solution rectifies. There are infinite possible stories that explain some minor part of the universe, obviously. That's also obviously not what we're discussing here. "The Solution" ties them ALL together.. That's the contention, and it holds up.

Under-determination isn't relevant but the solution explains why it's not. It's not relevant because there will always be missing information and there's no way to know IF you are under-determining until after the fact. In the moment if you had Reason to believe you were under-determining you'd look for more information. In other words, it is a concept that attempts to incorporate future hypotheticals. This is the same problem with "justified true belief". The "true" part can't be known with the evidence available or there would be no question of validity to be discussed.

Or to dismiss it from a different perspective, we have to work with what we've got. Saying an answer is insufficient for Any purpose because it does not account for unknown unknowns is absurd. Only by knowing whether those unknowns actually exist can you know if they're effectively accounted for.

This variety of problem deals with the line of transcendence: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... y_X2Kbneo/

[Advocate]

The discussion about what the best world view would look like is an open one but it's a foolish endeavor to say there is no such thing just because it's hard to define

It is foolish to endeavour such things because of induction.

What would it take for the best world view to bested?

The "burden of rejection" cannot be so low that it rejects the most valid answer to a given question posed or it's not just rejection, it's inherently counter-productive rejection - a very different thing than the ordinary use of the word.

OK. Then it's counter-productive. And I still reject it.

Your best is just not good enough.

It's nothing to do with me. If you'd judge a solution based on it's ability to answer questions, that's the proper criteria. Anything else really isn't doing philosophy. And no, before you say it, any random answer cannot be "the ability to answer questions" in this context. Stop being so particular. It's not helpful.