Wu.

I ended up joining the words sui - oneself and vita - life , in the same way suicide is compiled, cide meaning death or to kill.
Noster means "we".

Yes, markets do provide a way to compare what is otherwise seemingly uncomparible.
Another way which is quite hard to implement right now... though in the tech age... who knows?... is through measuring how much closer you get to be to some objective by owning whatever it is you seek to measure. We already do this somewhat but the process is one which relies heavily on intuition (which can certainly be honed).

.

.

What would you think of a Universe that is made up of questions? Questions are not as dusty or unreliable as we deem them. We do rely on questions... we do rely on thought.
It is already solid to us.
Why would we deny this question-Universe as our Universe? Because it is not seen as one of our own. So we deny it, just because it is not seen?! But it is seen to you and is all that can ever be seen by you. So you gather the strength to change so that you may pick a different Universe, because you don´t want to recognize the Universe you are in, is the Universe in you.

In the absence of understanding people resort to beliefs. — 4thClassCitizen

A belief need not be baseless. In fact... it´s never baseless - The base may not, however, be a foundation over which someone well acquainted with logic would be willing to use as his own.

I think, we are in principle never going to be in a position to see the answer to our question. — InfiniteZero

With the exception of the type of case presented below, I too think it would be silly to use the same point from which the question came from to answer it. But one can move and that is what I am trying to get at here - an algorithm that gets you from a question to an answer or at least to the smallest range of answers that would all be possible according to the framework provided my the presuppositions the question carries with it. Other questions may indirectly aid in shortening even further this range.
The idea of "seeing an answer" is basically just saying that the answer is obvious from the point which we perceive. That point, I posit, should be a universal algorithm if we want to use it to answer a question. As for the algorithm itself I have a few ideas but they seem too basic to be useful by their collective selves.

The question is asked from a position that demands an answer that does not and cannot exist in the same position the question was asked from. — InfiniteZero

That is actually not true. For example the question - "What does it mean to mean?" Already speaks from a perspective from which the answer is knowable at least in the form of "That's what it is". If you wish to discuss that particular question, or a few other questions that relate to this topic, consider going to the following thread: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/3980/what-prevents-us-from-seeingknowing-the-truth - You may also discuss that question here.

I think the means is learning because by gaining more knowledge we inevitably expand our beliefs. — BrianW

Yes... new answers do aid in seeing the world from a different perspective. But then ... so do questions - A question you are trying to answer might just force you to move somewhere where you are not - or maybe you don´t even need to try to answer it in order to move away. Do you think that is simply because questions already provide a base of presuppositions we end up standing on?

I think you've got a good topic here - at least as I read it. — tim wood

I have been told the idea as is expressed is not very clear, and by making that remark, you to make me again ponder about how to make it clearer. Do you have any suggestions?

Is there any forceful idea that leads, pushes, and guides to a greater and more comprehensive world-view? — tim wood

Indead. I suggest that the idea expounded by this model of human identification, might just be that forceful idea that leads, pushes and guides, or is at least a necessary framework for the wannabe traveler...

It is interesting that you bring about a question that contains in it the knowledge of the answer - "what actually is". Those who know the content of U.G Krishnamurti´s words, will be pleased to see some of his truth laying bare in your words.

Use the Pimsleur approach - spanish for english speakers. You can pirate it away on piratebay. I know portuguese, english and russian.

This question assumes that nothing is. How can nothing be? You are using the verb "to be" towards a not-subject which is neither a he, she nor it. Why would you be able to do that? Figuratively speaking, sure. You can get space to walk around you, the moon to extend its non existent arm of light, and the wind to whisper, but when asking a philosophical question, it makes no sense.

Before you define a term you have not yet worded, do you not have a feeling of what that something is?

We are bound to end up in some circular set of definitions. As Allan Munn puts it in his amazing physics exposition book "From Nought to Relativity":
"A dictionary definition is an analytic reduction of some not understood complex concept to more fundamental ones that are assumed to be so basically simple that they are well known to everybody."
These "simple" ideas, are only said to be simple because of the ease of access one has to them, not because they are easy to define. Time, space, objects (physical) - are such "simple" ideas.
Our integrated experience of these concepts shapes our feeling towards what this or that concept is, at least when we call upon our selves to define said concept.
Circular definitions are a problem philosophers face, but an inescapable one. As Munn himself demonstrates, if you go far enough, you will always be using terms you´ve used before, to define the term you are yet to fully define.
Circular definitions may be a solution towards making a world picture that holds itself together. It might be strange for us to fathom, but what is, is, and that is that. Is there an actual logical objection to this?

Yes! Yes! Yes! Thank you for expressing words which were basically in my mouth a few years ago. I am trying to get back on the philosophy horse, as my world picture has been shattered by years of neglect :(. But you are right, I believe. Predictions about the beliefs or "subjectivity" of others, should be able to be made accordingly, if one had access to all information.
Not fact or opinion, just opinion, and it has immense relevance for this discussion.

It is a problem if you are trying to have a discussion with someone and they keep throwing the word or the idea of "subjectivity" as a way to keep the discussion indiscussible - if one is to get to any conclusion (even if such a conclusion has if´s and but's.). I believe that the idea of subjectivity is at the heart of the reason why philosophy is regarded as a waste of time.

How can´t you have objectivity without subjectivity?

Abstraction is necessary to tackle all different concrete problems at once. Examples give us a "maybe it won´t work on others?", pile of doubt.

You don´t have a feeling that guides your argument? The thoughts you experience cannot come out verbalized. Who is feeding you this structured information?

it is not necessary to have experiences of walking on the moon in order to be allowed or able to talk about it. — jkop

But you need at least the experience of thinking/feeling (I have yet to know wether there is true difference between the two) how it would be like to walk on the moon before you activelly talk about it.

don't you already know what people mean when they say that something exists? — SophistiCat

Kind of... But that is one of the key ideas which make this question pointy... That is - questioning what you seem to think you have a grasp of. There is certainly a feeling that I do. I want to understand this feeling better. Would you consider joining in on my other discussion regarding this feeling? http://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/957/what-is-the-rawest-form-of-an-idea-how-should-one-go-about-translating-it-into-language#Item_5

I am talking about the experience one has before one´s own sentence is created. That feeling which allows you to start and finish a sentence.

If pretty much everyone, as appears to be the case, already uses the word "exist" so that it applies to things that do not have a clear location, then what's the point of this exercise? — SophistiCat

I agree that such is the convention. But what do those who use and defend the convention mean when they say that something exists?

A few years back I was in love with philosophy. I was strict in my unwillingness to have any, and I mean ANY, uninteresting conversation. A combination of reasons forced me (deterministically speaking) to stop.
So no, I am not new to this.
I do not understand how this can be a wrong question. I admit the implicit assumption and am open to discussing it. Would you care to elaborate?

Why do you assume I think that

truth exists in the same way that tables do — intrapersona

? All I am attempting to defend is the view point that for anything to exist, then it must exist in the same way as tables do. I am therefore arguing towards the non-existance of truth . You seem to be doing the same when you state that

truth can only exist within the mind — intrapersona

. I would say that about true propositions, not about truth. There is a true proposition which tells you the number of stars in this Universe. But does the truth about the number of stars in the Universe exist? Where would lay bare such a truth?

Than in what world "are" they?

Within the area occupied by the brain. I could be more specific but you might start arguing that in a way it is the hole brain that ends up having the idea.
If it doesn´t have a place/set of places than how can you argue that it "is"? What would it mean to "be" in that way which truth "is" to you?

Can you nail down precisely where your own thought were, when you made this post?
No I can not. I can give you a speculation of the general region of space in which my thoughts were contained. Can you do the same for truth?