I had this thought as I was going to sleep just now, and I was going to post it in another thread, but maybe I’ll just post it here.

Before I even knew what philosophy was, I was looking for something. Something fundamental. I didn’t know what to call it.

When I discovered philosophy, I thought that that field was the place where I would find what I was looking for, and that that was the name of what I was looking for: a philosophy. The right one.

I didn’t find it. But I found lots of partial attempts at it, and partially successful attempts at it, and generally, altogether, most of the parts of it. They just needed to be shaped and polished a bit, assembled together in the right way, and a few gaps filled in.

That’s what my book is meant to be: the thing I came to philosophy looking for, but never found. And it’s targeted at people like me from 20 years ago, who are looking for the same thing I was, and who have just learned that something called “philosophy” is where something like that may be found, but don’t yet know the first thing about it.

I still get the impression that most people here aren't interested in the same kind of big-picture philosophy-as-a-whole thing that my interest is all about. — Pfhorrest

That's interesting. Could you say what sort of interaction would indicate that people were interested in 'big-picture philosophy-as-a-whole' stuff? I mean, there's hundreds of posts here on all sorts of different topics ranging from the origins of the universe to some specific quote in a particular academic text. I'm finding it very hard to understand what you could mean by interest in 'big-picture philosophy-as-a-whole' stuff that wouldn't fall somewhere in that spectrum.

Things that aren’t just somewhere on that spectrum, but about the spectrum itself in its entirety.

Sorry if I'm being a bit slow, still not sure if you're talking about about meta-philosophy, or an attempt to tackle the entirety of philosophical investigation in one go.

A little of both. Why are language, math, art, being, purpose, knowledge, justice, mind, will, education, governance, and the meaning of life all topics of one thing, “philosophy”? How and why are they related? That kind of thing.

Have you tried writing a post on the topic yourself? (I tend to follow a very narrow range of threads so I may well have missed it).

A valuative question in my view. Can anything trump Hedonism? Most people are probably here because it makes them happy in some way or another and this brings to my mind the question that I haven't found an answer to which is this: do things have value because they make us happy or do they make us happy because they have value?

Does the value of philosophy lie only in the happiness we derive from it or does philosophy have a value that isn't just about how much happiness we derive from it?

The answer matters because if Hedonism is true then philosophy is just another path to happiness, neither better nor worse than any other activity that affords hēdonē. Only if Hedonism is false can we hope to provide an answer different to "I'm here because it gives me pleasure" and, if my suspicions are anywhere near the mark, you seek an answer different.

Ever tried.
Ever failed.
No matter.
Try again.
Fail again.
Fail better.” — 180 Proof

Something is taking its course.

Clov

Why are language, math, art, being, purpose, knowledge, justice, mind, will, education, governance, and the meaning of life all topics of one thing, “philosophy”? — Pfhorrest

I tend to think of philosophy as pre-science.

I notice that you don’t have a chapter in your book dedicated to metaphysics, incidentally.

Only if Hedonism is false can we hope to provide an answer different to "I'm here because it gives me pleasure" and, if my suspicions are anywhere near the mark, you seek an answer different. — TheMadFool

My question is what is it that you find pleasurable here, whether that be intrinsic or instrumental.

↪A Seagull Or maybe because you're traumatized and broken inside and fundamentally incapable of enjoying things that should be intrinsically enjoyable. — Pfhorrest

Yes well that is tragic. People need to fix themselves. But following flawed philosophies and believing lies is not going to help.

I notice that you don’t have a chapter in your book dedicated to metaphysics, incidentally. — praxis

The chapter on ontology is most of what I would write about metaphysics, though other chapters also touch on metaphysical things. I also don’t properly have just one chapter on ethics, but rather several chapters on ethical subtopics.

My question is what is it that you find pleasurable here, whether that be intrinsic or instrumental. — Pfhorrest

This query, although well formulated and dives right into the crux of the issue, can't be answered in a satisfactory manner.

Why?

Imagine I answer your question by confessing that I derive pleasure from philosophy's emphasis on logic. Now, that might seem like a perfectly reasonable answer but notice that the questioning can continue: what is pleasurable about logic? I might then reply by saying that logic is pleasurable to me because it keeps me in touch with reality. This might seem like the end of the interrogation but unfortunately, no, it isn't and the next question is: what about being in touch with reality is pleasurable? As might be obvious to you now, there's no last item in this endless series of hedonistic questions and one might as well decide to block this infinite hedonistic regress by answering the first (your) question with "I just feel happy when I do philosophy and that's that. Ok!"

There is indeed an infinite regress there, and that is precisely why the normative equivalents of justificationism would be absurd; there is likewise a similar infinite regress about beliefs that makes epistemic justificationism equally absurd. But nevertheless, it still makes sense to wonder what it is about something that makes it seem good to you (or makes it seem true to you). You may not have an answer, but if you do then I’ve learned more about the details of your thoughts by asking.

The connections between the different parts of philosophy, the structures and symmetries within it, was in turn the most interesting part of philosophy to me, and getting a better and more detailed understanding of that big picture of philosophy as a whole, and its relation to other fields, was the most interesting part of studying philosophy in college. — Pfhorrest

Perhaps what you are working on is a comprehensive philosophical WorldView. I created a website to present my thesis of the "big picture", which I called Enformationism, as a counterpoint to the two most common modern worldviews : A> Spiritualism and B> Materialism. Like you, I have found that few people have the interest and the patience to read it from problem statement, to hypothesis, to supporting arguments, to summary thesis. Instead, they skim it and quickly get an impression that it's a weird idea, and doesn't fit into their own view (either A or B), then quickly opt out.

Ironically, it's both A & B. Regardless of its lack of popular appeal though, the thesis has served its primary purpose : to organize a clear picture in my own mind of how & why the world works as it does, and its relationship to me. This is a replacement for the basically Spiritualist perspective of my religious training, and the Materialist cosmology of my scientific learning. Anyway, I'm still motivated to develop that thesis by interfacing with others focused more on the tiny bits & pieces of philosophy : such as "whether chairs exist". :nerd:

Yeah I was excited to see you had a similar project when I first got here, and even seem to take a similar approach of trying to combine the good aspect and leave out the bad aspect of two opposing camps. I took a look into it a bit a while back and think I saw too much that I disagreed with on the broad level to bother reading more deeply into it. But I like that you’re doing that kind of project and I kind of expected that more people would be too, that such project would be the equivalent of the big mods popular in the video game fandom I mentioned before, would have their supporters and collaborators and such. But it seems like this community really isn’t into such projects.

My purpose here is to show you guys that you would philosophize a lot better if your comments were accompanied with songs.

:cool:

@Pfhorrest@Gnomon

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/8190/collaborative-criticism

why are we, the readers of this forum, here, on this forum — Pfhorrest

I'm here to learn about other ideas and expose my ideas criticism. I don't state my ideas just to look at myself write. I expect someone to read it and come up with questions that I haven't asked myself, and then attempt to answer them or change my ideas. Criticizing your own ideas is difficult, especially when you have an emotional attachment to them. We all need help in hammering out our ideas with constructive criticism. Yes, interactions on this forum and the previous one is the reason some of my ideas have evolved. It seems like too many people are on this forum to do the exact opposite, which isn't philosophy. It's more akin to political propaganda and religious proselytizing.

why are we, the readers of this forum, here, on this forum? — Pfhorrest

There are certain specific themes and directions of thought that I find most interesting. I like to compare my perspectives with those of others. I'm not so interested in debating issues. My approach tends to be quite holistic and inter-disciplinary, so I may suggest consideration of a new salient dimension to a problem.

I especially like the forum as a way to discover areas and philosophers I may have overlooked; and to motivate me to undertake challenges. Reading Karl Popper has been an awakening for me. I read The Critique of Dialectical Reason as a result of tiddling online dispute. I'm taking on Das Kapital because of a thread proposing a close-reading group of the text. Stuff like that.

Edit. I guess on reflection, the sense of belonging to a community of like-minded individuals. Even people with diametrically opposed viewpoints to mine presumably share my passion, in some way. That in itself is an interesting philosophical paradox I think.

I have found that few people have the interest and the patience to read it from problem statement, to hypothesis, to supporting arguments, to summary thesis. — Gnomon

The funny thing is, having googled ‘Enformationism’ and briefly skimming the results, that this appears to be your basic modus operandi. It makes me wonder why someone would construct a WorldView with only a cursory glance at well established views. The short answer, I suspect, is that you’re trying to fool people for some kind of material gain. I say material gain because clearly you couldn’t fool academics.

The funny thing is, having googled ‘Enformationism’ and briefly skimming the results, that this appears to be your basic modus operandi. It makes me wonder why someone would construct a WorldView with only a cursory glance at well established views. The short answer, I suspect, is that you’re trying to fool people for some kind of material gain. I say material gain because clearly you couldn’t fool academics. — praxis

Enformation is also mentioned by John Collier. Is Dr. Collier and Gnomon one and the same? I doubt it.

What philosophical views are "well established"?

The short answer, I suspect, is that you’re trying to fool people for some kind of material gain. I say material gain because clearly you couldn’t fool academics. — praxis

Ha! You just proved my point in the sentence following the quote : "Instead, they skim it and quickly get an impression that it's a weird idea, and doesn't fit into their own view (either A or B), then quickly opt out." :cool:

Ha, ha! If I spend so much time on the Enformationism project in order to make money (material gain), I'm a profound failure, and an abject fool. Please don't quote me on that. :joke:

Ha, ha, ha! The Enformationism welcome page specifically indicates that it is not intended to be a typical academic paper on some well-documented philosophical doctrine : "I am neither a scientist, nor a philosopher, so the arguments herein carry no more authority or expertise than those of anyone else with an interest in such impractical musings. This is intended to be an open-ended thread, because it’s a relatively new and unproven concept, and because the ideas presented here are merely a superficial snapshot of what promises to be a whole new way of understanding the world : philosophically, scientifically, and religiously." :nerd:

I am neither a scientist, nor a philosopher, so the arguments herein carry no more authority or expertise than those of anyone else with an interest in such impractical musings. — Gnomon

You're essentially saying that you don't have more authority than scientists or philosophers. You're not saying that you have less. Nothing wrong with that of course, besides the false modesty.

You just proved my point in the sentence following the quote : "Instead, they skim it and quickly get an impression that it's a weird idea, and doesn't fit into their own view (either A or B), then quickly opt out." — Gnomon

I went to a subject that I'm currently interested in when I visited one of your websites. It did not express a desire to really understand the subject. I'll characterize it as a half-ass effort to dismiss a competing idea to your "weird idea," whatever that is. I have no idea of what your weird idea is.

Enformation is also mentioned by John Collier. Is Dr. Collier and Gnomon one and the same? I doubt it.
What philosophical views are "well established"? — Harry Hindu

I'm not familiar with John Collier (sci-fi writer??). Where can I find his erroneous spelling of Information with an "E". Google doesn't show any connection between Collier and "Enformation". Was there any particular significance to the misspelling?

I chose that spelling in part because the term "Informationism" was already out there as a reference to ideological propaganda. And partly because of the connection between Information and Energy, as in my neologism, EnFormAction. :smile:

Enformation : Obsolete form of "information".
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/enformation

EnFormAction : "the neologism contains three parts : “En” for Energy, “Form” for Shape or Structure or Design, and “Action” for Change or Causation".
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html

PS__Apparently, praxis has a philosophical view that is "well-established", and Enformationism ain't it. :wink:

I have no idea of what your weird idea is. — praxis

You could say that Enformationism is a 21st century version of ancient Platonism (metaphysics) combined with Aristotelianism (physics).

Enformationism :
As a scientific paradigm, the thesis of Enformationism is intended to be an update to the obsolete 19th century paradigm of Materialism. Since the recent advent of Quantum Physics, the materiality of reality has been watered down. Now we know that matter is a form of energy, and that energy is a form of Information.
As a religious philosophy, the creative power of Enformationism is envisioned as a more realistic version of the antiquated religious notions of Spiritualism. Since our world had a beginning, it's hard to deny the concept of creation. So, an infinite deity is proposed to serve as both the energetic Enformer and the malleable substance of the enformed world.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

What philosophical views are "well established"? — Harry Hindu

I'm interpreting the thrust of your question to be something like 'what philosophies are generally accepted?' Generally speaking, established views are generally accepted.

What's weird about a form of idealism?