An entity is just an existing object, so effecting this change would make no difference either way to the argument. — Alvin Capello

You need to clarify your definition of "object" here. an existing object that is either spatial, or non-spatial; but we cannot equate them in terms of identity because they have different logical forms.

What do you mean by spatially extended here? If it means extended in an independently subsisting spatial reality, then the object is not an idea, thus this would not be coherent with idealism. If you mean existing in the spatial faculty of the mind, then the object is indeed an idea, and thus an existing object (or an 'entity', if you prefer). Leading into your next point, viz. — Alvin Capello

when i say that an object is spatially extended, I mean that it has volume, and when i say that an object is not spatially extended, I mean that it does not have volume. According to my understanding, volume is contingent upon perception; meaning that there is no independently existing spatial reality. However, the answer here is a little more complicated because space implies geometry and geometry implies space, or rather, the idea of space.

According to idealism, objects are sensible concepts, some objects do not exist because contradictions can exist as concepts, or rather, objects of awareness, but they cannot become actualized as spatially extended objects.


This means that, because sensible concepts are entities (according to idealism), even if the sensible concept is not spatially extended, it still exists as a sensible concept,and thus it still exists. And since all objects are sensible concepts, as you claim, then all objects exist. But many objects do not exist. Therefore, we must reject the notion that all objects are sensible concepts. — Alvin Capello

the sensible concept itself is not spatially extended, but through geometry and mathematics, it somehow appears to be. it's not the case that, if a concept exists in the absolute mind, that it must become actualized in space as a sensible concept relative to a perceiving subject. what keeps concepts in the mind of the absolute from being sensible concepts in relation to perceiving subjects is intentionality. This is a very important point in regards to your argument. All objects that exist, exist, but not all objects exist in the spatial sense; only those that are willed to exist in a spatial sense, exist. A good analogy here is action vs. thought. Do al thoughts have to become actions in the world? No. Just the same, not all concepts must become sensible concepts.

All ideas and minds are existing objects, according to idealism. — Alvin Capello

You need to change this to "entity" as opposed to "object." According to idealism, not all objects are spatially extended objects; meaning that there are both spatially extended objects and objects that are not spatially extended.

According to idealism, there is one mind that contains all other minds as subsets within itself, they are not, mutually exclusive, as it were, and they are not independent or self-existent, but contingent.

According to idealism, objects are sensible concepts; and some objects do not exist, or rather, cannot exist, because contradictions can exist as concepts (i.e. objects of awareness), but they absolutely cannot become actualized as spatially extended objects. This is the reason for your misunderstanding.

Of course, there are many different versions of idealism, but there is only one correct version. I will be releasing the book on it soon. I have found a method that essentially makes philosophy into a science, and allows us to ascertain all the questions concerning metaphysics which have hitherto remained unanswered.

A thought: idealism, or the role of the mental in constructing (our?) reality, seems inevitable once you spend enough time philosophizing. — Pneumenon

this is true, although, this forum isn't exactly teaming with critical thinkers, so most here will probably disagree. unfortunately, today, most who have degrees in philosophy are postmodernists or empiricists and thereby have about as much knowledge about ontology as the uneducated laymen. it's almost impossible to have a conversation with them because once you ask them to give support for their presuppositions, they no longer want to discuss the topic.

Capitalism, as the dominant economic system, is not responsible for all the problems that one has with one’s partner... — Borraz

I'm saying that the problem lies in greed, not in capitalism, for greed is prior to capitalism in the sense that capitalism is an effect of greed and not the other way around. I have no partner, nor any problems with a partner. Not everything is reducible to sex.

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. [Santayana] — Borraz

Whats even worse is those who are ignorant of history altogether.The problem is that the greedy capitalists have developed an interest in philosophy in order to control the perception of the masses. This is the only way in which the few can control the many. Capitalism is only rational if idealism is false and materialism is true. But of course, idealism is true, and this, I think, is the reason for the widespread popularity and institutional acceptance of postmodernism, which is shoved down the throats of academics from power structures above them.

I love how you think yourself to be a wise philosopher, but are the first and most likely to presume (i.e. make claims to truth that you cannot even begin to support).

Contemplate the shitpiles :eyes: — 180 Proof

some of us are living in heaven on earth, others are swimming in shit. Just because you're dead inside doesn't mean that others are.

Well, "world" (object), "the soul" (fiction) and "God" (fiction) abductively inferred from differentiating objects from fictions. — 180 Proof

The notion that the world is an object (presupposition), the notion that there is no soul (because you do not yet experience it) (presupposition), and the notion that there is no God (presupposition). Can you provide logical reasoning for your opinions? If not, they are no better than piles of shit.

"The a priori unchanging structures of the eternal aspect of existence"... The heaviest syntagm I've ever read. — Borraz

I don't assume them, I've developed my own philosophical system and method, and that method is rooted in self-evident truths that cannot be denied without contradiction. I am not a follower of Plato, or Kant, I am my own philosopher, and right now I am writing the book that will perhaps change philosophy forever, and this is because it is so far beyond all prior philosophy books that it professional philosophers will have to acknowledge its existence and comment on its ideas.

As far as I have read, in metaphysics one should not speak of first principles, but rather of first objects. That is, the world, the soul and God. — Borraz

The goal of metaphysics is to ascertain the a priori unchanging structures of the eternal aspect of existence, represent them using words and language, and then use them to build a system of philosophy that is true for all intelligent beings anywhere throughout all of time (i.e. a Perennial Philosophy); but of course, many philosophers today disagree, and this is why most today do not deserve the title.

This is just Einstein's philosophy. — Gregory

No. My philosophy and Einsteins philosophy are not the same. He thinks that time is solely relative, I think that time is both relative and absolute and that relative time is contingent upon absolute time.

This is just Einstein's philosophy. The source of the universe is and must be incomprehensible. — Gregory

ironically, to say that the source of the universe is in incomprehensible is to make an epistemological claim about the source of the universe.

Only nothingness therefore qualifies. — Gregory

I'm not sure what you're talking about, nothingness doesn't possess any potentiality at all and thus cannot contain, nor be the reason for the existence or source of anything because it can become and contain nothing other than nothing, but there is something, there is awareness,and thus there cannot be absolutely nothing. these are the basics of philosophy.

There is no unfathomable being or substance out there. — Gregory

the ground of being is fathomable because you can fathom yourself, and knowing isn't limited to what is immediately present, and the laws of logic extend their reach backwards in time into eternity.

All can be known. — Gregory

One cannot know the qualitative state of all entities in existence at the same time. Absolute knowledge is not possible.

Wouldn't the past then be the opposite of being? Which way does it go? Aren't we talking about source within a cyclic system? You don't know the first thing about philosophy. You're probably a Thomist or Aristotelian — Gregory

The past existed, the present exists, and the future will exist. The ground of being which contains and precedes all contingent beings (i.e. beings having a finite duration), persists in existing, and in doing so, makes time conceivable, through memory, awareness, understanding, and willing, of course. Time is not cyclic in this sense, but it is cyclic in another sense, that is, in terms of the relationship between the perceived object and the perceiving subject, in which case, there is necessarily a time dialation between them because the object as perceived is the object, as it was, and not as it is, meaning, that all objects of perception are of the past, in relation to awareness which exists in the absolute present, and both perception and causation flows from the present to the past, that is, from the Primary Present to the Secondary Present moment in time, and from the Absolute to the Relative.

I can't be classified as a follower of any philosopher. I've created my own system of philosophy.

Buddha knew only being's opposite can be the source of being. — Gregory

there is no opposite to being, in the present. the past and future are identical to non-being, that is to say, they do not exist, just the same as non-being.

There is no great mystery or secret about potentiality — Gregory

I know, all actuality is born of willing, and potentiality is identical to the essence of subjectivity itself. It's common sense.

Just edit one post, and quote the comment that you're referring too. stop spamming and talking to nobody.

↪TheGreatArcanum
Apparently, try as you might, you're not engaging with what I've actually written or my speculations (re: OP), so I'll leave it to you to sort out what you can or to not do so. — 180 Proof

Sorry, I'm not well versed in philosophical propaganda (i.e. postmodern philosophy). We're speaking different languages here.

"that which was not may be what it was" — Gregory

That which comes into existence, comes into existence by means of a bridge between potentiality and actuality. The question is whether the bridge between potential and actuality in our minds has the same essence as the bridge between potential and actuality in the world.

"Teleology" is an artifact of antiquated folk epistemology (pace Aristotle) refuted handily by the advent of Galilean-Cartesian-Newtonian mathematical physics, etc. — 180 Proof

I don't believe that they had the technology by in Galileo and Newton's day to prove that the will is contingent upon the Laws of Nature. Even still, it has not be shown empirically that the will is nothing but a mere effect of mechanical causes inside the brain.

Is not all chaos, controlled chaos, and thus bounded by order?

"Chaos" =|= randomness; the quote above refers to the latter not the former. — 180 Proof

What is randomness but controlled chaos? that is, chaos that possesses, not infinite possibilities, but finite possibilities only, that is to say that it is defined by some abstract a priori limited context.

Aren't all infinities bounded by some a priori set, or concept? — 180 Proof

eluctab — 180 Proof

Non sequitur. — 180 Proof

your non-sequitur is a non-sequitur

In a world of infinite randomness, how is that things in the world never become anything other than what they have the a priori potential to become? A seed can become a tree ...

I don't know what "infinite randomness" pertains to; my point is that there are random events and, as such, they are not bounded with respect to - encompassed by - reasoning (i.e. causal explanations (e.g. scientific modeling)), and therefore reason is, while indispensable, nonetheless insufficient (pace Leibniz, Hegel). — 180 Proof

How do you distinguish, logically, between that which is bounded by reason and that which is not?

Again, my point is that there are a class of events - random - that are unbounded with respect to reason (i.e. ineluctable). — 180 Proof

Can you show that this random class of events has infinite possibilities as opposed to only a finite number? That which is truly random cannot be limited in its randomness, otherwise it would then be presupposed by limitation, and since each entity is limited in a different way, that which limits on behalf of reason, right? Or are we operating under the presupposition here that randomness is eternal and existing necessarily? Do you have empirical proof for this assertion?

To say Spirit has substance is to be a pantheist — Gregory

this is not true, substance need not be spatial. to say that spirit is a substance is not to say that spirit is spatial, but this is what pantheism implies.

Why are you starting with truth? What is meant by 'truth'? — A Seagull

I am not starting with truth, but with the undeniable fact that I am self-aware, which is simultaneously an object of awareness and a truth. This is because truth and being are identical. Truth does not necessitate language, otherwise, the necessary truth "mind is necessary for language," is false.

This is convoluted. You deny the reality of irrational numbers, and thus don't believe in imaginary time as Hawking called it? "The spiritual" is nothingness because truth is nowhere. How much truth have you touched? — Gregory

I deny the existence of numbers in themselves that do not denote either a qualitative or essential aspect of being. in my philosophy, logic denotes being, math necessitates logic, and thus both being and logic precede mathematics. They have a contingent reality in the sense that they are mental abstractions, or rather, objects of memory and present awareness.

I don't know what imaginary time is. but I conceive of time as both relative and absolute.

The spiritual is not "nothingness," but identical to the unchanging structure of absolute being. The absolute makes its presence known at all times within me; never would I say something so blasphemous and ignorant experiencing the truth directly by means of the mystical union.

Who says? — Gregory

if there is a partial truth, it is still whole. all parts are wholes, this whole distinguishes them from other wholes, and also from the whole in which it is a part.

Order is in the eye of the beholder — Gregory

order is prior to the brain and thus the eye, and if this were not, it would be impossible for parts to become synthesized into wholes for a purpose. purpose implies reason, reason implies order.

Contingent upon contingency? Maybe — Gregory

no, the hierarchy of contingency is pyramidal shaped, not cylindrical.

But existentialism! — Gregory

is nonsensical.

That's a word game — Gregory

I'm talking about the ground of being, the non-spatial substratum in which all things exist, persist, originate from, and return to upon their apparent death. That's what the word "Existence," spelled with a capital 'E' denotes. It has nothing to do with semantics.

From nothing — Gregory

quite simply the difference between nothing and something is that something possesses the potential to become and nothing does not.

licit in this question is the assumption that philosophy has first principles. — A Seagull

each truth is contingent upon a higher truth, this is pretty much self-evident, for if there were not hydrogen atoms, nor oxygen atoms, there could not be H20, and thus neither water, nor ice, nor, nor water vapor, and of course, if there were no protons and electrons, there could be no atoms as such...the question is whether or not this chain of contingency is infinite or not. To say that there are no first principles is to say that the chain is infinite, and to say that there are first principles is to say that it is not. But of course, the number of truths that are necessary for each descendent truth in the hierarchy of contingency becomes less and less a we ascend upwards in the hierarchy of contingency, and since we dealing with wholes (i.e. all truths are wholes and not irrational numbers), the chain must end.

(B) the principle of insufficient reason (PIR), or random (i.e. acausal) events occur and are ineluctable (i.e. unbounded); — 180 Proof

How is it that you think teleology and acausality can co-exist? Is not all chaos, controlled chaos, and thus bounded by order? Aren't all infinities bounded by some a priori set, or concept? In a world of infinite randomness, how is that things in the world never become anything other than what they have the a priori potential to become? A seed can become a tree, and out of the tree, a fruit, and out of a fruit, another seed, but none of these things, without the interference of a subjective will, can become anything other than that, like for example, a pumpkin, or a home, etc...How is that you reconcile the ap priori orderliness and limitedness of Nature with the notion that all events are "unbounded" and "random?"

Philosophy is an engine powered by a usually unexplicated dynamic. The ground, then, of inquiry being unclear or entirely unseen, the inquiry itself is never complete.

The idea is that what something is depends on how it is perceived or taken. If that preliminary occurrence of perception/taking is not laid out and laid bare, then the entire process remains incomplete.

First activity, then, is the inquiry - the question, whatever it is. First principle should be a complete excavation of the ground of the question. In particular and especially not the furniture and immediate surroundings of the question, but instead its presuppositions and purposes. These latter, properly understood and examined, give the greatest chance for knowledge, and absent which, knowledge can only be accidental or incidental, or impossible — tim wood

Take a truth, any truth, and then ask yourself, what must first be true for it to be true, and keep going and going until you find an undeniable truth. When you find it, ask yourself, can this truth change and how? You claim that it can be changing, why? Because the world is changing? But is there not some underlying unchanging aspect that grounds it all? Isn't change contingent upon the lack thereof? Isn't all change for the purpose of that which changes not? Can Existence and Non-Existence both Exist and Not Exist at the same time and in the same respect? Is not the truth that "Existence is" (in the absolute sense), eternal? If not, whence did it come into being?

PNC is either rejected or violated in the works of many philosophers, e.g. Heraclitus, Kant, Hegel, Wittgenstein... There isn't much evidence to support the logical consistency of philosophy, especially in epistemology. — sime

There's a difference between using words to denote objects or relationships between objects in the world, and the objects and relationships between objects in themselves that those words represent. The Law of Non Contradiction is thought to be violated only because it can be shown that a contradiction in terms of the relationships between the symbols (i.e. words) that point the objects, can be true. This results for the false equivalence that the symbols that represent objects and the objects themselves are the same, or rather, have the same logical form which they do not. In an actualized sense, nothing can ever exist and not exist at the same and in the same respect. However, in a state of potentiality, the actualized possibility of x and -x exist at the same time and in the same respect, according to my philosophy anyways.

the problem is that you’re trying to use a priori truths as the foundation for an a posteriori system of philosophy (empirical realism), that is, for a school of thought that denies the existence of non-empirical truths. the problem with empirical realism is that the notion that ‘all truths have empirical justifications,’ has no empirical justification. the implications of your philosophy stop right here; only a fool would build a philosophy on top of a contradiction and call himself rational.

A first principle by its nature is supposed to be a necessary truth. So whatever a given philosophy takes to be first principles, it takes those to be necessary (and therefore eternal) truths. — Pfhorrest

It is supposed to be a necessary truth, but are there necessary truths that are not simply believed to be necessary, but necessarily necessary?

thought this thread was going to be about something much more interesting, and in case it actually is and I just don't see it in there — Pfhorrest

It could be more interesting, because I've found the First Principles, and could have posted them. but I want to see what others think.

I think those principles are:
- There are no unanswerable questions
- There are no unquestionable answers — Pfhorrest

Sure, but these are statements concerning epistemology; what about statements concerning ontology? Is epistemology contingent upon ontology, or is ontology contingent upon epistemology? Which is prior to which? Further, I am looking for necessary truths here, or rather, truths that are eternal, the truths that you posted are presuppositional. How are we supposed to know if there are unanswerable questions or not? Doesn't the truthiness of both this statement and the other (i.e. "there are no unquestionable answers") necessitate other truths and other questions? If they do, they are not general enough to be used as the First Principles of a Perennial Philosophy of Being.

that which creates change within itself or the world by means of its own volition. one cannot be alive and be without will; now there is a difference between a being that is aware that it is willing and a being which does not, a being can only have a subjectivity of its own if it is the active agent of its will and not the passive watcher of its own instinctual will. there are different levels of being alive, but the base level involves willing and subjectivity.

I mean that the second law of thermodynamics states that if the universe is a closed system, (purely physical) the total energy of the universe is finite and will run out eventually, and every physical cause expends energy, so the chain of physical causation (locality to locality) cannot be infinite...meaning that a non-spatial aspect to reality exists, in which, causation can act from non-locality to locality. the will can potentially act from non-locality to locality then.

If the will has any power at all it must be an actuality. So why not simplify all this to say that it is a non-physical actuality? — Metaphysician Undercover

that’s not necessary; and also not true because the actualized state of existence isn’t eternal.

The will is what is what I would call a process - similar to a central executive in an information processing system that utilizes working memory - and I would avoid using incoherent terms like "physical" and "non-physical". — Harry Hindu

the will is a process in the sense that its a bridge that connects potentiality and actuality; it has no real existence in itself, obviously, it's not an object; logically speaking, the will can be represented symbolically a subset of memory, meaning that the intentional process which converts potentiality to actuality in mind is born out of memory, and also, returns to memory, so really, the will involves two processes the instantiation of the will out of memory and potentiality into actuality, and the return of that actuality back into memory. using coherent terms like physical and non-physical is necessary, for either the will is born out of a prior state of actuality and therefore physicality, or it is born out of a prior state of potential and non-locality...and its freedom is entirely dependent upon whether it is born of actuality (actualized potentiality) or potentiality (unactualized potentiality).

Oh, sorry! You’re asking about ‘freewill’? No thanks :) — I like sushi

if the cause of your fear of freedom lies in some prior material cause(s) or perception, what was the nature of that cause? if you don’t know the nature of the cause for your fear of freedom, well then how can you say that it has a material cause? I think that you should observe what feelings of thoughts are prompted in your conscious mind when you’re asked about questions of freedom and transcendence, and God, and then ask why they are happening and if what your initial unconscious says is true or not and if you can know if it’s true or not, and then reject it, because it’s clearly keeping you from developing a deeper understanding of things.

what about the will in terms of phenomenology? why do you think that someone else can tell you about the nature of your will? when you call it, it comes, when you cease needing it, it goes away; if it is physical, to which physical storage compartment does it return? what are its physical dimensions? if the Will has none, the how do you know that its source is local? if the source of the will is beyond space, how is it that neuroscience is helpful in ascertaining the ‘freedom’ of our will when they can only measure and observe what is physically extended in space? it seems as if their conclusion that there is no will or that its purely physical is the only possible solution that they can find because they refuse to even consider the latter.

when you will to move your arm, what part of that process can you truly take credit for? since you know nothing about what happens inbetween your instantiation of the will from potentiality and it’s ultimate final cause and actaualization, how can you say that your will is entirely yours? if it’s not entirely yours, then who shares it will you? Brain events, what are those? what makes those possible? how are they made possible independently of willing in the universal sense?

as per usual, you guys still haven’t moved past semantics. no wonder it is said that “philosophy is dead;” the philosophers today know nothing of the nature of being.

A trick many mystics use is to lay out a contradiction as a premise or proposition alongside another equally absurd beginning in order to make them appear of value - the dogma being to accept the statement blindly and follow logically from a non-position and thus allowing them to arrive at any conclusion they wish to. It is the endless problem of inference that is also used to bolster such delusions. — I like sushi

The mystic roosts his argument in absolute truth, the scientist roots his argument in empirical and universal truth, while the post-modern philosopher, that's you, roots his argument in contradictions and opinions such as "there are no absolute truths," which is either absolute true or not true, or it is true sometimes, in which case there are absolute truths. if it is absolutely true that there are no absolute truths, there is an absolute truth and a contradiction ensues. And if it isn't absolutely true that there are no absolute truths, then it is universally or relatively true that there are no absolute truths and the potential for absolute truths to exist is still possible. So, what in the f*ck are you talking about?

On the Intellect, the Understanding, A Priori Concepts, and God:

In the process of intellectualization, two disjunctively separated (A ∉ B ∉ A) concepts (memory subsets) A and B are, through their relation(s), brought together into a union of concepts (A ∪ B) in the mind, and out of the intersection (A ∩ B) of those two concepts A and B, a new tertiary concept (C), is formulated in the understand, a concept which, by the Ontological Principle of Precedence and Intersection, necessarily preceded the existence of concepts A and B in time and therefore contains them as a subset of itself (concepts A and B ∈ concept C). If we extrapolate this principle back in time to the first thought that appeared in mind, we will find that when man first combined the concepts of “existence” and “I” in mind into the proclamation “I exist,” that the concepts of both “existence” and “I” necessarily preceded him in time, and therefore that, it wasn’t the case that man was born out of non-existence, or existence existing apart from subjectivity (I), but subjectivity itself; and when I man proclaims that ‘he exists,’ he proclaims that ‘God exists,’ and that since the subject of the sentence “I” is contained within its predicate “exist” (I ∈ Existence), that the proclamation “I Exist” is a necessary and eternal a priori truth of reason (analytic truth) such that existence itself (E) and therefore existence (e) is predicated of Subjectivity (P’’) (Existence ∈ Subjectivity) (Subjectivity ∈ Existence) ∴ (Existence ≡ Subjectivity). It goes without saying then that the concept of man as a genus necessarily preceded the existence of his body in time, and therefore that, when a new, tertiary concept is formulated in the mind by means of the intellect, that that idea comes, not from man, but from God; that is to say that all revelations in understanding are gifts from the unconscious mind (conscious mind ∈ unconscious mind); and that, in the process of coming to an understanding, since the mind of man is a subset of the mind of God, one’s level of knowledge and intuition is raised to a higher level which is closer to that of the absolute (i.e. Absolute Knowledge and Absolute Intuition). In coming to knowledge of himself and the world, mans knowing becomes towards the absolute. Thus to deny the value of the intellect is to consciously or unconsciously separate oneself from God.

maybe later. don’t you remember when I posted an inarguable refutation of your nominalistic worldview that “nothing is unchanging” and you failed to change it?

I think that its been well established that you care more about arguing semantics to grow you beak than attaining metaphysical truths. I’m assuming your nose in real life is, gigantic?

it’s simple. a multitude of contingent reference frames presupposes a necessary reference frame which contains and unites them all. the necessary reference frame is existence itself. your claim that

Existence' is a human concept — fresco

presupposes that the word “Existence” does not point to anything with an essence, but to something without an essence, that is, to an empty set, but empty sets can only be contained within sets, and we know that particular reference frames exist...so the reference frame of all reference frames exists, and is an aspect of the Essence of Existence itself.

I could never get into that style. I think language is more organic than that, that words don't have sharp, independent meanings, that meaning is cumulative and contextual. Basically I don't think we can do math with words. That's one of my few complaints about Hobbes. He's a little too attached to Euclid. — ghost

even math isn’t absolutely objective; 1 + 1 being equal to 2 is dependent upon what the numbers represent; that is, whether coalesce is occurring or not, that is to say that 1 sperm + 1 egg = 1 embryo (and 3 persons), or if it must be so that the 1s in each case are identical, then in terms of ontology, there are no two identical things, meaning that 1 + 1 = 2 becomes 1a + 1 b ≠ 2ab. So I’m going to shake up the foundations of math a little bit. Playing with numbers in the abstract that do not represent things with essence, is helpful in some sense, but not in others.

But I do admit, working with words and definitions is a real pain in the ass. I spent like an hour today trying to get my wording right for my ‘principles of ontology’ and found myself struggling with the limitations of language...i’m trying to reduce things to concepts so that I can use set theory and the notion of ‘containment and non-containment’ and contingency and necessity and also precedence to deduce which concepts are necessary for others to exist and therefore precede their existence in time (i.e. contain them as subsets) so that I can find the essence that the first concept points to, that is, the essence of being itself, but I’m having some difficulties with it. essentially, if objects are at the same time both concepts and objects, and this must be so, I think, because we can only conceive of concepts and all objects and all parts of objects can be conceived of, I can just avoid the distinction between them and deal with concepts alone. I’m not sure if this is the best strategy.

Have you presented your ideas anywhere else on the internet? On other phil. forums? If so, how was the response different or similar? All other forums I've looked at are eye-sores. This one is slick. — ghost

no, I have not; there doesn’t seem to be many forums and the Facebook forums are worse. this one isn’t even heavily populated; I think philosophy is officially dead.

that’s what Plato referred to them as in the Sophist, the ‘gods and the giants.’ For my work, I mustn’t be overly poetic, but just poetic enough so that my prose is both beautiful and interesting but also clear and understandable. for my book I intended to incorporate all o my favorite quotes in my prose, and then just cite them in subscript. I plan to have more quotable one liners in this book, both original and borrowed form the past, than any other book ever written. However, I strongly feel that to create a system of philosophy, one must ground it in axioms and principles of logic. Otherwise it’s nothing but mere opinion, much like Nietzsche’s philosophy, so I seek to find a balance between Nietzsche's style and Kant’s style...I’m trying to create a bridge between both sides in my book so that we can all live happy together and at least find a common ground in metaphysical truth, even if we still differ in opinion on moral grounds.