Hello and welcome, one-and-all. I do look forward to bringing this important paper to the forefront of academic research.

Comments, please.

Kindest regards, in Xenia.

JW

Yeah, the real and really fundamental problems in Academic philosophy quite really objectively exist and that completely inevitably logically follows from the fact that the really fundamental

– and so just philosophical, as that was established at the science “philosophy” formation as it is the science that studies and solves utmost fundamental problems in humans material environment and in societies, aimed at scientific answering the tens of thousands of years existent questions – “what is “human”?, “what is the humans environment?, and “why and how humans and environment are as they are??”,

- which were answered in religions but the religions quite frankly stated/state that the “answers” are some transcendent “knowledge”,

- despite innumerous attempts and publications in Academic philosophy in last more 2500 years remain be non-answered.

I.e. really all really fundamental phenomena/notions, first of all in this case “Matter”, “Consciousness” , “Space”, “Time”, “Energy”, “Information”,; which, besides, really all can be scientifically defined only together, in the philosophy [and so in mainstream “ordinary” sciences] really remain be completely transcendent/ uncertain/irrational,

and in fact the philosophy really is nothing else than some civil religion, where number of different and opposite “theories” , “schools ”, etc., seems is near number of sects in all religions on Earth.

Such situation was rather inessential up to late XIX century, when on Earth seems lesser than billion of humans lived, “civilized” societies [including countries] - and “ordinary” sciences - were rather successfully developing without knowledge about what the fundamental phenomena/notions above are,

- however now the situation in all above rather essentially, if drastically, changed.

Recent technologies allow to eliminate humanity at all; in fundamental sciences most of postulates in the theories are based on illusory transcendent [mostly instinctive] imaginations about what are the phenomena/notions above [say, “Matter”, and so everything in Matter, i.e. “particles”, “fundamental Nature forces” – and so “fields”, etc.,},

- and now just philosophical, i.e. of what are utmost general and fundamental traits of the phenomena/notions [details are subject for ordinary sciences study] clarification is critically necessary in sciences and societies. In other case – again, completely logically inevitably – in sciences only next and next really fantastic, eventually only really phenomenological that so are based on numerous ad hoc parameters that “fit theories with experiment”, “theories” can appear; in societies any transcendent, including really destructive, utopias can be realized, etc.

The post is rather long already , so now

Cheers

Dear Lord Jerome Whitcroft ,

Congratulations on the great introduction. It won't be easy to surpass this, it's so beautiful! I can't make any criticisms about it. I'll have to read the article and then form my opinion.

I would like to note that the current state of science requires the return of metaphysics based on nature.

Regards,

Laszlo

Dea Sergey, Sergey Shevchenko ,

I apologize for not taking into account what you wrote in my previous answer... It's still excellent! I'm now translating the following article into English: 'Fizikailag-metafizikailag bizonyítható a graviton létezése' The existence of the graviton can be proven physically and metaphysically'

You don't have to read it, as soon as I'm done with the ontological text, I'll ask for your opinion!

Regards,

Laszlo

So let’s a bit to continue [see the SS post above]

The just philosophical, i.e. of what are utmost general and fundamental traits of the [SS post above] fundamental phenomena/notions [details are subject for ordinary sciences study] clarification can be, and essentially done, only in framework of the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s really philosophical 2007 “The Information as Absolute” conception, recent version of the basic paper see in https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363645560_The_Information_as_Absolute_-_2022_ed

- where it is rigorously proven that there exist nothing else than some informational patterns/systems of the patterns that are elements of the absolutely fundamental and absolutely infinite “Information” Set, The Set exists absolutely objectively, because of it fundamentally – logically - cannot be non-existent and so exists absolutely eternally, having no Beginning and no End;

- while the utmost general scientifically rigorous definition of the so absolutely fundamental phenomenon/notion “Information” is:

“Information is something that is constructed in accordance with the set/system of absolutely fundamental Rules, Possibilities, Quantities, etc. – the set/system “Logos” in the conception”

.Correspondingly the fundamental phenomena/notions are rigorously scientifically defined: “Information” – see above, “Matter” and “Consciousness” are absolutely nothing else than some [and, as that is proven in the conception, fundamentally different] informational systems/the Set’s elements, “Space”, “Time”, “Energy” are “Logos” set elements, etc., more in detail what are these phenomena/notions see in the link above.

Correspondingly that allowed to develop the SS&VT Planck scale informational physical model, which is based on the conception, two main papers are

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics, and

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/383127718_The_Informational_Physical_Model_and_Fundamental_Problems_in_Physics

- where near 30 fundamental problems in physics are either solved or essentially clarified; initial model of “consciousness on Earth”, including “human consciousness” version [ https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329539892_The_Information_as_Absolute_conception_the_consciousness ], to explain why the “communistic experiment” failed [ https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321757886_The_Information_as_Absolute_conception_Marxism_and_now ], etc.

Correspondingly practically all, [again – principally non-resolvable in the mainstream] problems in mainstream ontologies and epistemology in the conception are solved,

- and so in real – and, again, utmost fundamental and actual among all other sciences - science “philosophy”, which was formed more 2500 years ago as consisted of main branches “Physics”, "Logics”, “Ethics”, now practically only the branch “Ethics” [of humans consciousness in the “Information” Set] remained; which of course, includes the problem/subject for study “What is “Information” Set”.

Dear László,

- sorry, but I comment only mainstream sciences and don’t comment alternative approaches.

Cheers

ان أهم ما وقعت فيه الفلسفة الغربية انها غالبا أرادت ان تحول الفلسفة الى علم وهذا خطأ واضح للعيان الفلسفة هي أداة لمعرفة الوجود بكل ما فيها(حسب نظري المتواضع)

Academic philosophy is sometimes criticized for disconnecting from real-world situations and ignoring urgent existential and ethical dilemmas favouring abstract, technical discussions. Its institutionalization, which puts academic rigor ahead of practical application, is the cause of this "perpetual emptiness". Its failure to answer the fundamental issue of life,' how to live meaningfully': is at the heart of this criticism. Its contributions appear unrelated to lived experience as it usually avoids the fundamental human need for direction in navigating misery, purpose, and morality rather than providing valuable insights.

“…ان أهم ما وقعت فيه الفلسفة الغربية انها غالبا أرادت ان تحول الفلسفة الى علم وهذا خطأ واضح للعيان الفلسفة هي أداة لمعرفة الوجود بكل ما فيها(حسب نظري المتواضع)

…/ [Google translator] The most important thing that Western philosophy has fallen into is that it often wanted to turn philosophy into a science, and this is a clear mistake. Philosophy is a tool for knowing existence with all that it contains (in my humble opinion)….”

- that looks as rather questionable claim. Real knowing existence of anything, including Existence with all that it contains [Matter, Consciousnesses, etc.] can be only scientific,

- i.e. that bases on really at least scientifically rational [better, of course, correct] utmost general in concrete sciences basic statements [postulates, axioms] and makes logical analysis of concrete cases/situations in a science subjects for study, answering to the questions What are the objects/systems? How and why they are as they are? What, how and why are interactions of the objects/systems with environment?

- and to prognose for what reasons, why and how the studied concrete objects / systems evolve/develop from the concrete situations.

Without answering the question above application of the word “knowing” is principally incorrect.

That is another thing, that philosophy, which was formed in Antic times as just the science that - in fundamental contrast to principally frankly transcendent answering in religions - answers to the question above having the subject for study – unlike “ordinary” sciences - whole Existence,

- in recent mainstream philosophy that are “ontologies” of Matter, [really, despite that in a lot of mainstream philosophical branches, and all ordinary mainstream sciences, Consciousness doesn’t exist] “Consciousness”, “Space”, “Time” [though there exist a lot of other really fundamental, phenomena/notions about which the mainstream doesn’t suspect - “Information”, “Energy”, “Inertia”, etc.]

- however the mainstream philosophical “ontologies” above till now are really nothing else than some transcendent mental constructions, correspondingly the “ontologies” are numerous, diverse and opposite, when really scientific theory principally is unique.

Including in the mainstream exists, and is very popular, the 2-nd main branch “Epistemology” which answers question “why and how humans cognize the environment and themselves?” – despite that it is completely evident that to answer this question it is necessary before to have scientific answers in ontologies above, i.e. to answer the question Who does study of What?, when – see above - both “Who” and “What” in the mainstream are quite transcendent.

So, say, really Great Writers, who know what are humans and societies well better than Great Philosophers, in some concrete cases make analysis well rationally scientifically, see, say, and example in SS post in https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_rational_thought_exist_without_language/1896 page 1896.

However now the SS&VT really philosophical “The Information as Absolute” conception, which just on philosophical level answered the questions above, makes the philosophy be real science, which really has the utmost general, fundamental, and actual for humans, subject for study “humans existence in the “Information” Set”, where the utmost fundamental and actual for humans question “what is the place and role of human’s consciousness in the Set?” – and “what are optimal way of the human’s consciousness development? , must be scientifically answered;

- when the development is fundamental goal of any, including human’s now one, consciousness, which till now developed from simple bioforms consciousness up to the human’s one quite non-scientifically only instinctively.

More see the SS posts in the thread and links in the posts.

Cheers

https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_Perpetual_Emptiness_of_Academic_Philosophy_and_its_strange_inability_to_address_the_one_issue_that_matters2************************************38/-17-12-24//8/8/g

Cheers

Hello, One-and-all.

Below is an excerpt of a discussion held on the notion of "infinity", which I commented upon, thus:

A good starting point for the enquiry into "infinity" might be to look at the presumption that infinity is a thing. Perhaps it is not?

The "concept" - infinity - is based on the fallacy; "numbers" are things. They are not.

A number is an adjective and qualifies the "seeming" plurality of a "thing". Therein lies the issues with the reified concept: infinity. One cannot prove infinity; it is an idea. The "pluralistic" notion that "things" exist has also not been proved. One cannot prove plurality, beyond a concept; an idea.

Perhaps, more attention should be given to the argument that the greatest "magnitude" number is: one. That fact solves the "infinity" enigma.

All else amounts to one, anyway. Perhaps there is no plurality after all?

If one attempts to align - conflate - infinity (number) with infinity (space) then further fallacious reasoning results from that inherent petitio-principii fallacy: one concept cannot prove another.

So, perhaps Zeno's quandry is attested: there is no space. Also, interestingly, no-one has proved "space" beyond a concept. It does not exist.

One hopes this helps enquiry into the nature of being and what truly is: the indubitable, rather than what appears to be; the many.

E pluribus unum.

In Xenia,

JW

PS: Parmenides' explained the issues. Perhaps one might gain a better appreciation from this work: Book PARMENIDES IS REALITY REAL?

Recent SS posts in https://www.researchgate.net/post/what_is_the_most_important_problem_in_the_theoretical_physics_now/1794 , page 1794, and in

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_rational_thought_exist_without_language/1896 ,

- are quite relevant to this thread question

Cheers

yes. Academic philosophies sometimes turn to be empty with real life experience and effective action.

The rise of critical theories and their placement within academia have left many schools, particularly those in the humanities, void of meaning. This is deliberately so. Wittgensteins theory of linguistic meaning being drawn from the “language game” in which the particular meaning is specific to context I would argue lay the foundation for this. Derrida’s adoption of this Wittgensteinian theory and his subsequent argumentation that language in fact has no meaning but is a tool to maximise power (in a marxian sense) has transformed much modern academia into a transient sea without meaning, and in doing so leaves it with no purpose.

And Saussure's signifier and signified conceptions can also contribute to the exploration of meaning, defining whether the signified is empty or not.

Philosohy was always attacked for its apparent emptiness. Do not worry, it will survive, as it happened before.

"Philosophy" isn't empty; that is not possible.

However, "philosophers" are!

The lack of Critical Thinking skills - and the avoidance of their application - are the root cause of the lame-ness of academics. Wittgenstein perhaps the worst in history?

In Xenia, JW

Lord Jerome Whitcroft

I would disagree with Wittgenstein being the “worst”, as Wittgenstein‘s analysis of meaning in linguistics was in my opinion a legitimate investigation into where we draw meaning from within language. In my understanding it was the Derridean turn I would consider to be the “worst”. Derrida is Not the worst philosopher, but he has enacted the worst manipulation of a philosophers (Wittgenstein) genuine attempt to seek understanding by corrupting it with injections of theory it was never intended to support.

Stephen,

Mr. Wittgenstein's work was a miscarriage in reasoning - and logic - as it relied of fallacious assumptions and sophistic "language". Let's get into it?

JW

Lord Jerome Whitcroft

I would love to hear more

Stephen,

Perhaps you might quote a compelling or poignant phrase or argument from W. Then one could analyse his conclusions to see through the sophistry and indulgence.

In Xenia, JW

The idea of gamification:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/381965211_Gamification_in_technology-enhanced_language_learning_experimental_evaluation_of_students'_engagement

Hello DBT.

What does this paper have to do with academic emptiness?

In Xenia, JW

Lord Jerome Whitcroft

Well, W's argument's against deriving meaning of language from the ostensive definition, particularly the argument as follows; "There isn't a "last" definition (in the chain of definitions); that is just as if you chose to say; 'There isn't a last house in this road, one can always build an additional one."

"Whether the word 'number' is necessary in the ostensive definition depends on whether without it the other person takes the definition otherwise than I wish. And that will depend on the circumstances under which it is given."

This argument, although shortened for brevities sake, seems a sound reason for rejecting ostensive definitions being related to a words specific meaning.

We can continuously pass a definition along this chain, requiring each other word employed in the chain to be defined (in this particular manner, to be defined by the observer to be directed towards, shown, or exemplified) and in doing so you are giving not definitions, but simply names.

I can't speak to all of W's work, as I have only recently been acquainted with his work. I can see the thread that when follows leads to the pattern of post-modern thought, but I anticipate your response in the hope that you can shed some light on where his sophistic language may lead one astray.

We can take empirical philosophy into consideration. Some philosophies are not in vain, and they have practical values.

Stephen, I could not find this excerpt in any work of Wittgenstein, "There isn't a "last" definition (in the chain of definitions); that is just as if you chose to say; 'There isn't a last house in this road, one can always build an additional one."

Kindly advise where it is, or submit the actual phrase - argument - that W stated.

Best wishes,

JW

PKT.

The subject paper realtes to ontological pursuits and the lack of advancement by academics, et al. The issue is lack of CT skills to address the curse of Pluralism.

I should be delighted to see you reply relating to "... to some philosophies are not in vain."

Best wishes, JW

The thread question is scientifically answered in a few SS posts on page 1, if quite briefly – mainstream philosophy principally cannot answer/clarify any really principal problem since in the mainstream all really fundamental phenomena/notions, first of all “Matter”, “Consciousness” , “Space”, “Time”, “Energy”, “Information”, which are just specific subjects for study just by philosophy, really remain be completely transcendent/ uncertain/irrational;

- and so when any mainstream philosophers write something about, say, humans, he write some wordings about which he has only completely instinctive transcendent imagination,

– so, say, really writes banal for any normal human, in accordance with the rule, as that some poster wrote on RG “a lot of words, principally non-verified, and that looks plausible”.

Really mainstream philosophy is nothing else than a set of numerous transcendent schools, branches, “philosophies”, including, say, as rather, if too, strange “empirical philosophy, etc., which by no means differ from religions, including play in societies the same role as that religions do – compose illusions in populations that justify what happens in the societies.

But now real philosophy appeared – in the SS&VT “The Information as Absolute” inception. So for readers who really want to understand what are humans and external World, see the SS posts on page 1; besides the X-platform AI answer in attached file would be well essentially useful.

Cheers

It appears that many contemporary philosophers have abandoned a noble tradition. They have forsaken the pursuit of wisdom, which is the ultimate goal of philosophical inquiry, and instead have become mired in a morass of relativism, nihilism, and obscurantism. The fetishization of language and the proliferation of esoteric jargon have led to a situation in which philosophers are often more concerned with displaying their intellectual virtuosity than with seeking genuine understanding.

The abandonment of critical thinking, as you Lord Jerome Whitcroft so aptly noted, has had a devastating impact on the discipline. Without this essential tool, philosophers are unable to effectively examine the underlying assumptions and principles that shape their understanding of the world. They are unable to distinguish between the ephemeral and the eternal, the contingent and the necessary.

And so, the ontological dilemma, which is the fundamental question of human existence, remains unaddressed. The individual is left to navigate the complexities of life without the benefit of a deeper understanding of their place within the larger cosmos. The Self, which is the ultimate subject of philosophical inquiry, remains locked, inaccessible to the introspective gaze of the philosopher.

But, we should not despair. For even in the darkest of times, there is always hope. The legacy of ancient wisdom, which I also try to preserve and transmit in my own work, remains a powerful life force. The principles of epistemology, though neglected, are not lost; they remain a testament to the enduring power of human reason and the quest for understanding.

Let us, therefore, recommit ourselves to the pursuit of wisdom, to the rigorous examination of assumptions, and to the cultivation of critical thinking. Let us strive to unlock the secrets of the Self, to gain a deeper understanding of our existence, and to rediscover the timeless wisdom that has been bequeathed to us by the ancients.

Academic philosophy censores diversity DEI, hence the stagnation by peer review serving corporations short term interests: take a problem like the ship of Theseus, isn't testing useless? Proof of what counts as what is, requires contradicting what it isn't; either the thesis contradicts the antithesis or the converse is true. If the proof is true, it can be demonstrated.

Testing provides no such objectivity as it hypotheses the problem. Being such it remains the presupposition of a theory.

Thank you for the insightful discussion.

I published my response here:

Thesis The Alleged Detachment of Academic Philosophy: A Critical Ex...