Doodencrapenschit begins with the fact that humans have questions and humans want answers to those questions.

Do humans have questions?

Not every human has questions. Some human have questions. Not all humans who have questions have the same questions. Together as a collective, humans have questions. And together as a collective, they want answers.

Humanity doesn’t progress only when humans come up with answers. And not all answers lead to humanity’s progress. Humanity also figures out how to survive in an emergent way. The way we are living right now is a mixture of emergent intelligence and answers given by humans (some good answers and some bad answers, very bad answers indeed).

Doodencrapenschit doesn’t differentiate between science and philosophy but it does differentiate those two with other answer giving enterprises. We can explain that better by saying that:

Doodencrapenschit doesn’t accept any faith-based answers.

This does not imply that faith-based answers are wrong. (Neither does not implying their wrongness imply that they are all correct.) The degree of correctness of the answers is not the reason why Doodencrapenschit rejects faith-based answers. It rejects them because there is no mechanism of testing faith-based answers. There is no self-correction mechanism in faith-based answer generating processes. There is no procedure for comparing two faith-based answers to each other and finding out which one is closer to being correct. All one can do is, by definition, just have faith.

Doodencrapenschit only considers answer generating systems where there is a process of self-correction and a way to judge which answer is closer to being correct. Only science and philosophy (some of it) fall under this category.

Then Doodencrapenschit takes the current answers and categorizes them. It is not concerned with finding the best answer or the ultimate forever true answer. In fact, if it can find a satisfactory answer that already exists, it is happy to just accept it and put it in one of the categories. Doodencrapenschit only goes into answer production mode when none of the existing answers from science and philosophy are satisfactory.

Satisfactory to whom?

To the Doodencrapenschiter.

Satisfactory how?

In keeping with the rest of the answers that Doodencrapenschit has accepted and categorized, and in keeping with the thus emerging worldview. For example, it looks like the best answers about what the universe is, are coming from science. Which consequently means that most probably there is no inherent deep meaning or purpose to an individual human’s life. Therefore, it would be contradictory if a Doodencrapenschiter tried to justify the existence of a god, because atheism seems like the most likely answer to the question of god in keeping with the scientific worldview.

A Doodencrapenschiter doesn’t try to fit their answers to their pre-existing views. They approach this process of categorizing answers from the position of an alien anthropologist.

Then they get to the next part of Doodencrapenschit which is to discover how these answers and emerging worldview affect how they should live. This is the most important part of Doodencrapenschit and what differentiates it completely from philosophy. Philosophers don’t seem to be in any rush to apply their thinking to their own lives. But for a Doodencrapenschiter, it’s the most important part.

Practical application of answers and the results from one’s own lived experience also impact the satisfactoriness of the answers. This may drive a Doodencrapenschiter to start the answer generating process, because the accepted pre-existing answer, didn’t lead to satisfactory practical application.

The categories that the answers are put into are:

1. Approaching Truth
2. Probably True
3. User’s Choice

There are no answers to be considered Absolute Truth. And answers that are false, or not useful, or don’t make any sense are not to be categorized because they don’t have any practical application. The job is not to put every existing answer in a category but to fill the three useful categories with as many answers as possible.

Approaching Truth and Probably True should be applied to life without much hesitation. User’s Choice answers are those where it’s a matter of opinion as to how you want to live. This means that two Doodencrapenschiters could be living life differently based on their personalities and life situation.

Why the name Doodencrapenschit?

Because it’s not quite philosophy and philosophers (especially analytic philosophers) get angry if you misuse the term. Instead of fighting over existing ground, I’ve created new ground. And in fact, with the focus on practical application, and the disinterest in trying to get to the absolute truth, it is quite different from both science and philosophy, even though it is respectful towards these disciplines and utilizes their work. A Doodencrapenschiter might do philosophy or even science from time to time but their main job is to sort answers and apply them to life. In other words, live life, (but consciously and intelligently).

What is the etymology of Doodencrapenschit?

I started with the word Poopencrapenschit. It is formed by combining the words: poop, crap and shit. But Poopencrapenschit is purely theoretical. It is only concerned with categorizing answers and coming up with answers where no satisfactory ones are found. When I added the practical application part, I added the word ‘do’ to Poopencrapenschit. Not to mention that doodoo is another slang for shit.

But why such a self-derogatory word?

It is a defense mechanism. If you’re a philosopher, do you really want to attack a Doodencrapenschiter? But more importantly, because humor is important in Doodencrapenschit.

Which brings us to how to write and communicate in Doodencrapenschit. When defending the choice of an existing answer or providing original arguments about a new answer, the writing should be clear and logical. ‘Thesis, argument, objections’ format should be used. Humor can still be used in this type of writing but only in non-core sentences. That is, sentences that are not part of the actual argument, such as explaining a proposition with an analogy, introduction, conclusion etc. Humor is used to make this type of writing a little more enjoyable to read.

When writing to communicate an idea to an audience, rhetorical techniques can be used but Ethos should be avoided. Pathos and Logos along with some humor is fine.

Not all questions need to be answered. Some questions that humans have are just the kind of questions one thinks of, after smoking a joint. If the question is not going to affect how one should live in any way, then it can be ignored completely. Some questions are not stoner questions but rather semantic mazes that philosophers have created for themselves and their friend(s) to hang out in. These too can also be discarded.

Finally, the job of a Doodencrapenschiter is never over. Once you’ve categorized all answers and are living according to them, you can share your findings with others and try to improve some answers and try to find better applications of others. As the environment changes, new answers or new applications of answers will be needed. So Doodencrapenschiters will always have a job!

The answers that the Doodencrapenschiter chooses, will be personalized answers. No two Doodencrapenschiters will probably ever have the exact same answers. In this sense, Doodencrapenschit is a personalized form of doing philosophy.

A Doodencrapenschiter won’t assume to tell others how they should live. At the same time, this doesn’t mean that anything goes. What makes it different from, say a personalized religion, or self-administered spiritual practice, is that the answers are not accepted on faith. First, faith-based answers are not accepted at all. Second, answers are accepted on personal view point and life situation but not on faith. There’s room for different answers but it’s not a free for all. It’s a specific way of doing personalized answer generation. It is a specific way of living life.

The questions I’m starting with are these two:

What is the world?

How to live in it?

Further divisions will emerge as we go deeper into answers. What is the external world? What is the internal world? What is the human world? How to live as an individual? How to live as a society?