SMP. Channeling the P here, so bear with me. Or don't.

The goss around town is that metaphysics is dead. Asking questions about metaphysics is misguided. Thinking about metaphysics and other non-falfisiable concepts is a waste of time.

Yet I am perplexed by what I'm seeing. I'm looking at the most critical opponents of metaphysics; who consider it to be a misuse of language (i.e., Wittgenstein); and who equate it to anti-intellectualism, sophistry and illusion (David Hume). What I'm seeing is that all of these writers necessarily rely on their own metaphysical assumptions.

For example. A common metaphysical assumption underlying their work is that:
All things are known by their differences to or likeness from each other.
Another common assumption is that things can come to be known through classification and comparison or contrast. E.g., good can come to be known by classification of (what is) bad/vice versa.

It seems unnecessary to me, for anyone to criticise another's metaphysics. Yet it is a modern intellectual fad; especially amongst popular scientists that take their work far too seriously.

I see the Buddhists and Indian Vedanta believers for example, many of whom don't believe in cause-and-effect, and rather consider it a single entity divided only by the narrowed attention of our consciousness. I see metaphysics that excludes the existence of future or past or progress or death. I see metaphysics, much like Dostoyevsky's (excluding the God part), where there can be no end-point in our pursuit of progress that can ever justify the suffering that has gone into getting there.

I see metaphysics of authors like Camus and Sartre that considers existence as preceding essence; considers the entire universe absurd and paradoxical at core; considers living on in the knowledge and rebellion of this absurdity in which we find ourselves as an act of freedom. I see metaphysics of authors like Alan Watts, that views the duality of all underlying bits as a unified non-duality; that considers space and matter/light and dark as two sides of the same underlying thing; that does not view differentiation as separation.

I see all these metaphysical assumptions and I think great. The more the merrier. Yet many, do not. It's been a while since I've visited the forum and curious about your own opinions on the issue ?

The decline of metaphysics is ultimately linked to the discovery of its inability to create power.

Life at the first level is ultimately about power - getting laid, surviving, getting what you want. Even the most esoteric philosophy comes back at its core to that drive.

Philosophy and metaphysics were fascinating and intoxicating when the nature of reality was largely unknown. That's because pure thinking could possibly hold the key to unlimited power. Now we know that isn't true; reality is understood, and advancing it largely requires detailed and time consuming and mass organization of resources.

I mourn the loss. The power driver for metaphysics created fascinating intellectual worlds. Now we're largely devotees of materialism.

I don't think anything will ever swing it back. Some things are just more interesting before the fog of war is lifted. We've gotten other things in its place.

I've baptized myself in the rivers of Babylon. I ain't got no need for no metaphysics.

It seems, correct me if I'm wrong though, that you're discounting other people's metaphysical beliefs by appeal to Nietzschean metaphysical beliefs. This is what I've been referring to. People believe we've somehow moved on beyond metaphysics. Rather, we all rely on metaphysical beliefs, whether we know the source of them or not. What we've done is choose our favourites and declare the rest useless, on the basis of practicality. It's a sort of intellectual dogma/echo-chamber.

In the name of pragmatism, and in the name of progress. In the name of the future? I'm born, I live, I die. I don't see any future beyond that? Of what use are pragmatic, practical and future-oriented metaphysical beliefs to me?

We think we're making progress? What progress? In the game of black and white, good and bad, life and death, there is no progress to be made. For these dualities are in fact non-dualities; for good and bad are two sides of the same coin. Eradicate hunger, create brand new problems just as threatening. Remove disease, generate brand new humanitarian crises. Good does not get to win against bad. Bad does not get to win against good. For they are the same thing.

We want the poor Africans to play the same miserable game we play in the first world countries?

Perhaps we really enjoy playing the game of - I am a brave individual that faces the cold hard facts head-on and does not cower from them or invent fantasies to hide from them?

The cold hard facts of - its us against the hostile universe that doesn't want us here. The cold hard facts of - life is suffering so we must strive to reduce this suffering. The cold hard facts of - there are no objectively moral truths we can cling to.

This is all bogus. You may, for all you know, be the universe, experiencing itself. You may, for all you know, come into this framework (world), come out of it, and immediately be in another one, just as elaborate and complex enough to evoke everything that is necessary for your existence (e.g., an evolutionary tree, stars, planets etc.).

How long can you keep believing that life is suffering and that we have an insoluble 'problem of evil' until you search for alternative metaphysics? How long can you continue feeling good by playing the game of - I am a brave individual that faces the cold hard facts head-on. How long can you play this game of self-flattery? How long until it grows tiresome?
It's good that you seemingly acknowledge your own metaphysical beliefs here.
I'm not aware that the nature of reality has become known? or increasingly known? or that it CAN become known?

What has become known are the numerous elaborate ways by which we can continue to play the game of - living for the future. For what future? One that you're not in? One that doesn't exist, will never exist and has never existed?
I do too, my friend.

Human beings don't need to keep looking for being with scope and scalpel, but looking may turn up other new fun approximate stuff. So have fun looking or not looking, or whatever.

The universe is an infinite series. It is difficult to philosophize further due to the concept that non-life --> life; and now life --> non-life _ which I'm pretty sure invalidates 'the problem of evil' and all other human-driven bull****.

I wouldn't be surprised if George Lucas was basically correct.

We are agents, living the discovery of our mission.


PairTheBoard

I don't doubt the primacy of metaphysics within the world of metaphysics. It's just that metaphysics requires processing units, which ultimately depend on the physical world. Whoever controls the physical world, controls metaphysics. That's just the nature of reality in the modern age. Technology has brought us to the primacy of materialism. Ready 1984 and tell me that metaphysics survives someone who has control of your physical body.
Couldn't agree more. The interesting question is how to fix/change it, imo.

We're slowly becoming more and more like Gods. We're even getting to a point where we have the ability to improve our capacity to explore metaphysics. In a couple of decades - maybe less - we'll be able to explore metaphysics in a far more advanced why. Many of us will live full time in simulations which are far more stimulating and philosophically rich than this one. So I materialism trumps even metaphysics, as long as metaphysics is bound to a brain, which it seems to be in this universe and for humans.
Disagree.

They want to - not us. We're perfectly content with them living their lives the way they do.

Yep.
The primacy of the physical world over metaphysics has become probable to a high probability. I can prove that if you give me access to your brain and a few surgeons. Your only escape from this fact is the reality-denying philosophies, such solipsism.

I like your general objections, and deeply sympathize with them, but what should a person do who lives in this world and wants to engage more richly with metaphysics? What practical outcomes can it have? How would you inspire someone to do it?

I wish I had written this: we live in the scientific/materialist age and the question of the range of science and its working is important and becomes a metaphysical/philosophical question even if the scientists do not wish to comprehend the matter.

Its at least a start in OP's question which is buoyed or slugged down by present scientific beliefs and meandering or of any some such nature.

Roger Trigg : "Why Science Needs Metaphysics".

http://nautil.us/issue/29/scaling/wh...ds-metaphysics

By the way, did you know that there was such a thing as "externalism"; I would suppose a modern product of the materialist ethos ? This, thanks to Professor Philo.

I'm just going to throw this out there: Metaphysics is largely expressed in words, and words do a terrible job of capturing reality (or metaphysics).

Thus metaphysics as practiced by most metaphysicians is largely bunk that has run up against the limits of its nomenclature, and less accurate than non-word systems for understanding both philosophy and reality.

Externalism is, roughly speaking, the view that the content of a person's thoughts depends in part on what's in that person's environment (both their physical and their social environment).

As for metaphysics, it will always play an essential role in our understanding of reality.

How can the following observation be reconciled with materialism?

The mind converts a bunch of neuronal pulses in the back of the brain into a fabulous, immaterial 3D vista that we swear exists in front of us but that does not really exist either in the brain or in the world. What exists is quarks/energy fluctuations, and perhaps not even this. Dreams and modern 3D virtual reality make this phenomenon even more amazing.
In other words, how does the matter of the brain create a nonmaterial experience?

Why is it that when our cognitive systems engage in visual and auditory information-processing, we have visual or auditory experience: the quality of deep blue, the sensation of middle C?"

The experience is unnecessary. We could do all the things we need to survive via means of causal determinism alone, and function as a kind of ghost-in-the-shell.

Why do you think experiences are nonmaterial when every one you've ever had requires material?

Thinking, dreams, and visualization are non material/ non measurable . The only way the materialist can gainsay is to state that they are produced by the brain but as above, how does the solid brain create a non material/non measurable entity ?

Materialism is but one approach to the world/cosmos but clear thinking will display its limitations and faults especially since our culture only takes notice of weights and measures .

You can't weigh/measure courage, love, hate, envy...all the stuff in Pandora's box but for sure they are as "real" as a box cutter; the view has to expand in order to see reality, the reality of the non sense bound world.

The non material doesn't require the material; this is a superstition demanded by the materialist ethos. As a matter of fact has the materialist ever explained the "material" to anyone's satisfaction ?

Someone, anyone, make the material comprehensible to me other than by weights and measures which are in and of itself material . The material justifies itself is the only route to what is believed.

The above is logical thinking but factors are not in evidence for this belief.

I agree with you carlo.

Yes, materialism is begging the question. The rest is unverifiable by reason or measurement. People side with the former because it seems to be more reasonable, but I think they make a pretty substantial/limiting error. The "reason" part of the brain is trapping itself in the limitations of reason.

So you know other people's experiences beyond your own?

We're stipulating against going full ****** in that direction.

lol

Sure, dualism isn't demonstrably false, but it's not demonstrably *anything*.

That's probably what DurkaDurka would say. But he has vanished into the void so my statement on this is unverifiable; unless Durka returns in shinning white robes, riding a chariot of fire, and with a flaming sword coming out of his mouth to reveal to all of us the "real Truth".

Tom the Bomb, Spanker the Wanker, and Mr. Tooth:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/47...ight=solipsism

A long ago thread that is one of the best of SMP. Worth a read or a reread.

Is it reasonable to be bound by what's demonstrably demonstrable? How do you know we're not making a huge error?

The thing with philosophy is, it's absurdly incomplete without a full accounting of cognition. For example, stimulating the brains area that correspond to a rational view of the world will limit us to...a rational view of the world. What if we applied, say, Newton's laws and a simple particle model to the moving carbon-water bags we see around us? We would be highly rational, but utterly lost. Whereas using our non-rational brain areas attuned to understanding these carbon-water bags produces far better results. And a lot more power.

I think you'll find the same in many areas of thinking. We can't understand determinism. Or even materialism, really. Our brains are completely incapable of grasping the enormity of reality, its implications, the relevance of variance aspects. The rational, analytical part in particular is absolutely horrible - it's like trying to play or appreciate music by looking only at waveforms.

I contend that carlo's method/dualism is a far more functional modeling than a nihilistic deterministic or purely material one. I think that's fairly obvious when you take the extreme limiting factor in all of this - cognition - into account.

I reveal the tooth Zeno - not the truth - often bared in challenge. I respect your safe space for someone you don't even like. When a misanthrope can be a better person than a bleeding heart, you know the bleeding hearts need to be undermined.

Back to the initial question of OP and others it should be apparent that there are two(2) aspects of our relationship to the world/cosmos.

the first is our "percept" or our perceptions of the object(s) of our attention . that is to say that upon looking upon the world we see a myriad of disassociative facts which are not in connection with each other .Examples are the air and a tree, a wavering branch and the wind, the FedEx man and a delivery.

Percept is exactly what you and I "perceive" without bringing thinking into action . Even though I used concepts to clarify to you the activity the idea of "percept" is that event entirely stripped of conceptual or thinking activity. What we see is a disconnected miasma of incongruity not one aspect more important than the other.

The percepts come within our horizon and at this point we bring "thinking" into action. therefore the branch sways with the wind, The FedEx man is indeed the FedEx man, and the tree breathes the air within and expels its air.

No man continues on in any aspect of life whether it be in a higher aspect of knowing or preparing his morning coffee . The two aspects of man's nature is percept and thinking. Any clarity in life comes within these two aspects of the human entelechy or soul.

And so the philosophical or metaphysical or scientific is entirely dependent upon "percept-thinking" and consequently we have the modern philosophies ageing back to Kant, Aquinas, Plato, etc.. All men who "think" in relation to their percepts.

There are many philosophical approaches as I attempted to delineate twelve(12) in the other thread and of course there are variations on the theme of those aspects of philosophy or metaphysics.

This is not an attempt to clarify the twelve(12) but to clarify the relationship of percept to thinking and in fact to see that the next or mandated knowledge of the human soul is the study of thinking .

It may be that our "thinking" is in error but there can be no doubt that we cannot enter into knowledge and understanding without the clarification of thinking .

The next chess move is to study "thinking" and display its nature to the soul life of the individual man.

As per the previous post we are studying a supersensible reality, not measurable or weighable and this can be done with the power of thinking in and of itself.

One aspect is that when we "think" we are not aware of our activity and therefore to study thinking it is approached through hindsight. We use thinking to study thinking as in observation of the past activity of thinking. Only "thinking " has the power to study itself and in this world and cosmic vistas open up to the individual man.