Metaphysics

Equilibrium
Equilibrium's picture
Posts: 219
Joined: 2006-02-13
User is offlineOffline
Metaphysics

Is it nothing but speculation?

My studies of the Analytics (including Russell) informed me of their idea that metaphysics is not worth spending time on, that philosophy should be treated with the same rigor as science.

It seems to me like the pre-socratics and other early metaphysicists were talking about supernatural and spiritual stuff that really gave me no better understanding of the world.

Are there fields of metaphysics that DO offer insight?

"Character is higher than intellect... A great soul will be strong to live, as well as to think."
-Ralph Waldo Emerson


Chaoslord2004
Chaoslord2004's picture
Posts: 353
Joined: 2006-02-23
User is offlineOffline
Re: Metaphysics

Equilibrium wrote:
Is it nothing but speculation?

It depends on who you ask. Personally, I have never been a big fan of Metaphysics. I think Metaphysics is OK...but I like other branches of Philosophy better. Alot of Metaphysics is mere speculation...however, alot of it is a legitimate field of study.

What Metaphysics tries to go "beyond" what science tells us, to see what it can infer. For instance, take the Philosophy of Time and the Philosophy of Causation.

There is actually a sub-branch of metaphysics that deals with time. Some think time is an illusion, while others, don't. A man by the name of Mctaggart argued that times wasn't real.

There are also many conceptions when it comes to causation. Some Philosophers like David Hume and Bishop Berkeley thought nothing caused anything else. Rather, things just followed one another. For instance: When I throw a ball in the air, gravity doesn't CAUSE the ball to fall toward the earth, but it is simply a fact that throwing a ball into the air is followed by the ball falling to the earth. Hence, events merely follow one another, there is no causation.

Leibniz had an even stranger view of causation...which I will not get into.

You will notice, that Physicists USE time and talk about causation, but, they don't really know the ontology (ontology means "the nature of"Eye-wink time or causation. This is outside of the realm of Physics (for now).

Take the Philosophy of Mathematics. Mathematicians don't investigate whether a number actually exists or not (atleast not while doing mathematics), however, the Philosophy of Mathematics does this.

Equilibrium wrote:
My studies of the Analytics (including Russell) informed me of their idea that metaphysics is not worth spending time on, that philosophy should be treated with the same rigor as science.

Yes, you take the position of the Logical Positivists. Metaphysics is viewed as meaningless, because there is no way to varify metaphysical claims. Since the Logical Positivist view of meaning rests on the ability to verify a given proposition, Metaphysics is meaningless.

To a degree I am sympothetic to this view........to a degree.

Equilibrium wrote:
It seems to me like the pre-socratics and other early metaphysicists were talking about supernatural and spiritual stuff that really gave me no better understanding of the world.

Well, lets not be to hard on the ancients

Equilibrium wrote:
Are there fields of metaphysics that DO offer insight?

Well, besides the other fields mentioned, the Philosophy Of Mind presents insights.

"In the high school halls, in the shopping malls, conform or be cast out" ~ Rush, from Subdivisions


Equilibrium
Equilibrium's picture
Posts: 219
Joined: 2006-02-13
User is offlineOffline
Metaphysics

It seems to me like metaphysics takes faith, which would be the way of the theist (not to throw a guilt by association out, btw).

And logical positivism would be the very core of Atheism, the unverifiability of extraordinary claims drives us to resist them. I understand that science does require speculation to an extent, but if after many years of work there has been no evidence, we can be justified to deny it.

I am wrong to see the same in the majority of metaphysics?

"Character is higher than intellect... A great soul will be strong to live, as well as to think."
-Ralph Waldo Emerson


Chaoslord2004
Chaoslord2004's picture
Posts: 353
Joined: 2006-02-23
User is offlineOffline
Metaphysics

Equilibrium wrote:
It seems to me like metaphysics takes faith, which would be the way of the theist (not to throw a guilt by association out, btw).

And what would make you think this? There have been and still are rigorious arguments on pretty much all sides of a given issue.

There is no faith involved. Philosophy in general, is perhaps the biggest supporter of reason. Philosophers, generally speaking, do not take things on faith (that is, if they are even half-way decient). Most Philosophers are atheists, btw,

Equilibrium wrote:
And logical positivism would be the very core of Atheism, the unverifiability of extraordinary claims drives us to resist them.

1. Its not at the core of atheism. One can be an atheist but not a logical positivist.

2. The logical positivist position on meaning is that ANY proposition that can not be verified, is meaningless. This applies to ALL propositions, not just propositions which assert extraordinary claims.

Equilibrium wrote:
I understand that science does require speculation to an extent, but if after many years of work there has been no evidence, we can be justified to deny it.

agreed. However, we are not talking about science. We are talking about Philosophy.

Equilibrium wrote:
I am wrong to see the same in the majority of metaphysics?

Some issues in Metaphysics, yes. However, others are important. Like any field of study, you have to sift through some bullshit to get to the good stuff.

"In the high school halls, in the shopping malls, conform or be cast out" ~ Rush, from Subdivisions


Equilibrium
Equilibrium's picture
Posts: 219
Joined: 2006-02-13
User is offlineOffline
Metaphysics

A good friend of mine once said that 95% of what a philosopher says is bullshit. You take the remaining 5% from each and put it all together.

"Character is higher than intellect... A great soul will be strong to live, as well as to think."
-Ralph Waldo Emerson


Chaoslord2004
Chaoslord2004's picture
Posts: 353
Joined: 2006-02-23
User is offlineOffline
Metaphysics

Equilibrium wrote:
A good friend of mine once said that 95% of what a philosopher says is bullshit. You take the remaining 5% from each and put it all together.

And I should care why...?

"In the high school halls, in the shopping malls, conform or be cast out" ~ Rush, from Subdivisions


Equilibrium
Equilibrium's picture
Posts: 219
Joined: 2006-02-13
User is offlineOffline
Metaphysics

Just an observation on your last statement.

Things are cleared up now.


Gravity
Posts: 112
Joined: 2006-02-13
User is offlineOffline
Re: Metaphysics

Equilibrium wrote:
Is it nothing but speculation?

My studies of the Analytics (including Russell) informed me of their idea that metaphysics is not worth spending time on, that philosophy should be treated with the same rigor as science.

It seems to me like the pre-socratics and other early metaphysicists were talking about supernatural and spiritual stuff that really gave me no better understanding of the world.

Are there fields of metaphysics that DO offer insight?


... Heh. Nice signature. Matches the poster...

I'm a dipshit.


Chaoslord2004
Chaoslord2004's picture
Posts: 353
Joined: 2006-02-23
User is offlineOffline
Metaphysics

Equilibrium wrote:
Just an observation on your last statement.

Things are cleared up now.

Well, alot of Philosophers are full of shit, no doubt. However, take almost any set of people and the probability is high that alot of them will be full of shit.

Humanity is good at many things. When we are not perfecting the art of destructive technology we take the time to bullshit not only others, but to bullshit ourselves.

More evidence, that if man was created in the image of God, why worship him? Do we really want to worship thing as repugnant as homo sapiens?

"In the high school halls, in the shopping malls, conform or be cast out" ~ Rush, from Subdivisions


Equilibrium
Equilibrium's picture
Posts: 219
Joined: 2006-02-13
User is offlineOffline
Metaphysics

Asshat's first post in the philosophy forum is an Ad Hominem AND Poisoning the well. Good start.

You're very right Chaoslord, we may be getting more intelligent but our common sense leaves a lot to be desired, we all do stupid things every day.

I didn't know God was bipedal, I swear he doesn't have anything to walk on.
Even more evidence for the FSM.

"Character is higher than intellect... A great soul will be strong to live, as well as to think."
-Ralph Waldo Emerson


Gravity
Posts: 112
Joined: 2006-02-13
User is offlineOffline
Metaphysics

Equilibrium wrote:
Asshat's first post in the philosophy forum is an Ad Hominem AND Poisoning the well. Good start.

What can we be sure of? My need to attack you, or your need to put up defense. I do enjoy dichotomy!

I'm a dipshit.


Equilibrium
Equilibrium's picture
Posts: 219
Joined: 2006-02-13
User is offlineOffline
Metaphysics

Well I sure as hell don't need to defend myself, you did it for me like a good Theist.


Chaoslord2004
Chaoslord2004's picture
Posts: 353
Joined: 2006-02-23
User is offlineOffline
Re: Metaphysics

Gravity wrote:
Equilibrium wrote:
Is it nothing but speculation?

My studies of the Analytics (including Russell) informed me of their idea that metaphysics is not worth spending time on, that philosophy should be treated with the same rigor as science.

It seems to me like the pre-socratics and other early metaphysicists were talking about supernatural and spiritual stuff that really gave me no better understanding of the world.

Are there fields of metaphysics that DO offer insight?


... Heh. Nice signature. Matches the poster...

Please, keep it civil.

"In the high school halls, in the shopping malls, conform or be cast out" ~ Rush, from Subdivisions


Gravity
Posts: 112
Joined: 2006-02-13
User is offlineOffline
Re: Metaphysics

Chaoslord2004 wrote:

Please, keep it civil.

Please, define civil.


Chaoslord2004
Chaoslord2004's picture
Posts: 353
Joined: 2006-02-23
User is offlineOffline
Metaphysics

Gravity wrote:
Chaoslord2004 wrote:

Please, keep it civil.

Please, define civil.

I refuse to play games with you. Please, while your in the Philosophy section, keep the dialogue civil. Don't bullshit me, you know when your acting civil and when your not.

"In the high school halls, in the shopping malls, conform or be cast out" ~ Rush, from Subdivisions


Gravity
Posts: 112
Joined: 2006-02-13
User is offlineOffline
Metaphysics

Chaoslord2004 wrote:
I refuse to play games with you. Please, while your in the Philosophy section, keep the dialogue civil. Don't bullshit me, you know when your acting civil and when your not.

What if I know I am acting civil, and you know I am not? Then can we resource back to the definition of civil? Or can we ... guess that a definition would be too vague unless we spent an unconsiderable ammount of time on it (which I doubt we do), just to get to a consensus about something that could be seen as common sense? Or would me asking ridiculous questions under a different name suddenly make them plausible ones- thus solving our dilemna here?

I'm a dipshit.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7530
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Metaphysics

Gravity wrote:
Or would me asking ridiculous questions under a different name suddenly make them plausible ones- thus solving our dilemna here?

FYI: We don't really have rules posted here, but "sock puppeting" as it's typically referred to is grounds for banning.

Refer to these rules for a general idea of what we'd use as the size of this board increases, and/or now if we needed/wanted to.

P.S. Chaos... if he's interrupting your flow, you have carte blanche in this forum. Literally. If someone doesn't like your mod style, they can visit any other part of the board.

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Gravity
Posts: 112
Joined: 2006-02-13
User is offlineOffline
Metaphysics

Ah, but what am I if not a man in disguise or a man on a tightrope? The third option, may of course be your favorite, that I be quiet, or in turn, quieted. I choose to put my cards on the table, in the face of what may or may not be biased- I never knew I was such a gambler!

Be not fooled, though, that I cannot see your furrowed brows and blushing faces from up here.

Why the metaphors, Gravity? Because the art of misinterpretation is, after-all, a great contribution to conciousness. That I become your enemy, that I become your asshat, that what I say is that which you first think about, which is that on the surface of your mind.

I'm a dipshit.


Chaoslord2004
Chaoslord2004's picture
Posts: 353
Joined: 2006-02-23
User is offlineOffline
Metaphysics

Gravity wrote:
Ah, but what am I if not a man in disguise or a man on a tightrope? The third option, may of course be your favorite, that I be quiet, or in turn, quieted. I choose to put my cards on the table, in the face of what may or may not be biased- I never knew I was such a gambler!

Be not fooled, though, that I cannot see your furrowed brows and blushing faces from up here.

Why the metaphors, Gravity? Because the art of misinterpretation is, after-all, a great contribution to conciousness. That I become your enemy, that I become your asshat, that what I say is that which you first think about, which is that on the surface of your mind.

what is your purpose here?

"In the high school halls, in the shopping malls, conform or be cast out" ~ Rush, from Subdivisions


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7530
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Metaphysics

Chaoslord2004 wrote:

what is your purpose here?

The same place his purpose is everywhere... to piss off people intellectual enough to realize there isn't any evidence for a God, as his feeble brain can't handle reality.

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Gravity
Posts: 112
Joined: 2006-02-13
User is offlineOffline
Metaphysics

Sapient wrote:
Chaoslord2004 wrote:

what is your purpose here?

The same place his purpose is everywhere... to piss off people intellectual enough to realize there isn't any evidence for a God, as his feeble brain can't handle reality.

I love your terse question, and then your tense answer.

My purpose here is to be with those who I feel are my enemies- ironically enough, for the same reasons I would annoy a Christian board with my oh so cleverly (arrogant) pestilence... but, I've upheld the Christlike way... "But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead." I need not waste my time with corpses and mindlessness, so I have come to the atheists. The atheist serves a purpose, as my most respectable enemy, in my my own growth- particularly, I hope to learn something of the religious atheists. Religion-? atheists-? ... ah, but religious is only a way of thinking.

So, you were close Sapient, I want to piss off people smarter than me out of my sheer jealousy of being unable to handle reality. :smt039 The way I see it, there are two reasons why do not like me, Sapient. The first, is that I have the ability to say exactly what makes you mad. The second, is that I am not stupid enough for you to disagree with. Sorry if this is an insult, I hope it is not taken as one.

I'm a dipshit.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7530
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Metaphysics

Gravity wrote:
:smt039

:smt098

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Chaoslord2004
Chaoslord2004's picture
Posts: 353
Joined: 2006-02-23
User is offlineOffline
Metaphysics

:roll:


Ry
Posts: 36
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Metaphysics

Quote:
My studies of the Analytics (including Russell) informed me of their idea that metaphysics is not worth spending time on, that philosophy should be treated with the same rigor as science

Science is a philosophy it just has a new name now.

I wrote a very good bit showing how time does not exist. That is it is a human concept but has no existence in the actual.

alas if my websites were not deleted I would still have it.

Here is the jist of it. Nothingness has no time. That is no one seems to ask wher enothingness comes from. It comes from prior nothingness. Yet does it reall have to "come from" nothingness? Isn't already nothing and it just ramians as such ans will remain as such forever? If it is nothing then it can not become something. (unless it is a dynamic zero, that something else unlocks but then it would not really have been nothing it would have been potential sopmethingness)

People would say where did matter come from. And I say all somethingness not just matter, is eternal. The only difference is that we can see changes in the somethingness and call it time.

People would ask me "what was before the big bang?" and I would tell them, matter. They keep saying "before that, and before that" and I say matter.

Time does not exist before matter. Time is the measure of change within the matter not OF the matter. Time is hindged on there being being. It is were nothing then there is no time. It would be a place where forever and never were the same thing.

Does yesterday exist? No/and yes. Only the now actually exist (in terms of human specifics) but yesterday is the now, that is all the stuff of yesterday is still here regarless of its movements, its existenceness is the same.

Time is a human concept and it does not apply to the all. Nothingness is also an assumption. There may be no nothing. And space is not nothing.
The old Zen Buddhist saying goes "Fish don't know they are in the water."

because it is all around them and its what they use as their base of comparison, but we know there is water.

Warning, religiousity increases the risk of religious terrorism.

www.anti-neocons.com or www.Rys2sense.com


Ry
Posts: 36
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Metaphysics

Quote:
There are also many conceptions when it comes to causation. Some Philosophers like David Hume and Bishop Berkeley thought nothing caused anything else. Rather, things just followed one another. For instance: When I throw a ball in the air, gravity doesn't CAUSE the ball to fall toward the earth, but it is simply a fact that throwing a ball into the air is followed by the ball falling to the earth. Hence, events merely follow one another, there is no causation.

That is not true. Hume Never thought such a thing. He said you could not blindly assign cause and effects and gave his marbles example of the blacks and whites which give the reverse assuption about probablity but in know way did he ever suggest that things just happened to follow other things. He was an empiracist through and through.

Warning, religiousity increases the risk of religious terrorism.

www.anti-neocons.com or www.Rys2sense.com


Ry
Posts: 36
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Metaphysics

Quote:
Take the Philosophy of Mathematics. Mathematicians don't investigate whether a number actually exists or not (atleast not while doing mathematics), however, the Philosophy of Mathematics does this.

I can clear that up in one mintue.

Math does not exist (as actuals) (only as concepts)

Existence... We are talking about nouns. Math is not objects it is a quality of them. A meter an inch ect does not exist as a noun it is just a discriptoin OF a noun. It is one meter tall. There are two of them. It is 5 years old.

all discriptions not extentions.

Done.

I have a degree in Philosophy from W&M. I will tell you what I think the best philosophy schools are: the philosophy of science, the philosophy of language, pragmatism and ethics. The biggest waste of time are religious philosophy (because it works on a false premise), any intro to philosophy (because the class will be polluted with idiots and the utmost arrogance), and meta-physics (I agree partly with B.R. It is not a total waste of time, but most of it is.

Read Thomas Kune on paradigm shifts, it will wreck realism and empiricism (to a degee) And pretty much gave science a big kick in the ass, at a time when science was trying to offere explanations for everything.

History is always larger. And science is wrong many times. HOwever religion is wrong every time.

Warning, religiousity increases the risk of religious terrorism.

www.anti-neocons.com or www.Rys2sense.com


Chaoslord2004
Chaoslord2004's picture
Posts: 353
Joined: 2006-02-23
User is offlineOffline
Metaphysics

Ry wrote:
Quote:
There are also many conceptions when it comes to causation. Some Philosophers like David Hume and Bishop Berkeley thought nothing caused anything else. Rather, things just followed one another. For instance: When I throw a ball in the air, gravity doesn't CAUSE the ball to fall toward the earth, but it is simply a fact that throwing a ball into the air is followed by the ball falling to the earth. Hence, events merely follow one another, there is no causation.

That is not true. Hume Never thought such a thing. He said you could not blindly assign cause and effects and gave his marbles example of the blacks and whites which give the reverse assuption about probablity but in know way did he ever suggest that things just happened to follow other things. He was an empiracist through and through.

True, I was too vague. He said we could never assign "cause and effect" to anything, because we are never aware of this "power". All we are aware of is that one event follows another. Hume would conceed that there could be such cause and effect relations, however, we are never aware of such relationships...therefore, our conception of cause and effect is incoherent.

"In the high school halls, in the shopping malls, conform or be cast out" ~ Rush, from Subdivisions


Gavagai
Theist
Gavagai's picture
Posts: 183
Joined: 2006-04-17
User is offlineOffline
Metaphysics

Quote:
Read Thomas Kune on paradigm shifts...

You meant Thomas Kuhn. Have you read any of his work? Puzzled

Rude, offensive, irrational jackass.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Metaphysics

Gavagai wrote:
Quote:
Read Thomas Kune on paradigm shifts...

You meant Thomas Kuhn. Have you read any of his work? Puzzled

People cite him all the time, but I rarely meet anyone who's actually read him.

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.