Winstonm Posted February 2, 2009 Report Share Posted February 2, 2009 In trying to get a better grasp on the term metaphysics, I ran across a fairly comprehensive explanation from the Catholic Encyclopedia - the definition of metaphysics: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10226a.htm This is Aristotle's definition (peri tou ontos ê on) -- Met., VI, 1026 a, 31). In this definition metaphysics is placed in the genus "science". As a science, it has, in common with other sciences, this characteristic that it seeks a knowledge of things in their causes. What is peculiar to metaphysics is the difference "of being as being". In this phrase are combined at once the material object and the formal object of metaphysics. The material object is being, the whole world of reality, whether subjective or objective, possible or actual, abstract or concrete, immaterial or material, infinite or finite. Everything that exists comes within the scope of metaphysical inquiry. Other sciences are restricted to one or several departments of being: physics has its limited field of inquiry, mathematics is concerned only with those things which have quantity. Metaphysics knows no such restrictions. Its domain is all reality. From the reading, it seems that even the philosophers and metaphysicists differed on the meaning of and scientific qualities of their studies. To me it seemed a lot like the mind games college kids play when they are stoned: maybe the universe is inside a shoebox inside God's closet. But I recognize this is an area where I hold extreme biases, so I am open to hearing views on how meaningful is this type study and if there is any testable versions. What say ye? Is metaphysics a worthwhile study? Do metaphysicists produce conclusions of value? What IS reality? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted February 2, 2009 Report Share Posted February 2, 2009 What IS reality? My GBP 0.02 worth (or maybe 0.00 as I am at best an amateur philosopher): I think reality is a model someone makes to help simplify and organize the dizying amount of evidence available to him/her. In particular, it can be a model developed in a community that makes it possible to talk about evidence that is accepted in that community. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenberg Posted February 2, 2009 Report Share Posted February 2, 2009 I have considerable respect for the varied and often highly knowledgeable opinions on the Forum (no, I am not being sarcastic). But you are asking a lot. Is metaphysics a worthwhile study? Perhaps it depends on what you value. Since life can little more supply than just to look about us and to die, why not a little metaphysics(phrase stolen from Alexander Pope)? But is it practical? perhaps, sometimes. Depending on what you mean by practical. Marvin Jay Greenberg, in a text on Euclidean and Non-Euckidean Geometry, goes on a bit about the foundations of mathematics. I forget his exact words but his conclusion was that the foundations are extremely muddled. How could this be with so many intelligent people working in mathematics? Well, for a great deal of mathematics it doesn't actually much matter how the fundamentals are resolved. The proof of Fermat's Last Theorem (a^n+b^n=c^n can occur for positive integers a,b,c,n only if n=1 or 2, as in 5^2+12^2=13^2) was an astounding accomplishment using a great deal of twentieth century mathematics. Foundational issues would effect the proof either not at all or , at most, force one to write things in a slightly different form. The result is true. So foundations are important, except they don't matter. Got to get back to the game, enough babbling for now. Metaphysics tends to produce a lot of babbling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted February 2, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 2, 2009 What brought up this thread was this statement. I didn't include it in the original post as not to bias the post if I could help it. But right after it says, "Its domain is all realitity," it goes on: For instance, the human soul and God, because they have neither colour nor weight, thermic nor electric properties, do not fall within the scope of the physicist's investigation; because they are devoid of quantity, they do not come within the field of inquiry of the mathematician. But, since they are beings, they do come within the domain of metaphysical investigation. The material object of metaphysics is, therefore, all being. This statement "since they are beings, they do come within the domain of metaphysical investigation" is what I find uncomfortable as a premise. What it seems to be saying is the metaphysics' domain is reality, therefore anything the mind of man can dream up - such as the human soul - can be defined by the metaphysicist as being, and therefore the very ability of the metaphysicist to think of this concept grants it the status of a being, and thus a reality. Ergo, the soul is a reality. To me this seems a lot like proving a silver knife is made out of wood by renaming the thought of silver a "knotty pine" experience. I am not convinced. It seems more like a game of words - I can hear the objections now, "that depends on what you mean by being, or, how do you define reality". That's what I mean by word games. And most likely what I have trouble accepting are some of the premises. However, I claim no expertise or even much knowledge in this area. I am aware that great thinkers such as Aristotle and Kant were pratisioners and these were not small minds. I only wonder if they used their minds in a worthwhile cause. Metaphysics tends to produce a lot of babbling Wasn't there an Ancient Tower of Babbling? :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffy Posted February 2, 2009 Report Share Posted February 2, 2009 Those string many dimensional theories look methapshysic to me :P. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1eyedjack Posted February 2, 2009 Report Share Posted February 2, 2009 I thought that metaphysics was just some halfway house between orthophysics and paraphysics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted February 2, 2009 Report Share Posted February 2, 2009 I thought that metaphysics was just some halfway house between orthophysics and paraphysics. Yeah, that was what my religion teacher said at grammar school. Spiritism was an example of metaphysical ideas. But that is not the way the word is common used, as I understand it. What Winston quotes sounds more common, although it is complete giberish to me. So for me it is probably not worthwhile, but if someone else say that ideas labeled as "metaphysics" make it easier for them to think clearly about issues of importance to them, I have no problems with that. To each his own. I like Ken's answer btw. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al_U_Card Posted February 2, 2009 Report Share Posted February 2, 2009 I thought that metaphysics was just some halfway house between orthophysics and paraphysics. It is the attempt to qualitatively and quantitatively relate to the paranormal and the ethereal. Our minds handle the ordinary stuff.Our souls deal with the extraordinary stuff.Our spirits try to keep the previous two in harmony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted February 2, 2009 Report Share Posted February 2, 2009 To me it seemed a lot like the mind games college kids play when they are stoned: maybe the universe is inside a shoebox inside God's closet.~~What say ye? Is metaphysics a worthwhile study? Do metaphysicists produce conclusions of value? What IS reality? well i'm sure aristotle and kant and others thought of it in much the same way, simply as games for the immature mind... they probably had nothing better to do than think on useless things it depends on ones method of knowing, i suppose... this leads to systems of thoughts, and eventually to one's ultimate authority (something that authorizes itself)... the question one hopes to answer is, which worldview makes our experience intelligible? the answer must be internally consistent, which gets into worldviews... take ethics, for example, from a worldview in which evolution is presupposed... what ethical stance makes any sense whatsoever from within that worldview? (i'm not asking you to answer the question, this is just an example)... what worldview makes intelligible any notion of (again, these are examples only) love or beauty? whatever that worldview might be, is it consistent with itself? what about self-awareness? can a worldview in which evolution is presupposed make sense of self-awareness? i know thoughts like this mean nothing to most people, but history is full of intelligent men and women who have spent a lot of time on just such thoughts Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al_U_Card Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 It is all a question of creativity and how you combine the emergent dualities based upon your awareness, perspective and intent. We are an expression of that intent. Our ego-centric perspective skews our awareness in ways that reveal our nature. How we deal with the elements of our existence is the purpose of our presence. It is a process and we are it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwnn Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 You are clearly not drinking enough Winston if you question such easily experienceable experiences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PassedOut Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 can a worldview in which evolution is presupposed make sense of self-awareness? Evolution is not "presupposed." It simply represents the best explanation ever developed to explain the available evidence. Aside from that, though, a worldview that recognizes evolution most certainly does not preclude self-awareness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted February 3, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 i know thoughts like this mean nothing to most people, but history is full of intelligent men and women who have spent a lot of time on just such thoughts Exactly so, Jimmy. I only mentioned a couple of the names - but it seems even within metaphysics there has been debate about what it is and of what importance it holds. These are not simple or silly questions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 Aside from that, though, a worldview that recognizes evolution most certainly does not preclude self-awareness. Self-awareness is probably not so difficult to account for in terms of evolutionary psychology, but it is easily confused with (and in fact I might be the one who is confused) consciousness, which remains a "hard" problem. Csaba: While parapsychological experiences may require alcohol, I think metaphysics is easier to think about when one is sober, or maybe under influence of marihuanna rather than alcohol. But if we disagree about this it just shows once again how muddy these concepts are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwnn Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 Obviously Helene but I didn't want to divulge Winston's secret illegal activities and center on a more legally accepted vice of his. After all, if the evil republican vetting agents didn't find out, it is probably a secret worthy of keeping. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenberg Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 To me it seemed a lot like the mind games college kids play when they are stoned: maybe the universe is inside a shoebox inside God's closet.~~What say ye? Is metaphysics a worthwhile study? Do metaphysicists produce conclusions of value? What IS reality? well i'm sure aristotle and kant and others thought of it in much the same way, simply as games for the immature mind... they probably had nothing better to do than think on useless things it depends on ones method of knowing, i suppose... this leads to systems of thoughts, and eventually to one's ultimate authority (something that authorizes itself)... the question one hopes to answer is, which worldview makes our experience intelligible? the answer must be internally consistent, which gets into worldviews... take ethics, for example, from a worldview in which evolution is presupposed... what ethical stance makes any sense whatsoever from within that worldview? (i'm not asking you to answer the question, this is just an example)... what worldview makes intelligible any notion of (again, these are examples only) love or beauty? whatever that worldview might be, is it consistent with itself? what about self-awareness? can a worldview in which evolution is presupposed make sense of self-awareness? i know thoughts like this mean nothing to most people, but history is full of intelligent men and women who have spent a lot of time on just such thoughts I may be a bit out of my depth here, but I'll give it a shot. Kant was active when Euclid's postulate of unique parallels was an active topic for discussion. As I understand it, and with Kant one is never sure if one does understand it, this became one of the Synthetic A Priori statements in his Critique of Pure Reason, meaning that it was a factual statement about the world whose truth could be deduced from proper reasoning, no experimentation required. Mathematicians, Gauss, Bolyai, Lobachevsky, others, took a different approach. They worked through the consequences of both accepting and denying the Parallel Postulate, providing the framework necessary to evaluate the real world truth of the assertions. Modern geometric models of the curved universe far exceed either of these eighteenth/nineteenth century straight line views in complexity, but the general orientation is this latter one: Perform mathematical analysis to develop the consequences of physical assumptions and test them experimentally. This approach has proved to be very successful. Metaphysical reflection is not, I think, a waste of time. No doubt Einstein and other revolutionary thinkers, Darwin for example, took time to think through foundational assumptions. But the thinking cannot end with the metaphysical reflection if the conclusions are to be relied upon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 can a worldview in which evolution is presupposed make sense of self-awareness? Evolution is not "presupposed." It simply represents the best explanation ever developed to explain the available evidence. Aside from that, though, a worldview that recognizes evolution most certainly does not preclude self-awareness. first of all, of course it's presupposed... all worldviews are (try to make an argument from within your particular worldview that isn't circular)... secondly, i'd be interested in knowing how random atoms can become self-aware (or, in case i'm confused and not helene, concious)Metaphysical reflection is not, I think, a waste of time. No doubt Einstein and other revolutionary thinkers, Darwin for example, took time to think through foundational assumptions. But the thinking cannot end with the metaphysical reflection if the conclusions are to be relied upon.brilliantly stated, imo... i agree, and wish i had said so that well, that the thinking can't end there - but i also believe that it should begin there Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PassedOut Posted February 4, 2009 Report Share Posted February 4, 2009 secondly, i'd be interested in knowing how random atoms can become self-aware (or, in case i'm confused and not helene, concious) No one I know contends that "random atoms" are self-aware (or conscious). Living beings are not random atoms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted February 4, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 4, 2009 well i'm sure aristotle and kant and others thought of it in much the same way, simply as games for the immature mind You get me wrong, Jimmy. I only mentioned the college kids smoking grass because that's how I see the question - not that they were immature minds but the questions being asked were unanswerabe and therefore the answers not much more than defined speculation. But I admit to much ignorance in the area of metaphysics, so am willing to at least hear what others have to say. it depends on ones method of knowing, i suppose... Not being a wiseass here, but to me it seems that knowing or knowledge isn't or shouldn't be a individualized concept - learning, yes, but not knowing. take ethics, for example, from a worldview in which evolution is presupposed... what ethical stance makes any sense whatsoever from within that worldview? (i'm not asking you to answer the question, this is just an example)... what worldview makes intelligible any notion of (again, these are examples only) love or beauty? whatever that worldview might be, is it consistent with itself? what about self-awareness? can a worldview in which evolution is presupposed make sense of self-awareness? Jimmy, I honestly don't know. I understand the ethics/evolution question but only in a negative sense - by that I mean ethics seems (to me) like an unrelated question. The abstracts (I guess that is what they are) of love and beauty are very much definition bound entities - their very existence can be debated due to how they are defined, no? How can there be any defensable argument when the subject (love or beauty) is open to debate on how to define it and even if it exists? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted February 4, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 4, 2009 To me it seemed a lot like the mind games college kids play when they are stoned: maybe the universe is inside a shoebox inside God's closet.~~What say ye? Is metaphysics a worthwhile study? Do metaphysicists produce conclusions of value? What IS reality? well i'm sure aristotle and kant and others thought of it in much the same way, simply as games for the immature mind... they probably had nothing better to do than think on useless things it depends on ones method of knowing, i suppose... this leads to systems of thoughts, and eventually to one's ultimate authority (something that authorizes itself)... the question one hopes to answer is, which worldview makes our experience intelligible? the answer must be internally consistent, which gets into worldviews... take ethics, for example, from a worldview in which evolution is presupposed... what ethical stance makes any sense whatsoever from within that worldview? (i'm not asking you to answer the question, this is just an example)... what worldview makes intelligible any notion of (again, these are examples only) love or beauty? whatever that worldview might be, is it consistent with itself? what about self-awareness? can a worldview in which evolution is presupposed make sense of self-awareness? i know thoughts like this mean nothing to most people, but history is full of intelligent men and women who have spent a lot of time on just such thoughts I may be a bit out of my depth here, but I'll give it a shot. Kant was active when Euclid's postulate of unique parallels was an active topic for discussion. As I understand it, and with Kant one is never sure if one does understand it, this became one of the Synthetic A Priori statements in his Critique of Pure Reason, meaning that it was a factual statement about the world whose truth could be deduced from proper reasoning, no experimentation required. Mathematicians, Gauss, Bolyai, Lobachevsky, others, took a different approach. They worked through the consequences of both accepting and denying the Parallel Postulate, providing the framework necessary to evaluate the real world truth of the assertions. Modern geometric models of the curved universe far exceed either of these eighteenth/nineteenth century straight line views in complexity, but the general orientation is this latter one: Perform mathematical analysis to develop the consequences of physical assumptions and test them experimentally. This approach has proved to be very successful. Metaphysical reflection is not, I think, a waste of time. No doubt Einstein and other revolutionary thinkers, Darwin for example, took time to think through foundational assumptions. But the thinking cannot end with the metaphysical reflection if the conclusions are to be relied upon. Well, Ken, I know I am out of my depts now. You have spiked my Wow-O-Meter at a 9. Too bad my understand-O-meter is stuck on 2. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted February 4, 2009 Report Share Posted February 4, 2009 secondly, i'd be interested in knowing how random atoms can become self-aware (or, in case i'm confused and not helene, concious) No one I know contends that "random atoms" are self-aware (or conscious). Living beings are not random atoms.you are a living, self-aware being... if there is an evolutionary chain leading to you, you can in theory trace that chain backwards to its source, correct? at what point in this link was a living being not self-aware? at what point did random atoms join together to form this living being? when did self-awareness begin, in your opinion?Not being a wiseass here, but to me it seems that knowing or knowledge isn't or shouldn't be a individualized concept - learning, yes, but not knowing.you misunderstand... by method of knowing i'm speaking of that which allows you (us) to make sense of our experiences Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PassedOut Posted February 4, 2009 Report Share Posted February 4, 2009 secondly, i'd be interested in knowing how random atoms can become self-aware (or, in case i'm confused and not helene, concious) No one I know contends that "random atoms" are self-aware (or conscious). Living beings are not random atoms.you are a living, self-aware being... if there is an evolutionary chain leading to you, you can in theory trace that chain backwards to its source, correct? at what point in this link was a living being not self-aware? at what point did random atoms join together to form this living being? when did self-awareness begin, in your opinion? From our observations of people and other living beings, we can fairly conclude that there are many gradations of self-awareness and consciousness. I suppose that squirrels have more than birds but less than chimps. When the most primitive self-awareness started, I have no way of knowing. Neither do you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted February 4, 2009 Report Share Posted February 4, 2009 secondly, i'd be interested in knowing how random atoms can become self-aware (or, in case i'm confused and not helene, concious) No one I know contends that "random atoms" are self-aware (or conscious). Living beings are not random atoms.you are a living, self-aware being... if there is an evolutionary chain leading to you, you can in theory trace that chain backwards to its source, correct? at what point in this link was a living being not self-aware? at what point did random atoms join together to form this living being? when did self-awareness begin, in your opinion? From our observations of people and other living beings, we can fairly conclude that there are many gradations of self-awareness and consciousness. I suppose that squirrels have more than birds but less than chimps. When the most primitive self-awareness started, I have no way of knowing. Neither do you. i asked for your opinion... assuming you believe that at one time there was nothing but random atoms, at some point they had to (randomly) come together to form a living being... at some other point, some living being first became self-aware... as for the "neither do you," my worldview does answer that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PassedOut Posted February 5, 2009 Report Share Posted February 5, 2009 When the most primitive self-awareness started, I have no way of knowing. Neither do you. as for the "neither do you," my worldview does answer that I do understand that you rely on your "worldview" to supply a particular set of beliefs. But believing is not the same as knowing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted February 5, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 5, 2009 you misunderstand... Yes, frequently. you are a living, self-aware being... if there is an evolutionary chain leading to you, you can in theory trace that chain backwards to its source, correct? at what point in this link was a living being not self-aware? at what point did random atoms join together to form this living being? when did self-awareness begin, in your opinion? If I can jump in here, too? This question doesn't matter to me, personally. I can understand how it might to someone else, though. The best anyone could do is offer complete speculation. But I wanted to jump in here because it is just this type of question I had in mind when I stated earlier that "it reminds me of college kids smoking dope and talking about the universe inside a shoebox in God's closet." (or close to that). I wasn't trying to put down the importance of metaphysics, but was trying to imply the unverifiability that I perceive in those studies. I don't grasp how being internally consistent validates anything - that is how fantasy and science-fiction writers get readers to suspend disbelief and keep reading - they create worlds that have internal consistency in which their stories play out. Creating a starting point and then having a consistently valid logic argument based on the beginning point does not validate the point as correct. Because of that, it seems to me that any metaphysically-based argument has to have a premise that begins with the word "If". Things that begin with the word 'if" cannot be proved but can only be believed or accepted on faith. Or so it seems. But as I said above, I frequently misunderstand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.