Lol. I couldn’t help myself…get it “actual” LAWL.
Definition of Metaphysics: That portion of philosophy which treats of the most general and fundamental principles underlying all reality and all knowledge.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Lol. I couldn’t help myself…get it “actual” LAWL.
Definition of Metaphysics: That portion of philosophy which treats of the most general and fundamental principles underlying all reality and all knowledge.[/quote]
Nice one Chris…Metaphysics does in fact go beyond epistemology. While epistemology is the study of what can be known, metaphysics is that which is actually true, whether it can be known or not…
Further, when something is a metaphysical fact, it’s an absolute truth, period. In epistemology, you can be wrong. Reason is the ultimate litmus test of truth.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Lol. I couldn’t help myself…get it “actual” LAWL.
Definition of Metaphysics: That portion of philosophy which treats of the most general and fundamental principles underlying all reality and all knowledge.[/quote]
Nice one Chris…Metaphysics does in fact go beyond epistemology. While epistemology is the study of what can be known, metaphysics is that which is actually true, whether it can be known or not…
Further, when something is a metaphysical fact, it’s an absolute truth, period. In epistemology, you can be wrong. Reason is the ultimate litmus test of truth.[/quote]
Yeah kudo’s to Chris. Pat you should look up how metaphysics is defined in a dictionary of Philosophy. There is no such thing as metaphysics which is actually true. If you doubt what i say then give what is the meaning of true? and How is true different from Truth? Its actually true that Obama is president of the USA". How is that a metaphysical statement? on the other hand " God is the Being of Beings, is a metaphysical statement.
Also while i believe in logical truths which are really empty truths. If some statement is true , say the “earth goes round the sun” its also a fact that the earth goes around the sun.
Its not just reason that is a condition for what is true, but also sense data and investigations into the condition of what is stated as being true. I do think and I think this might be what you mean that Truth is often associated with a world view and that is usually a metaphysical system. It might be claimed that essentially Marxism is the Truth or Christianity is the Truth, Or CHrist is the Truth, its been said that Jesus said, " I am the Truth".
In regard to what you said about epistemology " there you can be wrong". is meaningful especially from the work of Ludwiq Wittgenstein. He said that you can only claim to know something if its possible to be wrong. Putting up your hand in front of your face and claiming, I know this is my hand according to Wittgenstein is nonsense. His philosophy in part is an attempt to show how skepticism and holding skeptical position is filling with nonsense.
[quote]silee wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Lol. I couldn’t help myself…get it “actual” LAWL.
Definition of Metaphysics: That portion of philosophy which treats of the most general and fundamental principles underlying all reality and all knowledge.[/quote]
Nice one Chris…Metaphysics does in fact go beyond epistemology. While epistemology is the study of what can be known, metaphysics is that which is actually true, whether it can be known or not…
Further, when something is a metaphysical fact, it’s an absolute truth, period. In epistemology, you can be wrong. Reason is the ultimate litmus test of truth.[/quote]
Yeah kudo’s to Chris. Pat you should look up how metaphysics is defined in a dictionary of Philosophy. There is no such thing as metaphysics which is actually true. If you doubt what i say then give what is the meaning of true? and How is true different from Truth? Its actually true that Obama is president of the USA". How is that a metaphysical statement? on the other hand " God is the Being of Beings, is a metaphysical statement.
Also while i believe in logical truths which are really empty truths. If some statement is true , say the “earth goes round the sun” its also a fact that the earth goes around the sun.
Its not just reason that is a condition for what is true, but also sense data and investigations into the condition of what is stated as being true. I do think and I think this might be what you mean that Truth is often associated with a world view and that is usually a metaphysical system. It might be claimed that essentially Marxism is the Truth or Christianity is the Truth, Or CHrist is the Truth, its been said that Jesus said, " I am the Truth".
In regard to what you said about epistemology " there you can be wrong". is meaningful especially from the work of Ludwiq Wittgenstein. He said that you can only claim to know something if its possible to be wrong. Putting up your hand in front of your face and claiming, I know this is my hand according to Wittgenstein is nonsense. His philosophy in part is an attempt to show how skepticism and holding skeptical position is filling with nonsense.
[/quote]
What I was talking about was in reference to metaphysics is the difference between deductive truths which are absolute and inductive truths which are likely truths based on correlation. Absolute truths only exist in metaphysics. A priori vs. a posteriori.
Truth is what is the case.
As regards to epistemology I was simply make a distinction between what you can actually know and what you think you know. And I am a big fan of skepticism as a tool; not as a working philosophy.
[quote]silee wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Lol. I couldn’t help myself…get it “actual” LAWL.
Definition of Metaphysics: That portion of philosophy which treats of the most general and fundamental principles underlying all reality and all knowledge.[/quote]
Nice one Chris…Metaphysics does in fact go beyond epistemology. While epistemology is the study of what can be known, metaphysics is that which is actually true, whether it can be known or not…
Further, when something is a metaphysical fact, it’s an absolute truth, period. In epistemology, you can be wrong. Reason is the ultimate litmus test of truth.[/quote]
Yeah kudo’s to Chris. Pat you should look up how metaphysics is defined in a dictionary of Philosophy. There is no such thing as metaphysics which is actually true. If you doubt what i say then give what is the meaning of true? and How is true different from Truth? Its actually true that Obama is president of the USA". How is that a metaphysical statement? on the other hand " God is the Being of Beings, is a metaphysical statement.
Also while i believe in logical truths which are really empty truths. If some statement is true , say the “earth goes round the sun” its also a fact that the earth goes around the sun.
Its not just reason that is a condition for what is true, but also sense data and investigations into the condition of what is stated as being true. I do think and I think this might be what you mean that Truth is often associated with a world view and that is usually a metaphysical system. It might be claimed that essentially Marxism is the Truth or Christianity is the Truth, Or CHrist is the Truth, its been said that Jesus said, " I am the Truth".
In regard to what you said about epistemology " there you can be wrong". is meaningful especially from the work of Ludwiq Wittgenstein. He said that you can only claim to know something if its possible to be wrong. Putting up your hand in front of your face and claiming, I know this is my hand according to Wittgenstein is nonsense. His philosophy in part is an attempt to show how skepticism and holding skeptical position is filling with nonsense.
[/quote]
A thing is true to the extent that it conforms to the ideal defined by the essence of the kind it belongs to.
A metaphysical challenge : define “thing” without using it (nor a synonym like “entity”).
(edit : i think i already made an allusion about this one in one of our discussion about the cosmological argument)
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]silee wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Lol. I couldn’t help myself…get it “actual” LAWL.
Definition of Metaphysics: That portion of philosophy which treats of the most general and fundamental principles underlying all reality and all knowledge.[/quote]
Nice one Chris…Metaphysics does in fact go beyond epistemology. While epistemology is the study of what can be known, metaphysics is that which is actually true, whether it can be known or not…
Further, when something is a metaphysical fact, it’s an absolute truth, period. In epistemology, you can be wrong. Reason is the ultimate litmus test of truth.[/quote]
Yeah kudo’s to Chris. Pat you should look up how metaphysics is defined in a dictionary of Philosophy. There is no such thing as metaphysics which is actually true. If you doubt what i say then give what is the meaning of true? and How is true different from Truth? Its actually true that Obama is president of the USA". How is that a metaphysical statement? on the other hand " God is the Being of Beings, is a metaphysical statement.
Also while i believe in logical truths which are really empty truths. If some statement is true , say the “earth goes round the sun” its also a fact that the earth goes around the sun.
Its not just reason that is a condition for what is true, but also sense data and investigations into the condition of what is stated as being true. I do think and I think this might be what you mean that Truth is often associated with a world view and that is usually a metaphysical system. It might be claimed that essentially Marxism is the Truth or Christianity is the Truth, Or CHrist is the Truth, its been said that Jesus said, " I am the Truth".
In regard to what you said about epistemology " there you can be wrong". is meaningful especially from the work of Ludwiq Wittgenstein. He said that you can only claim to know something if its possible to be wrong. Putting up your hand in front of your face and claiming, I know this is my hand according to Wittgenstein is nonsense. His philosophy in part is an attempt to show how skepticism and holding skeptical position is filling with nonsense.
[/quote]
A thing is true to the extent that it conforms to the ideal defined by the essence of the kind it belongs to. [/quote]
Things aren’t true or false only statements are.
[quote]silee wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
A thing is true to the extent that it conforms to the ideal defined by the essence of the kind it belongs to. [/quote]
Things aren’t true or false only statements are. [/quote]
Not according to the subject. 
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]silee wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Lol. I couldn’t help myself…get it “actual” LAWL.
Definition of Metaphysics: That portion of philosophy which treats of the most general and fundamental principles underlying all reality and all knowledge.[/quote]
Nice one Chris…Metaphysics does in fact go beyond epistemology. While epistemology is the study of what can be known, metaphysics is that which is actually true, whether it can be known or not…
Further, when something is a metaphysical fact, it’s an absolute truth, period. In epistemology, you can be wrong. Reason is the ultimate litmus test of truth.[/quote]
Yeah kudo’s to Chris. Pat you should look up how metaphysics is defined in a dictionary of Philosophy. There is no such thing as metaphysics which is actually true. If you doubt what i say then give what is the meaning of true? and How is true different from Truth? Its actually true that Obama is president of the USA". How is that a metaphysical statement? on the other hand " God is the Being of Beings, is a metaphysical statement.
Also while i believe in logical truths which are really empty truths. If some statement is true , say the “earth goes round the sun” its also a fact that the earth goes around the sun.
Its not just reason that is a condition for what is true, but also sense data and investigations into the condition of what is stated as being true. I do think and I think this might be what you mean that Truth is often associated with a world view and that is usually a metaphysical system. It might be claimed that essentially Marxism is the Truth or Christianity is the Truth, Or CHrist is the Truth, its been said that Jesus said, " I am the Truth".
In regard to what you said about epistemology " there you can be wrong". is meaningful especially from the work of Ludwiq Wittgenstein. He said that you can only claim to know something if its possible to be wrong. Putting up your hand in front of your face and claiming, I know this is my hand according to Wittgenstein is nonsense. His philosophy in part is an attempt to show how skepticism and holding skeptical position is filling with nonsense.
[/quote]
What I was talking about was in reference to metaphysics is the difference between deductive truths which are absolute and inductive truths which are likely truths based on correlation. Absolute truths only exist in metaphysics. A priori vs. a posteriori.
Truth is what is the case.
As regards to epistemology I was simply make a distinction between what you can actually know and what you think you know. And I am a big fan of skepticism as a tool; not as a working philosophy.[/quote]
Deduction is a process of reasoning from premises. If the premises are true and the inference is valid you have a sound argument. I am not sure what your talking about when you say deductive truths or inductive truths. Do you mean the basic modus ponens in deductive or propositional logic. If P > q. 2) p 3. :: q. the truth of that depends on the material world. that is a valid argument form that’s all. Induction is again a form of reasoning from a particular instances of something to a general statement about them.
A prior has to do with reasoning from definitions. I guess one can say a prior pertains to analytic statements. All bachelors are men.
Your last statement about what you can know and what you think you can know has nothing to do with epistemology, and everything to do with psychology. Although I’d grant that the first part can be a part of epistemology but i would put it thus : what its possible to know. or to raise Kants question what are the possible conditions for knowledge. What you think you know is about psychology or a question about the state of your understanding given your self conception of yourself.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]silee wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
A thing is true to the extent that it conforms to the ideal defined by the essence of the kind it belongs to. [/quote]
Things aren’t true or false only statements are. [/quote]
Not according to the subject. :)[/quote]
what do you mean ? what is true or false is always dependent on what can be said i. e. statement of fact in a language…
[quote]kamui wrote:
A metaphysical challenge : define “thing” without using it (nor a synonym like “entity”).
(edit : i think i already made an allusion about this one in one of our discussion about the cosmological argument)[/quote]
Lol.
[quote]Metaphysics: The ACTUAL Key to Everything [/quote]And how do you now this?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Now THIS should be a good read! (provided I can make my way through the walls of quotes!)
[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Now THIS should be a good read! (provided I can make my way through the walls of quotes!)[/quote]I can’t do this in two threads at once. My dear Christopher has not yet grasped the autonomous, and therefore ultimately futile nature of this method of doing knowledge. Interestingly, his Catholic comrade Cortes is pretty close.
Silee my good man, THIS is your thang. You will fit right in here =] Now don’t go poutin off on me, I don’t mean anything terrible by that. It’s true though.
[quote]kamui wrote:
A metaphysical challenge : define “thing” without using it (nor a synonym like “entity”).
(edit : i think i already made an allusion about this one in one of our discussion about the cosmological argument)[/quote]
A thing is the total of a moleculair framework.
Or is “moleculair framework” “using it”?
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
A metaphysical challenge : define “thing” without using it (nor a synonym like “entity”).
(edit : i think i already made an allusion about this one in one of our discussion about the cosmological argument)[/quote]
A thing is the total of a moleculair framework.
Or is “moleculair framework” “using it”?[/quote]
Well, i could say that you can’t know anything about molecular frameworks if you don’t already know what a thing is.
But it’s not an epistemological thread, it’s a metaphysical one.
So no, “molecular framework” is not “using it” in this context.
But
-It excludes things that exists below the “molecular framework level”.
And it excludes non-material things.
-that does not tell what allow us to say that something is a discrete “total”. Where/when do we start and stop to “totalize” ?
So i don’t think it’s a valid definition of a thing.
Actually, i believe that “the total of a molecular framework” could be a pretty good definition of a material body. A solid one, preferably.
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
A metaphysical challenge : define “thing” without using it (nor a synonym like “entity”).
(edit : i think i already made an allusion about this one in one of our discussion about the cosmological argument)[/quote]
A thing is the total of a moleculair framework.
Or is “moleculair framework” “using it”?[/quote]
Well, i could say that you can’t know anything about molecular frameworks if you don’t already know what a thing is.
But it’s not an epistemological thread, it’s a metaphysical one.
So no, “molecular framework” is not “using it” in this context.
But
-It excludes things that exists below the “molecular framework level”.
And it excludes non-material things.
-that does not tell what allow us to say that something is a discrete “total”. Where/when do we start and stop to “totalize” ?
So i don’t think it’s a valid definition of a thing.
Actually, i believe that “the total of a molecular framework” could be a pretty good definition of a material body. A solid one, preferably.
[/quote]
Yes, a thing would be something we perceive as a thing. A lattice of carbon atoms would be a thing, but a single random atom wouldn’t be a thing, but a simple random atom.
So a thing would indeed be a body or object [in its widest sense].
This means that there are no non-material things.
An object of the mind is a mirage. That doesn’t mean a mirage can’t have power or excert influence, but in- and of itself has no substance.
I believe that metaphysics, while playing an important role in human evolution, acts as a justification for the 'what-if?" questions. By waxing eloquently about these topics one conveniently evades the question, “Is what I believe actually true or wishful thinking?”.
[quote]kamui wrote:
A metaphysical challenge : define “thing” without using it (nor a synonym like “entity”).
(edit : i think i already made an allusion about this one in one of our discussion about the cosmological argument)[/quote]
Hmmm, Ok.
Thing - that which exists.
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
A metaphysical challenge : define “thing” without using it (nor a synonym like “entity”).
(edit : i think i already made an allusion about this one in one of our discussion about the cosmological argument)[/quote]
A thing is the total of a moleculair framework.
Or is “moleculair framework” “using it”?[/quote]
Well, i could say that you can’t know anything about molecular frameworks if you don’t already know what a thing is.
But it’s not an epistemological thread, it’s a metaphysical one.
So no, “molecular framework” is not “using it” in this context.
But
-It excludes things that exists below the “molecular framework level”.
And it excludes non-material things.
-that does not tell what allow us to say that something is a discrete “total”. Where/when do we start and stop to “totalize” ?
So i don’t think it’s a valid definition of a thing.
Actually, i believe that “the total of a molecular framework” could be a pretty good definition of a material body. A solid one, preferably.
[/quote]
It would also mean that an atom isn’t a thing. And nothing is solid, it’s mostly empty space.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
A metaphysical challenge : define “thing” without using it (nor a synonym like “entity”).
(edit : i think i already made an allusion about this one in one of our discussion about the cosmological argument)[/quote]
Hmmm, Ok.
Thing - that which exists.[/quote]
So a hot pink 57 Chevy is not a thing?