Metaphysics: The ACTUAL Key to Everything

[pat]

[quote]silee wrote:

[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]

Do me a favor and spare me the philosophy 101, logic and critical thinking class. I really don’t want to have to break down everything I say to a subatomic level and parse it out. It’s laborious and not necessary.

Every absolute is metaphysical, because only in metaphysics can you have absolutes. Nothing can be known to absolute in the physical world because you cannot test every instance of a physical thing.

Epistemology is the study of knowledge or what can be known. It’s a philosophical study, not a psychological one.

[kamui]

[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.[/quote]

a simple random atom is not “nothing”, right ?
so, what is it, if it is neither a thing nor nothing ?

Why should we stop above the molecular level ?
Isn’t an atom another “total”, composed of smaller particles. Why can’t we define thing as “the total of an atomic framework” ?

[quote]
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.[/quote]

Yet this mirage is not nothing either, since it has some power and influence.

“Substance” is an interesting word, what do you mean by it ?

[kamui]

[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]

It’s a start.
Now, how could we define existence, without resorting to tautology or circular reasoning ?

[Tiribulus]

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Hmmm, Ok.
Thing - that which exists.[/quote]

It’s a start.
Now, how could we define existence, without resorting to tautology or circular reasoning ?[/quote]HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!! Philosopher indeed!!! =]

[pat]

[quote]kamui wrote:

[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]

It’s a start.
Now, how could we define existence, without resorting to tautology or circular reasoning ?[/quote]

Existence - that which is.

[kamui]

A bit tautologic, but it’s ok.
Now, you are exactly where Spinoza was when he started writing his Ethics.
What’s “being” ?

[silee]

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

Metaphysics: The ACTUAL Key to Everything [/quote]And how do you now this?

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]

Tribulus lol no no , no poutin from me hahaha I like that you refered to me, thank you .

[silee]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]silee wrote:

[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]

Do me a favor and spare me the philosophy 101, logic and critical thinking class. I really don’t want to have to break down everything I say to a subatomic level and parse it out. It’s laborious and not necessary.

Every absolute is metaphysical, because only in metaphysics can you have absolutes. Nothing can be known to absolute in the physical world because you cannot test every instance of a physical thing.

Epistemology is the study of knowledge or what can be known. It’s a philosophical study, not a psychological one.[/quote

Well i wouldn’t have been able to respond to what you wrote if it was more cogent. Philosophy if it is anything is about breaking down and analyzing that was analysis is.
I never said the notion of an absolute can be found in the physical world… Not that I know of, which doesn’t say much… while I agree with your remark I don’t agree with your reasoning, I find it is faulty. Rather i think one should look at the notion of the Absolute and see how that concept functions.
Now if you said the notion of the absolute in regard to metaphysics is that there is one objective reality which is uncaused, complete and universal. Now that is how the term should be used.

Your the one who said in regard to knowledge; “or what you think you know”. that has nothing to do with epistemology… Just using the term “think” is not a justification for the study of knowledge. So what I think i know about transformational grammar or what any one thinks they know about anything is a study of epistemology? Nah That isn’t epistemology its psychology or if its a group of people who think they know, then sociology. I am only quoting you, that’s what you said.
Also in philosophy the whole idea is to try to understand by analysis of concepts and sense making, if one wants to pass that off then one doesn’t care to do philosophy.

[pat]

[quote]kamui wrote:
A bit tautologic, but it’s ok.
Now, you are exactly where Spinoza was when he started writing his Ethics.
What’s “being” ?[/quote]

Well, ‘definition’ by definition is tautological, but the more words you add, the more you constrict, and since we are talking broad general all encompassing words, their definitions will likewise follow.

Being - something that exists.

You didn’t say I couldn’t use the words presented before to define this one. I hope we are getting to the end game soon, though. I am not a fan of being led, but for you I’ll do it.

[pat]

Silee if you want me to read that, fix your quotes… It happens to me all the time so I know.

[kamui]

[quote]
I hope we are getting to the end game soon, though. I am not a fan of being led, but for you I’ll do it. [/quote]

I may adopt a quite “socratic” tone here, but i really don’t lead you to a specific conclusion.

[quote]
Well, ‘definition’ by definition is tautological, but the more words you add, the more you constrict, and since we are talking broad general all encompassing words, their definitions will likewise follow.

Being - something that exists.

You didn’t say I couldn’t use the words presented before to define this one. :)[/quote]

Indeed. But now we have the circle of the circular reasoning i mentionned earlier.

But that doesn’t mean it is wrong. Circles are ok, at this axiomatic level.

Then we need to advance other concepts in order to go further.
Ephrem proposed substance and totality (it seems he is somewhere in the first book of Spinoza’s Ethics too).

[pat]

[quote]kamui wrote:

I hope we are getting to the end game soon, though. I am not a fan of being led, but for you I’ll do it. [/quote]

I may adopt a quite “socratic” tone here, but i really don’t lead you to a specific conclusion.

Okay, but then I don’t understand your point for asking about definitions and such.

[quote]

Well, ‘definition’ by definition is tautological, but the more words you add, the more you constrict, and since we are talking broad general all encompassing words, their definitions will likewise follow.

Being - something that exists.

You didn’t say I couldn’t use the words presented before to define this one. :)[/quote]

Indeed. But now we have the circle of the circular reasoning i mentionned earlier.

But that doesn’t mean it is wrong. Circles are ok, at this axiomatic level.

I am not making an argument, I am defining a word. I would think definitions should be circular since you are describing the antecedent.

Then we need to advance other concepts in order to go further.
Ephrem proposed substance and totality (it seems he is somewhere in the first book of Spinoza’s Ethics too).

He’s merely proposing that all existence is physical and that any idea of metaphysics is a man-made illusion.

So let’s go further…

[kamui]

[quote]
Okay, but then I don’t understand your point for asking about definitions and such.[/quote]

At this point, i know the epistemological, theological and cosmological positions of most PWI regulars. But i’m not sure about their ontological perspectives. So i ask.

Sometimes, we got strange results asking this kind of question.

Ephrem, for example :

He’s merely proposing that all existence is physical and that any idea of metaphysics is a man-made illusion.

His epistemology seems quite constructivist, post-kantian and a bit idealist. Quasi-solipsist sometimes.
But his ontology sound like a realist and materialist one.

As a result, i’m not sure i figured how Ephremism works.

so yes

let’s go further…

[Tiribulus]

kamui wrote:<<< But i’m not sure about their ontological perspectives. So i ask. >>>[/quote]Mine has been practically stated, but is fairly easily deduced from what I’ve said about epistemology.[quote]kamui wrote:<<< As a result, i’m not sure i figured how Ephremism works. >>>

[pat]

[quote]kamui wrote:

Okay, but then I don’t understand your point for asking about definitions and such.[/quote]

At this point, i know the epistemological, theological and cosmological positions of most PWI regulars. But i’m not sure about their ontological perspectives. So i ask.

Sometimes, we got strange results asking this kind of question.

Ah, so what’s your impression of my ontological perspective, based on my answers? It’s interesting to see how this would differ from what I perceive of myself.

Ephrem, for example :

He’s merely proposing that all existence is physical and that any idea of metaphysics is a man-made illusion.

His epistemology seems quite constructivist, post-kantian and a bit idealist. Quasi-solipsist sometimes.
But his ontology sound like a realist and materialist one.

As a result, i’m not sure i figured how Ephremism works.

so yes

let’s go further…

I don’t think Ephrem is that complicated. He is a hopeful idealist, a strict, stubborn empiricist to a fault. He has actually become more rigid over time in the face of contrary evidences.
I’m pretty sure he’d deny he has an ontology, or that it’s just a bunch of neurons firing; which may cause the ontology, but isn’t the ontology. I have a Phd. in Ephremism…

[Tiribulus]

[quote]silee wrote:<<< Tribulus lol no no , no poutin from me hahaha I like that you refered to me, thank you .[/quote]Of course. Now that we got everything worked out ;D

[silee]

[quote]pat wrote:
Silee if you want me to read that, fix your quotes… It happens to me all the time so I know.[/quote]

yeah they did get messed up.

[Cephalic_Carnage]

[quote]silee wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Silee if you want me to read that, fix your quotes… It happens to me all the time so I know.[/quote]

yeah they did get messed up.[/quote]

Had a really strange occurance yesterday (or was it the day before…)… I posted something, then realized that the first quote command had a / in front of it, i.e. messing up all my quotes…
Clicked on “edit”… And there it showed me the same quote command without the /… Don’t know if there is some autocorrect function going on?
Anyway, thing is… I am absolutely positive That the first quote should never have had that / in front of it because I quoted someone elses post in the first place… Which automatically places the correct quote command at the beginning. (and ends the quote at the end of the quoted post).

Weird all around.

[silee]

I think you can make a case that Ontology, metaphysics, Theology and to a lesser extent epistemology are interrelated. But if i had to choose two that seem to underlay all thought that would be ontology and metaphysics. I further think that modern scientific investigation can escape metaphysics in so far as Theory, have to be supported by data and subject to peer review or replication although i don’t think this is the essence of science. The reason i say this is a team of scientist could be working to replicate a study and in the process come up with hypotheses that strike out in a new direction and after a long process lead to a new paradigm for advancing knowledge.

[kamui]

[quote]
Ah, so what’s your impression of my ontological perspective, based on my answers? It’s interesting to see how this would differ from what I perceive of myself.[/quote]

I’m not really sure.
I sometimes get the impression that you have two different ontological perspectives :
-A medieval, realist one, with aristotelian/thomist influences
-a more “modern” and rationalist one, with influences from Hume and Kant

Not sure which is the “true” one for you.
If i had to bet, i would say that you’re probably a realist who is well aware of the developments of idealism and rationalism and who does not hesitate to use them when your argument need or allow it.

That being said, I’m not sure ontology matters that much for you. The real stakes are theological and moral ones.