I think the scientific method employed by physics is fundamental as the most reliable way of pursuing new knowledge and testing its validity. — universeness

I always find it amusing when people come to a philosophy forum to say physics is really where truth lays.

OK, this may be off topic, but one should not refer to articles which, in order to be read, one must subscribe to a website!! — Alkis Piskas

I have no problem reading it and I am not a subscriber.

So why combine them? — universeness

Why indeed. The error began by calling Aristotle's work on "first philosophy" with the title, "Metaphysics." Of course, the name stuck, but like a lot of the Latinized Greek terms, it misstated what Aristotle's text was about.

And do you see very different 'connotations' or emphasis if you associate the term metaphysics with 'after' physics compared to 'beyond' physics? — universeness

The term "metaphysics" really has nothing to do with the term "physics." This definition would imply there is something fundamental about physics.

Kant critiqued metaphysics. But he reduces metaphysics to epistemology.

5. Time machine.

Our investigation is a grammatical one.

"Grammar" gets to be a bit abstract with Wittgenstein. Though he may skirt the charge off linguistic idealism--reality is language--he sometimes treats language as a fundamental reality.

Good thread.

Metaphysics, to me, is about how you think about the world. Not in terms of truth, but what kind of thing it is.

It's a mystery to me. All I know is we mathematicians observe physical phenomena and extract and abstract patterns. — jgill

Thank you for your service.

But if it's the godlike elemental primacy of parents in early childhood, then it's true, I thought this was shared experience. — hypericin

Can you explain more what you're referring to? So far the discussion is interesting but a bit vague.

Wittgenstein attempts to dissolve them. — Fooloso4

What problems do you see Wittgenstein dissolving?

I was suggesting that science is not shallow. — universeness

Yes, I see now.

At least I think that's the case in QFT — universeness

What is QFT?

You can be a little tricksy Mr Jackson. I was not saying science had a shallow view of nature but I accept the old switcheroo attempt. — universeness

Sorry, I did not understand your post.

Well, I think that suggests that science has a rather shallow view of nature. — universeness

Agree. Science is shallow, but useful.

Even the term 'particle' is very much in dispute against 'field excitation.' — universeness

Particle in a field. Same thing, isn't it?

Why do we need the supernatural when the natural can be so super? — universeness

Depends what one means by nature. For science, it is only the movement of particles.

However, the main point which Murdoch is making is making is the emphasis on empiricism. — Jack Cummins

Science explains nothing about our day to day living. And Kant was virtually a reactionary. He tried to make practical affairs a metaphysics.

I am saying that it should also include our everyday understanding of reality as more than an afterthought. — Clarky

What does that mean exactly?

Even the physicist would deal with it more like the hunter most of the time. — Clarky

I don't think we are in a survival prison. There is more to life than eating and shitting.

I don't think I understand. — Clarky

We deduce from seeing a baseball that it is comprised by particles. We do not see the particles.

I suppose we could argue the same about religion. — Joshs

Indeed.

In my experience, most people think their metaphysic is factually correct, if they think about it at all. — Clarky

I see your point. But I think we act on our metaphysics not because we take it to be true, but because it is all we have.

On the other hand, we see baseballs and ham sandwiches. They behave consistent with classical mechanics. I think it's fair to say, at least metaphorically, they represent reality as we define it on a day to day basis. — Clarky

We see baseballs, not physical particles. The difference is important.

As Collingwood says, metaphysical positions are not true or false. They have no truth value. — Clarky

Perhaps. But I think all people have a metaphysic whether they articulate to themselves or not.

Quantum mechanics does not manifest at human-scale. — Clarky

Maybe not. But we don't see the objects of science no matter what the model is. We see things, not physical particles.

Because if you are talking about A, I assume that you are talking about B, our communication will most probably fail. — Alkis Piskas

Yes, it seems pretty straightforward. Defining terms starts at beginning to make sure people are using the words the same way.

Funny how metaphysics never stays dead and buried.

Goodnight.

How would anyone find their "God's falling like meteors from the sky" exhilarating? You're describing a complete paradigm shift in which the universe is no longer safe but rather alien. It's total existential crisis. As Hanover mentioned, the whole thing smacks of personal projection, a rationalization of a personal experience. — Noble Dust

Not really. It is the story of the Garden of Eden and the Fall.

You’re wrong. — Clarky

Good to know, thank you.

This seems like an attempt to undermine belief in God by explaining it away as a psychological foible. I don't see that as a valid argument. — Clarky

I see it as valid.

There is a certain kind of mindset which finds this new universe not exhilarating, but a hollow arena of misery and emptiness. I call this mindset conservative: it rejects the new world, unadorned by parental Gods, as malignant, as nihilistic. The void must be filled: they fill it with The Parent, but taken to the logical extreme: the parent of all parents, which undergirds all meaning and all judgement until the end of time. — hypericin

That is a good description.

The cave is said to be "an image of our nature in its education and want of education". (514a)[/quote]

By image I mean an actual spatial thing. Your sense is also used, but I do not mean it that way.

Your preference for Aristotle based in part on your finding Plato too romantic I take to be a matter of taste. — Fooloso4

I don't. I take it to be about philosophy and truth.

And ironically (or not) even those committed to perspectivism and the notion of there being no correct viewpoint - no totalizing metanarrative - seem to elevate this evaluative framework as somehow true, in itself a kind of totalizing metanarrative. — Tom Storm

It is similar to the problem of skepticism. Doubt does not lead to knowledge.

In the myth of the cave, Plato is describing silhouettes, not images. An object is projected by a light source onto a flat screen.
Plato in incredibly naive about how images and visual perception works. And I do not mean the neuroscience of perception.

OK, I haven't read much of Aristotle's work regarding tragedy, and I haven't read Birth of Tragedy for many years, so I'll have to take your word for that. — Janus

Fair enough.

the image of the cave continues to lead us to create our own images. — Fooloso4

Again, do not understand what that means.

For both Plato and Aristotle psychology or matters of character are not separate from but rather a part of philosophy. — Fooloso4

Ok, but not my point.