Along history metaphysics was criticized by historicists, because, by trying to understand how things are, it looses sight of the fact that things, rather than being, are becoming (Heraclitus). — Angelo Cannata

I think we need to shake the traditional views of Parmenides and Heraclitus. This "being versus becoming" is a false one. Why should we presume that "being" means something opposed to "becoming"? This essentially equates being to permanence.

Beings exist. Beings change. Change -- becoming -- itself is a being. Not a "physical object," of course, but a process. Processes exist. Change exists. Thus, change is "in" being as much as permanence is "in" being.

It's a false dichotomy. Heraclitus and Parmenides are saying the same thing. Here I agree with Heidegger.

Emojis are about all that some people are worth.

Write in one paragraph a concise statement on why Kant's CPR is speculative metaphysics. — Constance

Won’t happen. Because he’s never read a word of Kant. Just like he’s never read a word of Kuhn. He’s just a liar who wants to posture. Who knows why. I assume he’s a teenager or young adult.

It’s glaringly obvious when someone is just bullshitting. No specifics, no citations — just vague generalizations about “metaphysics” and “objectivity.”

It’s psychologically interesting— so I guess there’s some value to it.

:rofl:

:lol: :up:

And Rand was a professed atheist! They bowed anyway. — Constance

Indeed. Both the plutocracy and the evangelical community often love her.



Look! He’s doing her greatest hits! How quaint.

And intellectually unevolved. What's particularly dangerous isn't Rand herself, but the cult-like following of her. She's only somewhat responsible for that, but not entirely. I think she herself would mostly be against the dogmatism and zealotry of her followers. Having once given her due attention, I've since moved beyond her -- although there are still aspects I like. I like that she echoes Aristotelian virtue ethics, for example. But her views on ontology, epistemology, and politics is very limited indeed.

Her devotees on this forum so far have done her legacy no favors.

Ayn Rand devotees are cute.

Agreed.

:rofl:

Trolls are amusing. Imagine not knowing what “cognate” means — or “derive”. Lol

translated in Greek — Nickolasgaspar

I didn’t say it was cognate.

That is a factually wrong statement. — Nickolasgaspar

There are no “facts” involved. So this statement is just stupid.

Look - you have no idea what you’re talking about. It’s obvious. You’re pretending otherwise fools no one but yourself. You’re a liar, and you communicate like a child who pretends to have all the answers. Much like Ayn Rand herself.

I doubt if one person on this forum takes you seriously. A normal person would look at this feedback and perhaps reflect…but self-deluded liars like you apparently can’t.

But keep going…trolls provide many laughs.

let me get this straight now.... the term Nature derives from the Greek physis(φυση)lol???? — Nickolasgaspar

Yes, it does. Natura is the Latin translation of phusis.

First we interact empirically with your environment — Nickolasgaspar

No. First we are.

You can NOT have science without philosophy and philosophy without science. — Nickolasgaspar

Yes, you can.

I’ll skip the rest. Lying children don’t deserve serious responses. Go read more Rand.

A little synopsis:

Thinking is an activity that human beings do.

Thinking defined by the universal nature of its questions— especially the question of being — is called philosophy.

Philosophy is universal phenomenological ontology.

Questioning relegated to the causal relations in nature is natural philosophy. Its ontological foundations are just that: natural. “Natura” derives from the Greek: phusis.

Before we take a look at nature — which is one aspect of being — we are doing philosophy. Science is derived from ontology.

:rofl:

:rofl:

:rofl:

If you are ignorant of the objective nature of the Scientific Method
— Nickolasgaspar

There isn't such a thing as "A scientific Method".
— Nickolasgaspar

Again— best not to engage seriously with children.

If you are ignorant of the objective nature of the Scientific Method
— Nickolasgaspar

There isn't such a thing as "A scientific Method".
— Nickolasgaspar — Xtrix

:rofl:

:up:

:rofl:

Or easy for an individual that can read.

If you are ignorant of the objective nature of the Scientific Method — Nickolasgaspar

There isn't such a thing as "A scientific Method". — Nickolasgaspar

:chin:

What we're "doing" when we do science is treating the world as natural or physical -- i.e., objective -- as substantive, quantitative, material. It takes on a view of the world as an object, a machine, or as forces acting on matter. — Xtrix

We look for natural explanations to natural phenomena. All of what I said above is an ontological position. None of it is "arbitrary," nor did I say that.
— Xtrix

science doesn't assume the world is material, mechanical etc. — Nickolasgaspar

-You are confusing Methodological Naturalism with Ontological Naturalism. — Nickolasgaspar

…

[Science] deals with ontology within nature since we figured out this is the only ontology that makes senses and has epistemic value. — Nickolasgaspar

It’s almost as if you’re making it up as you go. As if you’re more interested in posturing. :chin:

I eventually felt that he lead me nowhere. — Manuel

insight that I can try to do something with. — Manuel

I hear you. But what would you like to do with it?

I feel the question itself, the history, etc., is very focusing. It offers a new understanding of being human, really. That has plenty of application — to politics, to technology, and so on.

I used to like Heidegger, now less so, but he's interesting. — Manuel

Why less so now? I’m curious.

Fires and floods seem to be focusing folk's attention. One might be hopeful. — Banno

Yes...and if we had another 20/30 years of runway, this would be good. But much like the tobacco industry, the fossil fuel industry will fight to the bitter end to burn their products -- and that means the politicians they control and the misinformation they put out (now greenwashing) will continue to lose us time. By the time it becomes a non-partisan issue, there likely won't be time left.

We can put our hopes into carbon-removing technology, but that doesn't seem very promising.

To really halt excess CO2 production instead of just slowing it down would require some sort of global covenant: a new global religion, basically. — frank

There's truth to this. But I would make two points: (1), I view capitalism as the real religion, and a particular variant of it seems to be dominating the minds of the plutocracy -- whether or not this can change, I don't know. But I wouldn't say it's global. (2) This religious conversion is only necessary if people continue not to organize/act collectively.

On a positive note: climate change has been reported far more than in the past, the country seems to be moving a little in prioritizing it (according to polls), and there's a significant movement compared to even 10 years ago. Plus, younger people seem much more likely to care about this crisis, for good reason. Big business, including fossil fuel companies, have moved from outright denial to admitting we have to do something -- i.e., the delay-as-long-as-possible phase. But that's still movement. Renewable energy and clean technology has advantaged and become much cheaper, etc.

This would all make me very hopeful...if it were 1988. But since we've essentially wasted 34 years, most of the warming is locked in. We have only some idea of how destructive 1.5 to 2.5 degrees warming will be -- but given the level of destruction we've already seen (and are seeing) at just 1.2 C, it's likely to be hellish.

People have had 50 years to awaken. It's not going to happen, mate. — Benkei

Maybe not. But the way I see it, if that's true -- it's hopeless anyway. But since that's not set in stone, I will keep trying.

By the way, I see it being closer to 40 years, from around the beginning of the Reagan administration. That's still a long time. But many in the 1930s probably felt the same way -- that no one will organize. We face our own set of obstacles now, but it wasn't that long ago that things were better. I think we began to see the end of the neoliberal era in 2008. There are signs of it everywhere. We see it in the shift to "stakeholder capitalism" to the election of several progressives to the widespread labor strikes.

I think it's all becoming a "supersaturated solution." I think the 'awakening' is right in front of our noses. I think Bernie tapped into it.

It will not pass. If Manchin decides to pass something, which has been reported he's interested in doing so piece-meal, it will be devoid of anything meaningful. That's assuming anything passes whatsoever.

Of course, it isn't just Manchin. He's taking the fall on this, and happy to do so, but most of the Democratic party isn't interested in passing anything meaningful for the working/middle class, for the environment, or for really anything that threatens their plutocratic masters' position and power. They made their choice long ago; it was particularly evident in how the DNC effectively, unlike the RNC, beat back the more popular candidate, Bernie Sanders. The rest has mostly been empty lip service and placation to corral his supporters -- and the last year has taken away any doubt whatsoever of this (their vote was against Trump anyway, not for Biden -- which is a crucial distinction).

So the legislation is indeed dead, and the fossil fuel kingpin is largely (but not entirely) to blame. It was already largely watered down, which is what initially made me think that it had a chance of passing (given that the biggest provision was already removed and the price tag came way down). Alas, my own foolishness.

We're wasting with time we don't have, either way. Democrats only nibble around the edges.

I'm thinking now that there are two options before us: (1) the people can give what's called the "extreme" sides of the political spectrum full control over the government -- abolish the filibuster or give supermajorities, etc -- so that we see what truly comes out of either vision (including, unfortunately, the Republican party). This is probably spells doom, and wastes 2-6 years. But at least the citizens will get a real sense of what it looks like, as they do in state governments dominated by one party or the other.

Or (2) is that we wait for a much-needed cultural and economic upheaval. 9/11 obviously didn't cut it. 2008 financial crisis and recession came close, but mostly that just got us Trump. The coronavirus obviously didn't bring anyone together, although it has shifted people around in their jobs, perhaps increased remote work, and apparently has energized, to a degree, the labor movement (Starbucks, Amazon, all the strikes taking place). But none of it is enough. We need a real crash and a real depression. Things need to get far worse, evidently -- because the 80% of the American populace is still convinced that there are "two sides."

What I'm waiting for is the massive crash of the stock market -- which I have little doubt will happen. Watch what the Fed does.

Unfortunately, if this does happen it will most likely bring the Republicans in power -- and possibly Trump again. But perhaps that's what's necessary to awaken the large movement (bordering on revolution if not outright revolution) that's needed, at this point.

Beyond that, I see no way we avoided future catastrophe.

(BTW, I don't want to minimize the huge success of the people organizing in unions and going on strikes, etc. -- the concession of Shultz to freeze $20 billion in stock buybacks is a MAJOR victory for labor, and shouldn't be dismissed.)

I wouldn’t bother too much with Ayn Rand dogmatists/liars who are interested only in posturing.

Let them be happy with “philosophy becomes science when it is objectively verified” or whatever Nickelodeon characterization they’re attached to.

You’d have a better chance talking to a sea blob.

It is not the empirical analysis of things that we first encounter in the world. It is meaning, and analysis follows on this. — Constance

:clap: :up:

Well said.

But I do think that many of the classical philosophical questions are so hard, we don't even know how to go about even giving a good answer. Free will, for instance, or how can matter think? We know it can, but have zero clue as to how it does this. — Manuel

Very true. Plenty of bad answers, of course. Sometimes the question itself isn't formulated well enough that there can even be an answer.

Incidentally, as a side note, Locke and Hume were MUCH more sophisticated than many so called "empiricists" today — Manuel

Agreed. I'm always impressed when reading those guys. Hume's thoughts on government everyone should read.

current philosophy is, by and large, the study of mysteries. — Manuel

So’s science, no? Plenty of mysteries in science— unsolved problems, puzzling questions, etc.

Science is able to answer questions because it sets certain goals and standards for itself — it is more restricted. But it is by no means the final arbiter of truth. What is or isn’t true is a philosophical question. Nature and naturalism is an interpretation and fundamentally an ontological position.

Sometimes we get lucky and manage to bring some of the classic philosophical questions into the arena of empirical research, and then we get a science. — Manuel

I think the questions of philosophy can be answered, and in fact are answered all the time. We make our choices and live our lives largely on the basis of these answers, tacitly or explicitly. There’s many reasons and arguments for and against these answers. They don’t come out of nowhere— they come out of the human mind.

Again, empiricism isn’t necessarily the final word on the truth it falsity of something. Empiricism is itself a way of interpreting and engaging with the world, and with truth.

Incidentally, I value empirical evidence and reasons as much as the next person. I just don’t think we need to take the labels too seriously. Thinking, asking questions, solving problems, etc. — all worthwhile human activities. We can try to define various labels for what we do — but in the end the questions and problems themselves are what’s more interesting to me.

145 thousand years ago, human beings still existed. They still lived and raised families and suffered and contemplated the world and told stories. They created new tools and explanations and codes of conduct without a shred of care about whether they were “doing” philosophy or science or technology or religion. Just as they didn’t know or care that they were living in what later humans would call the Stone Age. I think we can learn something from them. Which is why I offered a very general picture of philosophy as a label for a kind of thinking — a kind of thinking distinguished by its universal questions. Natural thinking/philosophy is exactly that — it restricts its questions (and answers) to nature— to matter, to causes and effects, to observable and experimentally verifiable phenomena, to quantification, etc. We now call that science, and want to relegate everything else to religion (read: blind faith, superstition, mythology) and philosophy (the academic pondering of unanswerable questions and ultimately unproductive navel-gazing). That’s generally what I see happening here. Not necessarily you.

But this is only one man’s opinion.

Science did not so much "come out of natural philosophy" as it took what was "natural" and categorized it. — Constance

I don’t see the difference.

Science seeks to understand nature, seeking naturalistic explanations. That’s natural philosophy. Yes, we’ve since given it another label — but ontologically it’s no different.

What is left is religion: the narrative driven unobservable world that defies categorical thinking. It is the "openness" of our existence in all knowledge claims. — Constance

Eh. I myself don’t take the conventional distinctions between religion, philosophy, and science very seriously— any more than I take historical epochs like the “middle ages” and “renaissance” seriously. They’re useful in everyday discussion, but when looking at it a little closer they aren’t at all as clear or as neat as one would like to think.

What’s called religion in many ways deals with the same questions as philosophy…and science. I think the knee jerk reaction to this is historical — the Catholic Church persecuting early astronomers, or creationists trying to get ID taught in schools, etc. There’s a fear that our sense of truth is undermined if science and “religion” aren’t separated — that one deals with facts and the other with faith, etc. I used to think the same, and in many instances still do— but with the acknowledgement that it’s not always so simple.

Ah yes, the ontology of knitting. — Constance

This did give me a chuckle.

But philosophy is not an empirical approach. — Constance

True— not now, anyway. But remember, science comes out of natural philosophy, and is not without its ontological foundations. Once we acknowledge that, clear demarcations begin to get blurred.

:yawn:

Liar says what?

Sorry, I don’t interact seriously with liars.

The Fountainhead is calling you.

Science is, of course, NOT philosophy. It is pre-philosophical. — Constance

This depends on whether we want to define them as entirely different. I look at it as a spectrum. The difference between natural philosophy and science isn’t always clear.

Science rests — like everything else — on an ontology (namely, naturalism/materialism). Ontology is usually considered philosophy. The idea of “nature,” causality, time, and being all have philosophical underpinnings in science.

Well since you're claiming you're familiar with them -- what argument or book are you referring to? What "critique" are you referring to? — Xtrix

No response.

You claimed familiarity with their work, and in reality you haven't read a word. You're a liar. It's very easy to see.
— Xtrix
I reject their objections — Nickolasgaspar

What objections? What exactly are their “objections” that you refer to? Since you’re lying, and have no clue what they argue, they could be in full agreement with you. But again, you wouldn’t know — because you’re a liar, and haven’t read a word of their work.

I'll ask it outright: what are Kuhn's arguments? What books have you read? Care to cite particular passages that demonstrate how outdated he is?
— Xtrix
-again its your job to point out which of Kuhn's arguments qualify, — Nickolasgaspar

you need to do the hard work here. — Nickolasgaspar

:lol:

After a Google search:

there are ideas of his that agree with (i.e.why scientific knowledge doesn't share characteristics of revolution) — Nickolasgaspar

That’s not Kuhn’s argument. Keep trying.

I notice not one reference to a work or one passage cited. Hmm…I guess that’s too “hard.”

Next time, don’t claim to be familiar with authors you’ve never heard of. Understand?

Does my reluctance to not waste time on factually wrong critique proves that I am not familiar with it? — Nickolasgaspar

No — failing to know what those “critiques” are does.

What work of Kuhn have you read? Not hard work — just give a title. Go Google it if you need to.

I’ll skip the rest. I’ve already given this lying bullshitter too much of my time.

Go read more Ayn Rand.

Nick isn't having a conversation. He is running a PR campaign. — Yohan

For Ayn Rand and his own bloated sense of self.

Garrett Travers was more fun — Joshs

Yeah…may even be the same person. Who knows.

-"Ayn Rand dogmatists are funny."
-Chronicling is blocking your ability to learn or think.... — Nickolasgaspar

Says the Ayn Rand follower. lol.

So you don't know what normative means, either. Great...

Normative refers to norms or ethics. That has nothing to do with anything I've said, or anything to do with Kuhn. What I'm talking about is ontology. Look it up.
— Xtrix

-You do know that you can google a phrase you ignore...before removing any doubt for your ignorance from your interlocutor....right?
You can use your internet connection to educate yourself...its not just for social media and spicy pictures..... — Nickolasgaspar

So you don't know what normative means. Got it.

Yes, certainly what's impressive about science is its "success." That's definitely not a value judgment, I suppose. Having an iPhone must be an "Objective good." lol
— Xtrix
-You are confusing commercial applications with the knowledge that enables technical applications...... — Nickolasgaspar

You realize I can scroll back and see what you said, right? Like:

understand what is responsible for science's success not what science should do in order for to meet specific criteria.
Obviously something is awfully right in its methodologies so that we able to communicate from our chairs by using a technology designed to manipulate hidden properties of matter.... — Nickolasgaspar

Good God you're embarrassing.

-Sorry mate but you are unable to point to a critique by those fellows that will be left standing after I have some time with it. — Nickolasgaspar

Well since you're claiming you're familiar with them -- what argument or book are you referring to? What "critique" are you referring to?

I won't hold my breath for an answer, since you've never read a word of their work. But I realize your ego won't allow you to admit this. And say "normative critique" and wave your hands. Typical of Ayn Rand enthusiasts.

You haven't once posted links or passages about Kuhn or any of the other authors Joshs cited.
— Xtrix
You haven't posted a single link or passage about Hoyningen's critique on Kuhn or others.... — Nickolasgaspar

Because I haven't once claimed, like you have with the authors mentioned, to be familiar with Hoyningen.

You claimed familiarity with their work, and in reality you haven't read a word. You're a liar. It's very easy to see.

Would a astronomer have any reason to argue against disprove frameworks about the solar system? lol
Ok we get it, you happen to learn about Kuhn's ideas and you thought that its a great excuse to reject objectivity and facts... — Nickolasgaspar

So Kuhn's work -- which you've never read and have no clue about -- is equivalent to a geocentric framework.

I'll ask it outright: what are Kuhn's arguments? What books have you read? Care to cite particular passages that demonstrate how outdated he is?

I'll continue not to hold my breath. Keep evading, by all means.



Well you claim to be familiar with them -- because you're a liar. So it's only right to ask for what exactly you find wrong with their arguments.

But since you have no clue about their arguments, you instead are desperately trying to save face by sad attempts at vague generalities.

Again, the authors were: Thomas Kuhn, Paul Feyerabend and Joseph Rouse. Keep pretending to be an expert on things you have no clue about. Your bullshit doesn't work here, and can be smelled a mile away.

"Bohr's analysis is wrong...he's way too normative!" See? How easy it is! Brilliant.

Normative critique has failed to explain the epistemic success of science and Descriptive Science explains why Normative "rules" offer nothing of value in our methodologies and standards of evidence. — Nickolasgaspar

"epistemic success" is a value judgement, if it's even coherent. No one here is making normative claims other than you.

"Descriptive Science" is meaningless as well. Do you mean descriptive RESEARCH?

You're honestly so poor of a writer that it's embarrassing.

What works of theirs are you referring? Care to cite some passages? Because you've definitely read them, of course.
— Xtrix
I am sure that I have posted you links ...don't you read my comments or are you preoccupied preparing your apologetic? — Nickolasgaspar

You haven't once posted links or passages about Kuhn or any of the other authors Joshs cited.

Try to follow along with the discussion.

Paul Hoyningen — Nickolasgaspar

I never once mentioned this guy. I asked about the authors cited above -- not about Hoyningen.

-I am aware of this outdated Normative approach — Nickolasgaspar

So you don't know what normative means, either. Great...

Normative refers to norms or ethics. That has nothing to do with anything I've said, or anything to do with Kuhn. What I'm talking about is ontology. Look it up.

science's success — Nickolasgaspar

Obviously something is awfully right in its methodologies so that we able to communicate from our chairs — Nickolasgaspar

:lol:

How cute.

Yes, certainly what's impressive about science is its "success." That's definitely not a value judgment, I suppose. Having an iPhone must be an "Objective good." lol

For goodness shake, he denies Objectivism, one of the major breakthroughs of Philosophy — Nickolasgaspar

Ayn Rand dogmatists are funny.

-As I said before I am aware of this critique based on Normative guidelines, but their authors have failed to explain the run away success of science. — Nickolasgaspar

Imagine being so full of yourself that you can't even admit that you don't have the slightest clue what these authors' theses were.

How utterly pathetic.

-Yes I find this question fair....and most of their critique outdated based mostly on Normative guidelines. — Nickolasgaspar

Translation: Never read a word of Kuhn or Feyerabend.

So you find most of their "critique" to be outdated and based on "normative guidelines," eh? What works of theirs are you referring? Care to cite some passages? Because you've definitely read them, of course... :lol: