what good does it do for mind to separate itself from others and cordon itself from the corporeality of others? I assume that it must do some good because it seems to be a default idea, something that is constantly taking root within my unconscious and subconscious mental faculties and thereby of benefit to some type of fundamental being-motive. In short, why do we experience this person? — kudos

In my personal experience, my self is the foundation of my perception, conception, understanding, and interaction with the world, including other people. My self is the more or less unmoving platform I stand on to see reality. On the other hand, I think I can grasp, accept, and sometimes even experience the insight that the self is an illusion. There is a balance between these to ways of seeing that make me who I am.

As I've said before, "The Long Goodbye" is one of my favorite movies. Robert Altman. Elliot Gould. I decided I should read the book by Raymond Chandler. He writes really well, maybe too well. His sentences and paragraphs seem to want to draw attention to themselves, which I find distracting. The movie follows the book fairly closely, although there are changes in plot, scene, and tone that make me like the movie more, especially the ending. Much more powerful than in the book. The book takes place in the early 1950s while the movie takes place in the 1970s. Entirely different worlds.

And I’m forgetting some of the characters or getting them mixed up, — Jamal

This is one of the reasons I love reading on Kindle. When I forget exactly who a character is, I can just search for the first instance in the book where the person's role is usually specified. Kindle has really improved the quality of my reading.

The point is, ancient stoicism and other philosophies were indeed ways of life, on the basis that to make the 'philosophical ascent' required to attain insight into the 'first principles' required certain characteristics and attributes which the ordinary man (the hoi polloi) lacks. (This is very much the topic of many of the Castalian Stream entries.) It was presumed that those who had such insight were aspiring to be, or actually were, sages (although it was always felt that the true sage was exceptionally rare.) Even stodgy old Aristotle had that side to him. — Wayfarer

This makes a lot of sense to me and it's interesting. It made me think more about the place philosophy fills in my life. I don't have a spiritual practice. I certainly am not in any formal search for a spiritual path. As I see it, a path is something you push yourself on. It takes effort to keep going. For me, whatever it is I feel is more of a pull. Something is drawing me towards it. Even though the route is crooked, I never feel as if there is a chance I'll get lost. I'll think about this some more.

That being said, I don't think the conditions you describe are what is causing my frustration. That's simpler, very simple. As I wrote previously, the fact that aspects of religion are matters of fact gives me agita about where to fit it in my conceptual scheme. I do have a tendency to oversimplify things.

What is to count as proof here? In the end, you might just have to maintain that this is how we play the game...

I think the same can be said for at least some of the supposed principles of metaphysics - things such as the identity of indiscernibles, the principle of non-contradiction, the principle of causality and so on - just ways of playing the game. The rules are not unproven. — Banno

Yes.

The other point that might be considered is the confluence of metaphysics and religion. Quite often the two will be grouped, as they were by the Vienna Circle, who routinely lumped them together. Why is that? I think it's because they're both the attempt to account for the foundational bases of being itself. — Wayfarer

I find the relationship between metaphysics and religion frustrating. On the one hand, as you note, religion is intended to "account for the foundational basis of being itself," which is exactly what metaphysics does. On the other hand, the existence of any particular god understood as a literal being rather than metaphorically is a matter of fact. Having claimed that metaphysical statements have no truth value, are not either true or false, I find myself in a contradiction. My solution is to put my fingers in my ears and go "la, la, la, la, la" until everyone goes away.

I think that's pretty accurate. Metaphysics mainly comprises unproven first principles - unproven, because they are understood as the basis for any investigation to proceed. If you wonder what they are, it's because they're generally so deeply embedded in your outllook that they condition how you think about things, without your necessarily being conscious of them. They are often principles that are thought to 'go without saying'. — Wayfarer

Yes.

I've been a party in this debate many times, generally as the former, and it proves difficult or impossible to bridge the gap between worldviews, because there's a kind of foundational or temperamental disposition that I think is associated with those respective views, that is very hard to articulate. — Wayfarer

For me, the bridge is the position I've described. You don't have to commit to just one metaphysical or epistemological viewpoint. Different metaphysics can be used in different situations. Of course, all I've really done is move the gap upriver a bit.

I hope others here will weigh in with responses to my following question: If metaphysics sets out the rules, and if rules can be construed as signposts pointing the way to specific truth claims, then does it follow that a signpost, like its referent, must in its role embody the same attribute is points the way towards? — ucarr

First, let me be clear, the understanding I've described is not held by many, perhaps most, perhaps almost all philosophers. The source I usually reference is "An Essay on Metaphysics" by R.G. Collingwood. Collingwood is a respected British philosopher who died in 1943. To make it more complicated, this way of seeing things is itself a metaphysical position.

Signpost isn't the analogy I'd use. I guess I'd say metaphysics is the road you take to reach the truth or whatever philosophical goal you are searching for. There's not just one road, but some are better than others. One road isn't right and another wrong, but some roads are easier to travel than others.

Are you saying science is hands-on measurement in practice (quantitative) whereas math is cerebral language in practice (qualitative)? — ucarr

My party line is that a particular metaphysics describes the underlying assumptions, what RG Collingwood calls "absolute presuppositions," of a particular way of seeing the world. When I say science is applied materialism I mean that science will only work in a physicalist, materialist world. You have to believe or act as if you believe there is an objective reality that behaves in accordance with universal laws. When I say mathematics is applied idealism I mean that mathematics will only work in an idealist world. You have to believe or act as if you believe that mathematical entities have an independent existence.

I read somewhere, I can't remember where, that scientists tend to be materialists and mathematicians tend to be idealists. That makes sense to me.

That’ll teach you to tangle with a superior mind, lowly varmint. — Joshs

What do you mean "lowly?" All I want @Zettel to do is respond to my comments before he gets banned.

Q.E.D. — Zettel

What does that have to do with the fact that you have not addressed my argument, only restated the same incorrect complaint over and over.

...lack of intellectual integrity. — Zettel

So we move on from vague innuendo to actual insults. And yet you've still not addressed my comments.

Sorry, pouting is not substitute for reasoned rejoinder, either. — Zettel

You keep making snarky remarks about my comments, but you don't respond to their substance.

Again, more of the same from you. You have no argument; you have an unsupported point of view. Unfortunately, trafficking a Weltanschauung is not substitute for reasoned rejoinder. This is not to say you are not entitled to your feelings; it is to say that your feelings do not describe "what is", only "what is to you". Big difference. — Zettel

You still have not addressed the substance of my argument.

Thanks for making my point. The propositions issuing from metaphysics are imponderable, i.e., they cannot be rationally assessed, i.e., they cannot be rendered a truth value. If they cannot be rendered a truth value, then they cannot be claimed as knowledge. If they cannot be claimed as knowledge, then they cannot eventuate in wisdom. And if they cannot eventuate in wisdom, then there is nothing for philosophy to love. Thus, it is logically and epistemologically impossible for ethics and aesthetics to be philosophy. — Zettel

Again, to vastly oversimplify, philosophy isn't truth, knowledge, or wisdom; it shows us how to find truth, knowledge, and wisdom.

Again, you give nothing beyond how you happen to "see" things. That is not philosophy; it is what neighborhood biddies exchange over the backyard fence while hanging laundry. — Zettel

You haven't addressed the content of my argument.

That life is a competition is a nonsense promoted by folks who have been lucky, because it makes it seem that they deserve their luck. It is good fortune to be born in a peaceful prosperous family with good health. It is goodfortune to be talented and to have the opportunity to develop one's talent. Dismiss this nonsense of competition; most of us never stood a chance because the playing field is full of deep holes and most of us cannot get out of the hole we were born in.

On the contrary, life for humans is a cooperative game, a game of loving and caring for each other, and this is a much better game because we all can win. Even the most helpless and feeble has a role and can add to the happiness of the world. Even if you are alone in a hole you cannot get out of, you can decorate your hole and make it the best hole you can. — unenlightened

Wonderful. Yes, yes, yes. Thanks for making it so I don't have to post.

And your English is good...

I also agree with this.

Anything to the point? Anything at all? — Zettel

The title of your thread is "How can metaphysics be considered philosophy?" but what you went on to describe is not metaphysics by almost anyone's definition. I answered the question expressed in your title. Yes, metaphysics, i.e. the study of fundamental nature of reality, should be considered philosophy.

As I predicted, this discussion has melted into a definitional puddle.

Down to business.

Three thousand years of metaphysics has yet to issue a single knowledge claim. — Zettel

When it comes to metaphysics, I find R.G. Collingwood's definition in "An Essay on Metaphysics" most useful. As @Banno hinted, in Collingwood's view, metaphysical questions have no truth value. They are not true or false, they are useful or not useful. Metaphysics sets out the rules, what Collingwood calls "absolute presuppositions," of human understanding. To vastly oversimplify; in my view, probably not Collingwood's; science is applied materialism, mathematics is applied idealism.

As for ethics and aesthetics - do they belong as part of philosophy? Sure, why not. Issues of what is right and what is wrong are fundamental human questions. People have been obsessed about what is beautiful and what is not for a long time. Agreed - those answers have no truth value. They are not true or false, but we've established, at least to my satisfaction, that philosophy need not address issues of truth.

Are metaphysical doctrines such as aesthetics and ethics really "branches" of philosophy, or are they just thinly disguised poetry? The propositions issuing from metaphysics and philosophy seem logically and epistemologically distinct. — Zettel

Welcome to the forum.

When you've been here a while, you see the subject of metaphysics comes up often. The one thing I've learned is that the discussion almost always starts out with an argument about what the word really means. Often that's where it ends, with no substantive discussion able to fight its way out of the brawl about definitions. Here are two definitions from the web:

Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that studies the fundamental nature of reality; the first principles of being, identity and change, space and time, cause and effect, necessity and possibility... Metaphysics is considered one of the four main branches of philosophy, along with epistemology, logic, and ethics. — Wikipedia - Metaphysics

a division of philosophy that is concerned with the fundamental nature of reality and being and that includes ontology, cosmology, and often epistemology — Marriam-Webster

I have my own ideas about what metaphysics is and what it should be, but I won't burden your discussion with them. One thing I'm willing to say with certainty is that aesthetics and ethics are not included in the definition of metaphysics as it is generally understood. If your understanding is so idiosyncratic that it does include those subjects, then we probably don't have anything else to discuss.

Your words definitely are a result of your thinking, but then you'll use the words you've chosen in your future thinking, and that's where you'll be biased. — Judaka

This makes sense to me, although I still think "bias" is the wrong word.

This brings up a subject I've thought about quite a bit. It's at least peripherally relevant to the subject of this thread. Synonyms are words that theoretically mean the same thing, but in order to have any value, they have to have different uses, connotations. I often spend a lot of time looking for the word I want and I tend to use the thesaurus when I can't find just the one that feels right. Different synonyms can change the meaning of a sentence, sometimes in a subtle way, sometimes glaring, sometimes ironic. The one you choose can have just the kind of effect you are talking about.

Those perspectives and conclusions are created within the environment established by our word choices which is the bias. By the time you're old enough for critical thinking, you've already established that environment. — Judaka

You call it "bias" while I would call it "values." Perhaps this is an example of the phenomenon you are trying to describe.

If you would stick by it, how did you reach your current positions without needing to select your words first? — Judaka

I don't think I understand the question. For me, the thought comes first, then the words. At least some cognitive scientists and psychologists agree with that.

Have you read "Flatland." It deals with some of these intricacies.

https://www.amazon.com/Flatland-Romance-Dimensions-Edwin-Abbott/dp/B0875SRH84/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3TGN15CI0WCZS&keywords=flatland+edwin+abbott&qid=1674664998&sprefix=flatland%2Caps%2C124&sr=8-1

...is there a common root for all such endeavors? — Bret Bernhoft

I can only speak for myself. The root of my interest in philosophy is a need for self-awareness.

In summary, we will choose our words based on our feelings and intent, in an unavoidable process that necessarily biases our perspective and conclusions. — Judaka

I think it would make more sense to say:

We will choose our words based on our feelings and intent, in an unavoidable process that necessarily biases reflects our perspective and conclusions.

Which is really the whole purpose of language.

I figured his films deserve mention given that they have had a dominating influence on American comedy the past 20 years — Joshs

I really stopped watching movies much just about 20 years ago, so, although I'm familiar with the names, I haven't seen any of the movies you listed.

As for Dudley Moore, I really liked the original "Bedazzled" with Peter Cook as the devil. Didn't like Arthur or 10. What else was he in?

Man on the Moon was pretty good. — frank

Never saw it.

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind — frank

Forgot about this. This and Truman Show are the only Jim Carrey movies I really like.

Charlie Chaplin, Billy Connolly, Robin Williams, Stan Laurel, Buster Keaton. Would that team work, for example? — universeness

I agree with most of your list, although I've never loved Laurel and Hardy. I've seen Billy Connolly on TV and doing standup, but the only movie I remember seeing him in is The Last Samurai. Let's see, who would I include?... Bill Murray, Nicholas Cage, Woody Allen, Jim Carrey, Tom Hanks, John Cusack, Monty Python guys.... Ok, my favorite comedies:

Moonstruck - I can't believe I haven't mentioned this before
Diner - Should have mentioned this before too
The Navigator + other Keaton movies
High Fidelity
Groundhog Day
Annie Hall
Manhattan
Say Anything
The Three Stooges Meet Donald Trump Jr.
The Truman Show
Raising Arizona
The Graduate
Singing in the Rain
Caddyshack
Get Shorty
The Princess Bride
The Shop Around the Corner

Sermon over. — Tom Storm

When I like a movie, I try to think back and figure out why. Often, it has to do with character - George Smiley in Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy; Phillip Marlowe in The Long Goodbye; Rick Blaine in Casablanca; Wyatt Earp in Tombstone - people who might seem weak, or frivolous, or cynical, or brutal - but who when tested have a deep moral center.

And that's my lecture.

I was reading that several states are implementing legal requirements for robust proof of age measures for pornography sites. That makes a lot of sense to me.

Favorite actions films? Mine is Raiders of the Lost Ark. — Tom Storm

I'm surprised. You're such a popular culture curmudgeon. I have no problems with suspension of belief, but the story just didn't hold together for me. Last straw - the face melting scene. Not because it was creepy, but because it came from nowhere in an otherwise more or less realistic movie. An almost literal deus ex machina.

would never recommend unless someone wants to watch a cheesy 80's sci-fi film with me. — Moliere

I don't agree. Although, as I noted, it has sentimental value for me, I think it's a pretty good movie too. I don't love the science fiction and movies considered great. I liked the first three Star Wars, but wouldn't put them on my list of favorites. Ditto with Indiana Jones. Didn't like Alien and didn't watch the rest. Didn't like the Lord of the Rings movies, Blade Runner, or Harry Potter. Didn't like any of the Star Trek movies much.

Which reminds me of two of my favorite movies I left off my list:
Things to Come - 1936. Really striking cinematography. Raymond Massey. I think it reflects the fact that people in Europe knew a war was coming, but the one in the movie was even worse than WW2. Well made. It has that 1930s, futuristic, art deco vibe.

Primer - Made for $7,000 using the director's parent's credit card. By far my favorite time travel movie. After I saw it I said to myself - Yes, that's how it will happen if it ever does.

McCabe and Mrs. Miller — Maw

I thought about this. I can see why people think it's good, but I didn't like it that much.

The Great Silence — Maw

Never heard of it. Sounds interesting.

It's a mad mad mad mad mad mad world
Duck Soup — universeness

Caddyshack - Cinderella story
Woody Allen:
Manhattan
Midnight in Paris
Take the Money and Run
Everybody Says I Love You
Annie Hall - my favorite scene

Lots of good silents by Buster Keaton.
The Navigator - This is my favorite.
Steamboat Bill Junior
Seven Chances. Tell me you didn't laugh at this:



I've always loved this scene from Modern Times

Westerns
The Magnificent Seven
Tombstone
Little Big Man
Cat Ballou
Appolusa
Hidalgo
Destry Rides Again - James Stewart. Some scenes here were parodied in Blazing Saddles.
The Warriors Way - A kung fu, western, fantasy about carnival freaks, cowboys, and a kung fu master. Kind of like a surrealist Kung Fu, the television show. Really neat, funny movie.
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly - I'm surprised no one has mentioned this. Also:
A Fist Full of Dollars
For a Few Dollars More
Once Upon a Time in the West

Brazil
— Tom Storm
Hated it. Just too, too, too much. Same with Imaginarium.
Not everything needs to be illustrated with cartooney exaggeration. — Vera Mont

Actually, I liked the too, too much. I remember laughing. I kept thinking it was over. Then something else bad happened. After all, it was made by a member of Monty Python. What can you expect?

Sometimes a Great Notion — unenlightened

I guess it was given a different name, Never Give and Inch, but I remember seeing it as Sometimes a Great Notion.

Educating Rita. — unenlightened

Yes. Made me realize I'd left out Michael Caine:
The Man Who Would be King
Educating Rita
Billion Dollar Brain
Hannah and Her Sisters
Noises Off

Goodfellas — Bradskii

Should have been on my list.

Chinatown — Bradskii

Great movie. The only movie with Jack Nicholson I really like.

No Country For Old Men — Bradskii

Hated the book so much I wouldn't watch the movie.

Ex Machina — 180 Proof

Disturbing movies - Really like them. Really never want to watch them again.
Ex Machina
On the Beach
Manhunter - Pre-Anthony Hopkins Hannibal Lecter
Let the Right One In - Swedish version. Wikipedia calls it a "romantic horror movie." Well...no... calling it romantic is like saying Psycho is a movie about plumbing. Also - they're like 12 years old.
Miracle Mile - Really believable and scary movie with Anthony Edwards. Now this is a romantic horror movie. Also had Tasha Yar from Star Trek the Next Generation.
Crimes and Misdemeanors

A Thousand Clowns — Joshs

I forgot about his. A really good movie. Not like anything else I've ever seen with Jason Robards.

How about some musicals
The Bandwagon
Cabaret
The Wizard of Oz
An American in Paris
Singing in the Rain

Good to hear from you Tim.

Aaaargh! I keep being reminded of ones I should have put on my list. Here's some books that were the basis of movies that are good:

• Little Big Man - Berger. Should have been on my movie list
• Last Picture Show, Lonesome Dove - McMurtry is a great writer
• Elmore Leonard - All his books are great. Some of his movies stink. My favorite adaptation is the TV show Justified.
• Princess Bride - Goldman. Even more ironic and funnier than the movie.
• Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy and Smiley's People - Le Carre
• In Cold Blood - Capote
• Billy Bathgate - Doctorow
• Manhunter - Harris. This is the original Hannibal Lecter movie made in the 80s with Brian Cox as Lecter. The book is Red Dragon. The movie Red Dragon was a remake.
• The Martian - Weir.
• The Name of the Rose - Eco
• Smilla's Sense of Snow - Hoeg
• Starship Troopers - Heinlein - Good dumb movie. Good dumb book.
• Stardust - Gaiman