Tao Te Ching is not metaphysics per se. — Wayfarer

Of course it is. The whole theme of this thread is about whether it is possible to reason without metaphysics. It is clear to me it is not possible.

This is too big a disagreement to fit into this thread. We can take it up some other time.

It never happened in China — Wayfarer

Are you saying the Ancient Chinese didn't have metaphysics? If so, I'm surprised to hear you say it. The Tao Te Ching is pure metaphysics. The fact that it's poetic in form is not relevant.

There was nothing of the kind in the Tao Te Ching. — Wayfarer

Of course there was.

All things are born of being.
Being is born of non-being.

Therefore, by the Everlasting Non-Being,
We desire to observe its hidden mystery;
By the Everlasting Being,
We desire to observe the manifestations

So as these presuppositions evolve , so does scientific theory. — Joshs

Maybe the other way around or maybe they evolve together.

You mean, like a scientific theory?( except less conventionalized) — Joshs

I really don't want to get into a discussion about what "metaphysics" is. I'm already in one in another thread. As I see it, metaphysics is the set of underlying assumptions, Collingwood called them "absolute presuppositions," people use when they try to understand the world.

A scientific paradigm is nothing but a conventionalized instantiation of a metaphysical worldview. — Joshs

I see it the other way around. Metaphysics is a tool, a set of tools, people use when they want to figure stuff out.

Contemporary philosophers debate whether there is progress in philosophy. My first answer is no, because there does not need to be progress. — Jackson

As I've noted, philosophy for me is personal, so any "progress" is also personal. I don't know whether philosophy as a discipline progresses or should progress.

Richard Conn Henry, The Mental Universe — Wayfarer

Insufferably smug baloney. Mr. Henry doesn't understand the difference between metaphysics and physics either.

and Bernard D'Espagnat. — Wayfarer

Mr. D'Espagnat is also confused about metaphysics.

I'm here for my own reasons - to learn things about myself. To become more self-aware. It's not the mysteries of existence that are interesting, it's how I figure them out. Just because Kant might have thought it through 300 years ago, that doesn't mean I don't have to walk the path too.

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/does-macro-object-get-entangled.884133/

but I don't think we will ever show entangled planets or people. — universeness

If I understand correctly, it is well established that quantum mechanics only applies at the subatomic, atomic, and small molecule scale.

I wonder why, then, the great Albert Einstein was compelled to ask, rhetorically, 'doesn't the moon continue to exist when we're not looking at it?' — Wayfarer

That's a question that was asked thousands of years before Einstein. When Lao Tzu asked that kind of question, it was metaphysics. When Einstein asked it, it was... I'm not sure. Probably physics.

I think that is a metaphysical question, and that it grew directly out of the discoveries of Bohr, Heisenberg, and Pauli. — Wayfarer

In situations like this, I apply the Clarky/Collingwood rule. (He's dead. I get top billing.) If it's true, it ain't metaphysics.

It's all the same world. — Wayfarer

Yes, I've said that many times. But different rules apply at different scales. At a subatomic scale, gravity is so weak it can be ignored. It's still there. It's the same world. But but it does not contribute significantly to phenomenal. Ditto for relativistic effects at human scale speeds. Ditto for quantum effects at human size scale.

the philosophical implications of that are still far from settled. — Wayfarer

I think that's true.

There's a specialist who writes on the metaphysics of physics - Tim Maudlin, from memory. Jim Baggott and Philip Ball are two others who say sensible things about it from within a fairly mainstream POV. But my favoured intepretations all tend towards the 'idealistic physicists', of whom there are a few (for instance, Richard Conn Henry, The Mental Universe - note the publication - and Bernard D'Espagnat.) — Wayfarer

I'll take a look.

More precisely, IME: Epistemology concerns criteria for deciding how to formulate theoretical models and perform experiments which test theoretical models whereas Metaphysics concerns the ontological commitments, or interpretation – e.g. realism or antirealism – presupposed by theoretical models. — 180 Proof

This is terrible!!! You and I keep agreeing. Something must be wrong.

I agree. Classical mechanics and quantum mechanics just 'mathematically describe' different scales of 'relational events' which entail different epistemic conditions (e.g. deterministic-causal and stochastic-correlational), respectively, about reality? experimental apparatus? the observer? etc. — 180 Proof

That's where I stand right now. As I wrote, I have some more thinking to do about it.

I do not think it is. And quantum mechanics shows why it is false. — Jackson

How the metaphysics of classical vs. quantum mechanics differ is something I'm struggling with. My interim answer is that quantum mechanics is physics, not metaphysics.

Yes, deterministic science. Never proven, just believed. — Jackson

Collingwood and I would not say "believed," we'd say "presumed." I think he and I would agree it is a reasonable presumption.

I think, it only reflects on ("the nature" of) theoretical practices and experimental findings. What more is possible for metaphysics to do with respect to natural science? — 180 Proof

I've always considered metaphysics and epistemology to be two aspects of the same subject. Recently I've come to see that, even though I still think that's true, talking about them in those terms confuses people. So I've decided to try to try to keep them separate them in my discussions. In that regard I think "the nature of theoretical practices and experimental findings" is epistemology. I guess the metaphysical aspects of science include that reality behaves lawfully and is consistent across time and space.

Does the self have a core that remains self-identical over time , or is it always a slightly new and different self that come back to itself minute to minute , day to day? — Joshs

I think both are good ways of looking at things, depending on the situation. When I'm dealing with people on a day to day basis, of course it makes sense for me to think of them as having a consistent identity. On the other hand, as @Angelo Cannata and others have noted, in some situations it may make sense to think of the self as changeable or even non-existent.

Philosophy, instead, either from a metaphysical point of view, or from what I think is like the current scientific drift of philosophy, needs definitions, clarity, evidence, logic, consistency. Even nihilists or postmodern thinkers need some kind of clear context where to put questions. — Angelo Cannata

As I noted, I think selfhood has sufficient definition, clarity, evidence, logic, and consistency to be considered real, existent.

Deconstruction was not Critical Theory. It was a way to read and interpret texts. — Jackson

Critical theory is a neo-marxist approach in philosophy, a form of structuralism and dialectic. . Derridean deconstruction places into the dialectical and structuralist basis of marxism and neo-marxism. — Joshs

Thanks for the education. I guess I always equate deconstruction, critical theory, and post-modernism as philosophical approaches that disparage traditional, conventional ways of seeing things.

Another evaluation of deconstruction. Thought others might find it worth discussing. I liked reading Derrida, but after a while, it just seemed like skepticism. — Jackson

I've read part of the article and will read the rest later. Here I'll show my ignorance - I thought deconstruction was a technique of Critical Theory. The article acts as if deconstruction has been widely abandoned, but Critical Theory, as in Critical Race Theory, is clearly going strong.

This is an interesting way of looking at things.

If Chalmer’s hard problem of consciousness does not exist, then there is no difference between a living human body suffering and a computer built to imitate all happenings and behaviours of suffering. — Angelo Cannata

Saying that the hard problem doesn't exist isn't the same as saying consciousness, in the sense that suffering is an aspect of consciousness, doesn't exist.

On a separate note, there is a case to be made that a computer built to imitate human conscious behavior seamlessly and completely is conscious. Not sure where I come down on that. This brings us into the land of P-zombies, which drives me crazy.

if you say that something like the “I”, the subject, the self, does not exist, — Angelo Cannata

I think I understand what eastern philosophies mean when they say that the self is an illusion. It's a useful way of looking at things. There are times when I can even experience things that way. On the other hand, most of the time it's me sitting here typing. Doing things the good old fashioned Amurican, western way. As the Beatles sang - "All I can hear, I me mine, I me mine, I me mine. Even those tears, I me mine, I me mine, I me mine."

then you are saying that we need to agree that something, that science is absolutely unable to prove, exists and, as a consequence, needs to be explored, studied, cultivated, discussed. — Angelo Cannata

Science doesn't prove things exist, it shows they can be measured in a rigorous, repeatable way. If we call that "existence," which is not unreasonable, then the self exists as much as gravity, electrons, and popcorn.

The problem is that, for these discussions, studies and explorations, we won’t have any evidence, any objective material to work on, so that the whole matter is highly exposed to a lot of discretion; I mean: everybody will be able to say anything about it and we will have no serious material to work on. — Angelo Cannata

Of course we have evidence. I can report my personal experience of my self - suffering, thinking, awareness, happiness - everything that people experience. I can get similar reports from lots of different people. I can't use my eyes to see a self directly, but that's true of many things - electrons, x-rays, gravity... Maybe you don't think the evidence for selfhood is very good. I disagree.

Nobody would say that we should protect computers from violence; why should we protect humans from violence, if nobody is suffering inside a suffering body? A suffering human body can be interpreted just like the frog’s legs in Galvani’s experiment. — Angelo Cannata

Maybe, logically, we shouldn't care about other people's suffering for the reason you've given. Fact is, though, we do. For most of us empathy is part of our standard equipment. It's built in. For most of us, caring about other people is important. That's a value. Values are not generally rational or logical, not to say they are irrational or illogical. If this computer you're discussing can perfectly simulate suffering and perfectly simulate empathy, then we're really talking.

Probably people mirror their own emotions onto others. — M777

This is probably true.

A weak person, who is afraid of all kinds of suffering or violence, will be overly protective of others. Same a person who is ok with suffering himself as an inevitable part of life, doesn't have an urge to rid the world of suffering at any cost, as they understand that some degree of suffering is needed for one's growth and without it people would become weak and pathetic. — M777

I think this is probably not true.

The idea of looking at 'how we see' may be part of this way of thinking because the thoughts which a person has are based on consciousness itself, so cannot be separated from the meanings, even if they are shared by many. — Jack Cummins

I think one of the purposes of philosophy is to separate how we see from what we see. Although it's not too hard to be aware of what we see, doing the same for how we see is much more difficult.

Metaphysics, on the other hand with respect to natural science, only reflectively conceptualizes natural science's presuppositions and principles (including – or implying – a 'natural-supernatural distinction'), which, of course, is categorical (analytic or hermeneutical) and not hypothetical (scientific or factual) – re: how we must look at 'whatever we can see', not what we can see. — 180 Proof

You and I see metaphysics in a similar way, although I might object to the "only" in "...natural science, only reflectively conceptualizes natural science's presuppositions and principles..."

So I also, as much as I can, examine rationally and seek confirmation of validity before I act or speak or type. — universeness

My writing comes directly from... somewhere inside and directly onto the page. That's the first time it shows up in words. The Tao Te Ching and other Taoist writings talk about "wu wei," acting without acting, without intention. That's how writing is for me. The words write themselves. I sometimes say that the best class I took in high school was typing. I rarely used it till word processors came along. Now it allows me to put my words down almost as fast as I could say them.

Before I post, I generally reread what I've written, but that's mostly to fix they're, their, there and make sure it makes sense. Most thinking, for me and many others, takes place in a place that is not conscious. I guess It's preconscious.

I disagree with you that experienced intuitive responses are mainly irrational and illogical. — universeness

I wrote "...in my experience it and it's contents are not rational or logical." I didn't say my intuition is irrational and illogical. There's another choice - non-rational and non-logical.

This distinction divorces human aggression from animal aggression, in opposition to the widely accepted myth that 'malignant' human aggression has its roots in an animal past. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Don't know much about Fromm, but his distinction between types of aggression doesn't make sense to me. Many social animals have hierarchal communities with structures of dominance enforced by aggression and submission. In people, that drive for dominance may take on odd and dangerous permutations because of how complex our society has become in order to handle all these dozens and hundreds and thousands and millions of people.

The scientific method is our best methodology for finding out truths about the workings and structure of the universe and truths that lead to technologies.
I do also think that the scientific method has a much better chance of eventually explaining the origins of such phenomena as human consciousness and human psychology (via neuroscience) when compared to the chances of getting any reliable answers from the supernatural, the mystical, theism, theosophistry, magic, astrology, tea leaves or the entrails of a chicken. — universeness

I was not finding fault with your affection for the scientific method. I'm an engineer with a strong interest in science. That has a lot to do with my interest in philosophy. On the other hand, I think you were misusing the term when you were discussing how most people, and I assume you, make decisions about what's going on in the world. Unless you are very unusual, perhaps unique, you don't examine every fact rationally and test if for validity. You make assumptions, listen to what other people tell you, follow your intuition. While I think intuition ultimately comes from experience, in my experience it and it's contents are not rational or logical.

I was only kiddin Ken — universeness

I learned everything I know about prehistory from the Flintstones. Yabba Dabba Do.

It's a fair point, I know. — Baden

I'm not expecting any change in policy. This is just intended as a request to each of you. No need for further discussion on my part.

It's optional and not a bad idea in principle. But let's not pretend this is about writing a one sentence PM. The PM will almost certainly be responded to and very often instigate a debate. — Baden

Once I started a thread that Jamal took offense with. Once I realized it had been moved to the lounge, I talked it over with him and he reinstated it to the main page. But it took me a while to figure out that it had even been moved.

Because there are often a dozen posts in the moderation queue. — Michael

If you've got time to delete the thread, you've got time to post a one sentence PM.

I would appreciate if moderators, when they delete or move a thread, would notify the person who started it. Then if the poster wants an explanation, they can ask directly. I can't understand why moderators resist doing that, except in particularly egregious examples of abuse. It would only take a few seconds.

Why do you think this is so? Each human gathers empirical evidence from birth. — universeness

I think this comes down to what we mean by empirical. Here are some definitions from the web:

• Relying on or derived from observation or experiment.
• Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment.
• Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially in medicine.

So, anyway. I agree that most if not all of what we know comes from experience. But I think very little of it comes from formal, or even conscious, learning or observation. If by "empirical," you mean anything learned from personal experience or from someone else, then I agree with you, but I think that's a big stretch for the meaning of the word. But you go even further:

The scientific method can be applied by anyone seeking new knowledge of any kind.

It has been honed since the moment a human first started to try to make sense of its own existence, so It's not exclusive to scientists or only when a person is doing science.
Any idea, suggestion or belief should be challenged, modeled, tested, evaluated etc.
I will not accept something as true until I see the evidence that it's true. — universeness

You don't just say "experience," you say "the scientific method." Fred Flintstone certainly learned from experience and from what he was taught by others, but to call that the scientific method is silly. You also say this:

I think even human instincts, are based on empirical evidence gained by our earliest ancestors. — universeness

So, now our instincts are included within the scientific method. In reality, I'm sure you make most of your decisions like the rest of us do - primarily by intuition and what other people have told you. And that's fine, but it's not challenging, modelling, testing, and evaluating any idea, suggestion, or belief. You accept things as true all the time without seeing evidence that they are true.

In Carl Sagan's book 'The Dragons of Eden.' He talks about the human sounds 'shhhhhhhhhhh' and 'pssssssssssst.' Scientists suggest that human babies recognise these two sounds from birth, instinctively. They are signals for a human to become quieter and come from our days in the wild, living in caves at night. They are both sounds that reptiles make. Reptiles were the biggest nighttime threat to humans sleeping in caves and they could find you if you made a sound. — universeness

I really liked Carl, but this is the kind of bullshit you get when you start talking about evolutionary psychology and sociobiology. People love to make up farfetched evolutionary explanations when there is no evidence at all. Everyone knows dinosaurs were the biggest threat to humans.

Seems to me you two are doing something different from what Angelo Cannata is doing. He is telling you how he determines what he has to do to act in an ethical manner, i.e. in accordance with his conscience. You're trying to set out rules by which you can judge other people's behavior. Those are two separate things. — Clarky

Actually that's my take too. I'm saying that 'your own conscience' is not a good foundation as there is nothing one can't justify using such an approach. People justify slavery, sexual assault, murder, theft, anything horrendous, based on their own conscience (or lack of one). I also don't yet see how his answer relates to the OP. — Tom Storm

I'm a bit lost. Here's what you asked for in the OP:

I'd like to explore how moral choices might be informed by postmodern philosophy (which I recognize is an umbrella term for a range of positions)...How might postmodernism be helpful in determining how we should/could live? — Tom Storm

How has @Angelo Cannata not responded to your OP? It makes sense to me that you may not like what he has to say, but his response is consistent with my understanding of how post-modern morals works. Post-modernism rejects the idea of restrictions imposed by tradition or social coercion. It is not ends-based, it's process-based. It's means, not ends that matter. I'm guessing that's mostly how you live your life - you follow your conscience.

Ok. And I am not trying to give offence here, Angelo, but why should anyone care? Are you saying that morality is simply a matter of personal preferences - between you and your god/abyss? In which case is there any position that can't be justified using this personal approach, from pedophilia to genocide? — Tom Storm

The account given by ↪Angelo Cannata starts with considerations of "history" - what I might call "background" or "being embedded" - but then slides into being "subjective", opening itself up to your critique. It has failed to follow through on the fact of our shared world, reverting to some form of solipsism, and as a result fails to deal with the problem of what we ought to do. — Banno

Seems to me you two are doing something different from what @Angelo Cannata is doing. He is telling you how he determines what he has to do to act in an ethical manner, i.e. in accordance with his conscience. You're trying to set out rules by which you can judge other people's behavior. Those are two separate things.

I cannot call it a system, because it is not static, definitive. It is my today’s method, that actually I have been practicing for many years. But tomorrow I might change idea. — Angelo Cannata

Yes, you're right. I didn't like "system" either, but I couldn't think of a better word.

I think that an essential element that is normally ignored in discussions about postmodernism is history. History considered at all levels: the history of universe, history of nature, of people, your own personal history. If you don’t think about it, history will make choices for you. History includes also your DNA, your body. As people that have some psychological feel of freedom, we try to bring some active contribution in history, by using awareness, intelligence, critical sense, emotions, spirituality, to make choices. This way you don’t need any fixed rule, any dogma, any principle: you received from history your humanity, sensitivity, emotions, intelligence, everything. Every moment you make your best synthesis of all these things and you make your choices. Once you become familiar with this way, you can see that you have no need for principles, values, reference points. You are just a human, a person, a good person, and, as such, you don't need moral systems. What are moral systems for? — Angelo Cannata

Is this your description of a post-modern ethical system? It seems like that could be your intention and it makes sense.

I am a lot more uncomfortable with a leap of faith, than I am with actions based on studied empirical evidence. — universeness

Very little of what we know is based on "studied empirical evidence."

I don't much like it either but I feel more and more compulsion to combat the use of metaphysical and supernatural synonymously, whenever people try to do so. — universeness

To be fair, it is part of the common meaning of "metaphysics." It goes back to what you said about the word being overburdened.

Forget the emotional side. Factually, the parallel between God and parents is far stronger than you suggest. Both are givers of life. Both provide sustainance. Both decide right and wrong. Both reward virtue, and punish misdeeds. Both are turned to when in distress, and for guidance. Both are to be obeyed, above all others.

These godly features of parents are not idiosyncratic to my upbringing. Gods are parents taken to an abstract ideal. — hypericin

I don't mind making a metaphorical connection between God and parents, but you've made a stronger argument than that:

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

This implies that religion developed historically as a response to our disappointment with our parents. You've used that to undermine the credibility of those who believe in God. That's what I object to.

Cool, there's a controversy — ZzzoneiroCosm

I don't see it as a controversy. I am used to thinking of epistemology as part of metaphysics. I think it's time for me to reexamine that understanding.

I don't advocate for restricting how others choose to use language but based on the OP, I do want to assess the 'shakiness' of the ground I will be on if I choose to challenge anyone who tries to connect the term metaphysics with the term supernatural and its related nomenclature. — universeness

Metaphysics is commonly used as a synonym for supernatural or religious. I don't really like that, so I try to avoid the discussion because I don't think it is easily resolvable.