Yes, that was not the correct phrasing. I'm talking about actual real life, everyday affairs. How could we tell that space and time are a priori without something else that allows us to put them to use?

A rough analogy would be, we have eyes, which allow us to see colours. Nevertheless, if we are in a locked room (since birth) so dark we cannot even make out anything at all, we can't well say that we see colours until we get out of the room.

The potential for colours is there, but not triggered unless there is appropriate stimulus.

Perhaps something akin to this would happen in the case of space and time being a priori, absent an environment that allows us to put these into use.

I used those terms in that post broadly, attempting to point out that without something in the world to contrast with out experience, it would not be evident that we could tell that space and time were a-priori.

Strictly speaking yes, "stuff" and "matter" are different things. But to signify something that is independent of us, these terms can be used loosely to point out this general idea.

I anticipate a lot of interesting exchanges, though this may be my imagination going rampant. I agree, pre 1905, space and time were absolute presuppositions. But then I wonder, in manifest experience, would we be able to isolate space and time absent stuff (matter, substance, etc.)?

We need space and time to access matter, but without matter, I don't see how space and time, innate as they are, could be exhibited. Perhaps matter, alongside being presupposed by space and time, allows us to discover that space and time are a priori.

For if we had no empirical world to use these faculties, I don't see how anything could become manifest as a priori or as being formed by our experience.

Yeah, I’ve occassioned on the phrase a time or two myself. Loaded with subtleties, I must say. — Mww

Indeed. I wonder if modern physics and also astronomy, might play an important role in reconceptualizing what possible experiences could be conceived as.

Very soon, I could start a thread on these things. Or, we can keep it private.

I'll leave the option open to you.

I’ll wait for something to actually qualify as an absolute pre-supposition, which a metaphysics of anything, would surely demand. — Mww

The only thing that would be required given the constraints of the thread would be the pre-supposition that everything that is, is made of matter.

In other words, given the limitations of the thread, there cannot be something which is not matter, in any possible experience (dammit, I wonder were I got that phrase from?).

Nevertheless, this as an absolute pre-supposition, does not say a lot. Because even back then, they still did not know what does not count as "matter", aside from stipulations (mind is not matter, etc.).

Amen man. :clap:

Thanks for sharing that beautiful review.

I can handle tough, I think. But not boring (for too long anyway).

Hopefully we could exchange some further opinions on several novels some time.

I have heard of Night Watch, but have not read it.

If you want a mixture of Russian culture with Buddhism, I think you might very well like Viktor Pelevin's Buddha's Little Finger, it's very philosophical. I have to re-read it again, but I remember being quite impressed.

I will have to check out the Dublin Murder Squad, the name sounds interesting.

Back then I'm not sure if they even calculated how much of the universe was knowable.

But the point you bring up, is extremely important to stress.

Although it is absolutely breathtaking that we have managed, as rather special creatures (given unique properties not found in other animals) to understand a portion of the universe, the overwhelmingly majority, we do not know.

And it's not even clear that these remaining things should be considered "matter" and "energy".

It's a way to learn about Japanese culture that is entertaining. The book was pretty good, she knows Japan very well. But there are others that are much better, by Japanese authors.

Mostly murder-mysteries, with some exceptions.

Despite most people's intuition on this topic, I don't think the topic is trivial.

In fact, far from it. But the fact the it isn't trivial does not mean that it doesn't have an answer.

I disagree. If the universe can not be understood, science is pointless. — Clarky

We come up to the point raised in the title of the thread: the metaphysics of materialism. If you say that studying the universe as was done in 1905 is metaphysics - that's fine. Though I doubt scientists then thought they were doing metaphysics.

They were doing physics. They study what we still call "matter", but beyond that name, I don't see a metaphysics. They studied the universe, call it whatever you like. The results won't vary if you call matter, "immaterial" or "mental", as you seem to agree.

I should've emphasized that I have in mind intuitive understanding of the universe, which was the goal of the great scientists/philosophers of the 17th century onward. This has been dropped, even before 1905.

But if by understand you mean "theoretical understanding" - then we do not disagree, and happily, science has a point. Understanding is a complex topic in its own right.

I agree with some of this, others not. There is very good evidence to suggest that [1] is not true: the universe cannot be understood by human beings, at least not metaphysically (which is the purpose of this thread) - the ultimate grounds of reality are sealed out for us.

[2] Is more terminological than anything else. Yes, there is a universe out there - it can be called "physical", "neutral", "material", "immaterial", it does not have consequences for our inquires- for whatever the universe is made of, whatever word is used - this is what we study.

[3] Yes, sure. We could substitute "laws" for "habits", but it is fine.

[4] Yes. Or at least, we can best describe its behavior through applied mathematics.

[5] Given the time period, perhaps this was assumed to be true. There may be exceptions, but, fine.

[6] Yes.

[7] So far as was known, correct.

[8] And assumed to be infinite too.

[9] Space and time are considered absolute and not the same thing, as is now the case.

Pretty good OP Clark.

Let us get all our spiritual sustenance from STEM then.

Because of course, during the pandemic, we all made it through because the humanities did nothing to help any of us.

I know this is not your view. But it is a sad state of affairs when such things are said to contribute no value to society. Reflects our cultural poverty or, if not, then highlights our admiration for the superficial (how much it contributes to the economy as opposed to how it enriches us as human beings).

It's a very good OP, with the only caveat that it is a bit long. It seems to me that, if you haven't done so already, you should go ahead and read Schopenhauer.

What you are saying towards the end is very similar to what Schopenhauer argues. Granted, both Kant and Schopenhauer are a bit dated in terms of physics (space and time are not a-priori conditions of sensibility, we now know it's spacetime, etc.), which surprisingly doesn't hurt them too much.

It's a fine tradition.

I suppose it depends who you ask.

One could explain it in terms of which areas in the brain are directly responsible for consciousness (frontal lobe, etc., etc.). Maybe we'll find which areas are strictly necessary for this.

How to interpret this, would be difficult. But the distinction between science and philosophy on this topic is more slippery than in other areas, I think.



Sure. No one knowns what the future may hold. We have different intuitions on this and it's not possible to say who will end up being correct.

It's too long to explain here again (I've discussed this too much here), there is a thread I started in which I shared an essay by Chomsky that explains the reasons why.

Besides Chomsky: Locke, Hume, Reid, Kant and up to Russell, share similar intuitions. In a nutshell, we have quite a rigid nature that allows us to pose some questions to nature, but not others. We can ask all kinds of questions, some which may be well posed, of which we have no inkling of an answer.

No one doubts all biological creatures have rigid natures: dogs, dolphins, birds, etc. Why would we be the exception to this rule? Sure, we are vastly more intelligent and unique than any other animal, by a lot, but we don't have an advanced alien civilization to which we could compare ourselves.

I think it's a matter of human cognitive limitation and being epistemologically realistic, not pessimistic.

I haven't seen a poll of professional philosophers in relation to this question, so I can't vouch that "most living philosophers" accept the hard problem as stated.

I'd very slightly change the formulation and instead say that the so called "hard problem", has generated of a lot of literature in contemporary philosophy.

You ask 10 different philosophers, and you'll get 10 different replies. Some take it to be solvable, others don't.

Personally, I side with those who think that it is not solvable in a manner in which we would like the answer to be, namely, to explain how matter produces experience.

Much more importantly, in my view, is that it is only one of many "hard problems". We've gotten so used to accepting these problems, that they don't bother us anymore: gravity was hard problem for Newton, motion was a problem for Locke and Hume and many others, the identity of objects is a hard problem going back to Heraclitus, and so on.

What you point is very much true. Those of us not gifted in math, have no choice but to rely on physicists to try and explain this at some level of generality and simplification.

But how do we make sense of math in relation to the external world, if we (non-specialists) can't visualize the information in any way?

It seems as if we are more satisfied when we can picture things than when we are left with no choice than write equations.

It's a tough topic to talk sensibly about, you are correct.

Well, there's a whole lot of things science cannot prove, nor even sensibly talk about, which we take for granted:

Literature, the arts, issues pertaining to the will and much else.

We may find some very general and not very interesting suggestions in art by arguing that we like certain symmetries in objects. That doesn't say too much.

Science doesn't really say why Shakespeare or [insert favorite author here] was a genius. Nevertheless, we need not abandon rationality when talking about this and go to mysticism.

There very much are "edge-cases" such as the issue of the self, free will and object constancy that can be somewhat studied, or denied, marginalized or ignored. We have no choice but to deal with them in real life however.

Included in all this is suffering in general: it's very hard to measure. No one doubts it exists.

Are you arguing for the sake of it?

He should be popular because he made important contributions in epistemology, metaphysics, morals and aesthetics, among several other topics.

Modern philosophy developed in part as a reaction to his thought.

Nevertheless, I think there are classical philosophers that are more interesting than him and anticipated his thought. And I also think Kant exaggerates his own importance.

But that he should be popular, is evident.

He sure is, as he should be.

All I'm saying is that people vary wildly in what they get from him - either a great deal, something or very little and everything else in between.

Parts of it were discussed, not the whole book. There was more emphasis on obscure phenomenologists and the Ancient Greeks. Maybe related tot he fact that it is a Catholic university, I think.

To force people to read the entire Critique, would be cruel. Several distinguished philosophers, like William James or Bertrand Russell, got very little to nothing out of him.

But I'm rectifying that mistake :halo:

Currently reading:

Critique of Pure Reason by Immanuel Kant (finally and damn, it really is hard-going even knowing the main ideas before reading it).

The Kimono Tattoo by Rebecca Copeland

Yes. One need not have to be put in the default position of *having* to say, "Putin's invasion of Ukraine is a major crime.", every time one want to make a point about how poorly the West in handling this situation.

This level of discourse is pretty crazy.

I won't do it now (@ him), but, Baden's contributions here seem to be level headed.

Maybe comes with his position here.

One would just want this war to be over with. For everybody's sake.

Yes.

The first one (it being illegal) is just a fact. But not morally wrong at all.

As to the convenient moralizing, yes, with the caveats mentioned.

It is illegal, as a matter of fact, in Russia. It's an empirical affair. Not morally wrong in the least, actually the opposite.

According to you, to criticize the Russian government is either illegal (if one lives in Russia) or convenient moralizing (if one lives outside Russia). — Olivier5

Correct.

Where you live affects this, in my opinion. If you live in Poland or Finland, I think it's different. If you live in say, France, the US or Australia, then yes, most of what I hear (not all) is convenient moralizing.

I own things I say and have retracted if relevant information arises, as I did at the start of this invasion.

But I will not retract things I did not say.

And yes, I think one has to asses who merits continued engagement, and who does not. My reading of your comments suggest that you extrapolate what you want to hear, so you attack something somebody did not say.

I think it doesn't make sense to discuss imaginary statements.

If you call that running away or cowardly, fine. I don't care.

I haven't said nor insinuated that one cannot speak about Russia's actions, of course one speaks about Russia's actions, that's part of the thread.

Ukraine would literally not be a topic of discussion here if NATO weren't a massive factor, as I posted in the OP.

People should talk about whatever they think is interesting and important.

That's a different issue from saying that by condemning Russia, we are being morally correct or righteous. That Russia is engaging in war crimes is a truism.

That I think my governments (US and Spain) are doing much to improve the situation, I don't think is the case.

you are not allowed to do so — Olivier5

You can do it and you get arrested. Those protesting in Russia are very brave and deserve moral praise.

when it's legal, then it's immoral. — Olivier5

I am impressed by your reading comprehension skills, given how creative you can be extrapolating words I never said.

I enjoy speaking to someone like @SophistiCat, even if we may disagree. You simply distort meanings to a remarkable degree.

What do you take metaphysics to be?

And who does good metaphysics in your opinion?

I'm not sure I'm understanding what you mean by showing this link. I agree metaphysics is a branch of philosophy, and that work is done in the field.

I still maintain that what one person calls "metaphysics" another says isn't or is bad philosophy, etc. I think metaphysics now is more obscure than it was during Descartes time, because the topics are much more technical, and we know less that the classical figures hoped we could know.



Perhaps that's more accurate than what I said.

It causes considerable contention, as you well know.

I don't think it's even possible to have a modern day war, without committing war crimes. It comes with the territory.

I do agree that the evidence needs to examined by independent legal scholars, looking at the facts - as far isolated from ideology as possible. But to get rid of ideology entirely I don't think is possible.

It's part of being human, to have biases. It need not be bad.

But sure, hypocrisy from the West, no doubt at all about that.

They sure are. It's not clear to me however, that many of these questions pertain to metaphysics exclusively, that is, that we're going to find some kind of answers to questions about the self, free will, and say, materialism, from looking at the world.

These questions I think need to be re-integrated into epistemology. In this respect I think Descartes
"launch" of modern philosophy is quite correct.

My point being, that if you ask anyone here, what metaphysics is, you'll get many different answers. And with contemporary philosophers, it's not much better.

Then again, if it's clear to you, then that's a massive plus to you. I still puzzle over it, after having spent considerable time on it.

That's probably true.

It is however, fiendishly hard to pin-point what it actually is, outside of saying that it's about the nature of the world.

Epistemology, ethics, etc., in this respect are much more straightforward to define, imo.

I agree. Therefore, I do not think metaphysics can be eliminated.

One aspect of what the positivists did, and latter Wittgenstein (in opposition to his earlier, I think deeper, work) was to try to frame "traditional metaphysical" questions is such a manner that apparent difficulties could be dissolved.

And while this is one way to approach the problem, with some good results, it's far from the only one. And yet despite the critique of it, many metaphysical problems are still with is. It's up to each person to decide whether such questions are worthy of pursuit or a waste of time.

I think that, despite not being capable of arriving at definite conclusions, the journey is very much its own reward. Of course, your miles will vary.

By pressuring our governments, voting our politicians in or out, engaging in demonstrations that could push or stop legislation, sending letters to our representatives all of which are an essential part of democracy.

As we are not citizens of Russia, we do not have this option - and also they get arrested if they do protest.



Yes, it has a very long, ugly history, curiously supporting the more radical elements of Islam, which often coincide (not always) with Western economic and military interests.

Nevertheless, that's a topic deserving of its own thread.

Who supplies the arms to Saudi Arabia? You think SA would dare due this if they US didn't allow it?

Iran is blown way out of proportion due to Israeli interests.

Nevertheless, don't want to derail the main topic here. It's easier to condemn an enemy than admit the faults of one's own state.

This very much applies to the Russia war in Ukraine.

Well. If you get rid of metaphysics, you will also need to get rid of epistemology. Epistemology has to be about something, and if you remove the world, then you are merely left with reason dealing with itself - if that's even conceivable.

But even this is problematic, because without a world, it is not at all obvious that one could tell apart what belongs to the world and what belongs to mind. So mind may not even develop.

If you get rid of epistemology, you get rid of philosophy: morality, aesthetics, etc.

But the positive take is rather extreme. They actually have a metaphysics, since they believe the world exists. So all there is, everything, is sense data. So all we deal with in the world is this, sense data.

There are few views as radical as this, not even Hume or Berkeley were as radical.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but the OP doesn’t seem to disallow “pro-Russian” or “anti-NATO” arguments. So, saying that an argument is “pro-Russian/anti-NATO” isn’t really a valid objection. — Apollodorus

Correct. There are obvious biases, proclivities and lenses through which we look at this war. It is tempting, because if it often true, to say that a poster here is "pro-West/Anti-Russia" or "Pro Russia/ Anti-NATO". And all varieties of such combinations.

Nevertheless, once we reach a point in which such accusations are made, I see little by way of argument that could persuade a person on any side.

There's been much discussion here, and I've only skimmed a good portion of it, but my feeling is that @Isaac is correct in the following: that we are responsible for what our governments do and can act on that to some extent.

Unless we are Russian (and even then it's hard, given the current regime in Russia) we can't do much about it. And merely saying how horrible Russia is, over and over, is convenient moralizing.

I draw exceptions with people living next to Russia, but besides that, its just much easier to condemn Russia, than what's happening in say, Yemen, which is almost entirely the fault of the US. But, people wave flags, for good and ill.

I mean, these types of threads lead to thinking that suicide is a good thing, because there's nothing else that can be extracted here that is positive in any way. And for some cases, I think suicide is completely legitimate.

But if that's not in the background, then all we are left with is damning this existence. What's the point? Either do something, or don't do it, but trying to get people to see that existence is suffering is silly, especially if there's a way out.