Pro-tip: as much as and whenever possible, for clarity's sake, avoid sumarizing in your "own words". A thesaurus and philosophical dictionary don't bite. — 180 Proof

I get the feeling that you are talking down to me, but not dumbing-it-down enough. I'm not a Pro, merely an amateur cogitator. I have no formal training in Philosophy, and most of my reading has been in hard Science, not fashionable ideologies. So, when I refer to a technical philosophical issue, I have to paraphrase it in my own words, in order to understand it. Teach me as-if I'm a six year old. :cool:

"If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.”
― Albert Einstein

Don't take it personally.

"Certum est, quia impossibile" ~Tertullian

I'm not smart enough to dumb down my 'philosophical via negativa' any further especially for someone who won't bother to read it.

How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth? — The Sign of the Four, chap. 6

Last attempt (paraphrasing Arthur Conan Doyle):

'If we eliminate (negate) the ways the actual world necessarily could not have been or cannot be described, then what remains is every way the actual world – phase space – possibly could have been or can be described.'

(NB: The natural & historical sciences, not philosophy (i.e. metaphysics), however, provide complementary, possible ways of describing the actual world.)

So what's the point? To (A) propose an 'absolute' (or first principle) which is self-contradictory, or irrational, to deny and (B) which also functions as

a speculative criterion for the understanding which enables-constrains praxes, or agency — 180 Proof

that – by eliminating background 'beliefs-in-impossibilities' (re: ways the actual world necessarily could not have been ...) which amount to expectations inevitably, repeatedly, frustrated by 'the actual world' – optimizes agency / reduces misery. :point:

I'm not smart enough to dumb down my 'philosophical via negativa' any further especially for someone who won't bother to read it. — 180 Proof

Pardon me, but your version of the 'via negativa' is completely different from that term as traditionally understood. It is associated in Western philosophy with Meister Eckhart, (Pseudo) Dionysius, Plotinus, and John Scottus Eriugena. The apophatic or negative way assumes God's transcendence and unknowability in such a way that nothing meaningful can be spoken about the divine essence as it is beyond the vicissitudes of becoming, birth and death (in other words, beyond existence). This 'way' is often expressed in terms of darkness, unknowing, self-emptying (kenosis) but also the pleroma (divine fullness), a 'no-thing' which is at the same time the source of everything.

No. Shit. I've only pointed out that difference between my use of apophatics and the theological usage (which is also different from the ancient rhetorical usage re: Greek Paideia) several dozen times across dozens of threads since I became active again on TPF a couple of years ago. Search "180 Proof" "via negativa" "apophatic" "negative ontology" (you may even find posts directly or indirectly addressed to you on the topic). So, pardon me, Woofarer: if you have one, what's your point?

I'm not smart enough to dumb down my 'philosophical via negativa' any further especially for someone who won't bother to read it.
How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?
— The Sign of the Four, chap. 6
Last attempt (paraphrasing Arthur Conan Doyle):

'If we eliminate (negate) the ways the actual world necessarily could not have been or cannot be described, then what remains is every way the actual world – phase space – possibly could have been or can be described.' — 180 Proof

Eliminating the impossible does not give us the truth. Such a method always leaves us with possibility because the logic operates within that category. And truth is what actually is. So we still have a categorical separation between what we get from eliminating impossibility (i.e., possibility), and truth (what actually is).

And, the proposition that all reality consists of mere possibility, without anything actual, is inconsistent with sense observation. In other words, to class the actual as impossible because it is other than possible is contrary to empirical evidence (it is a sophistic trick). So we are still left with a gap between what the logical process of eliminating impossibility gives us (possibility), and what sensation gives us (actuality). This gap needs to be closed if are to claim a proper understanding of reality. To deny the gap, by claiming that the actual is impossible because it is something other than possible, is a sophistic move of ignorance.

I have no idea what you are talking about, MU, even though you've taken a leap of whatever off of the raggedy edge of my post.

...even though you've taken a leap of whatever off of the raggedy edge of my post. — 180 Proof

That's hard to avoid. The entire post is a ragged mess, best to abandon.

Coming from you that convinces me otherwise.

'If we eliminate (negate) the ways the actual world necessarily could not have been or cannot be described, then what remains is every way the actual world – phase space – possibly could have been or can be described.' — 180 Proof

My problem with Sherlock's eliminative method is that, to be as certain as he seemed to be, you must begin negating from a position of Omniscience. Otherwise, you could omit something important from your list of necessities. Remember, the Butterfly Effect is predicated on a few seemingly minor differences in initial conditions. Sherlock's "deductions" from first principles were actually inductions from limited evidence and unprovable assumptions.

For example, presumably an omniscient Creator or Programmer of the actual world, would consider all possible forms, and then actualize only the "best of all possible worlds", as Leibniz claimed. In that case, what we know as Reality is already the result of a cosmic sifting process, but still full of conditional possibilites. That's why statisticians, whose job is to eliminate uncertainty as much as possible, begin by plotting a few known points, and then interpolate a Normal curve, from which they make their best guess predictions. Yet, those carefully aimed forecasts rapidly succumb to randomness over time & space.

Thus, for those of us who are not omniscient, we are faced with the mind-boggling mega-zillions of Possibilities that remain in a world of zillions of Potential combinations of physical & metaphysical interactions. For me, that would be a daunting task. I have no way of knowing all the "ways the actual world could not have been". So, I have to begin my investigation into Reality from a position of limited personal knowledge (plot points). And most of that "knowledge" is general & vague, instead of specific & precise. Consequently, my Normal Curve -- plotted from a few points of positive evidence -- has many degrees of possibility (phase space) in which to go wrong.

Therefore, unlike Sherlock, my attempts to see beyond the Big Bang, would not present a high degree of confidence. So, all I can say is that it works for me right here and right now. But I could be wrong. Absolutely wrong. Which is why I have to qualify my deductions (or inductions) as merely reasonable guesses. And your guess could be as good as mine, as long as the reasoning is not mis-aimed by false premises : initial assumptions. That's why philosophers are not prophets. They can only compare a variety of personal guesses to see what they have in common. On this forum, our range of worldviews is wide, but we are forced to view them in the light of skepticism & critical thinking from different perspectives. That said, I can see some overlap in our personal paradigms, but the non-intersecting parts are still a bit fuzzy. :cool:

if you have one, what's your point? — 180 Proof

that your appropriation of that terminology is meaningless a lot of the time.

"Sherlock's eliminative method"? I guess you're grasping onto only what you can, or you're willing to, understand. Well, I'm keeping my word, I've made my last attempt to discuss my speculations with you, Gnomon.

:lol:

nothing meaningful can be spoken about the divine essence as it is beyond the vicissitudes of becoming, birth and death (in other words, beyond existence). — Wayfarer

You've contradicted yourself; you've said something purportedly meaningful about "it"; that it is divine, is an essence, and is "beyond existence".



Ah, the laughs, they never end...

:up:

You've contradicted yourself — Janus

Don’t know how I’ll ever get over it. Although on the plus side I’ve discovered an interesting book from the linked wiki article on apophatic theology. (Although these specialized texts are always so expensive.)

Strother Martin. A character actor. This was his most well-known role.

If it doesn't bother you then there's nothing to "get over"; which does seem to be the case judging from the blithe tone. :wink:

If it doesn't bother you then there's nothing to "get over"; which does seem to be the case judging from the blithe tone. :wink: — Janus

Now that I'm not typing on an iPhone in a coffee shop....there is of course an inherent paradox in saying anything whatever about what is designated as 'beyond words', but various philosophical schools have found ways to accomodate that.

In any case, the passage I had quoted, which you attributed to me, was a paraphrase of the wiki entry on Aphopatic theology which actually was linked by 180 Proof in one of his comments. The quote verbatim is:

Pseudo Dionysius describes the kataphatic or affirmative way to the divine as the "way of speech": that we can come to some understanding of the Transcendent by attributing all the perfections of the created order to God as its source. In this sense, we can say "God is Love", "God is Beauty", "God is Good". The apophatic or negative way stresses God's absolute transcendence and unknowability in such a way that we cannot say anything about the divine essence because God is so totally beyond being. The dual concept of the immanence and transcendence of God can help us to understand the simultaneous truth of both "ways" to God: at the same time as God is immanent, God is also transcendent. At the same time as God is knowable, God is also unknowable. God cannot be thought of as one or the other only.

That was attributed to a scholar, Dierdre Carrabine, on a site called Centre for Sacred Sciences. I looked her books up, one of them is the one I mentioned.

//ps// reading the interview, is was based on her PhD thesis.//

//pps//and there are many passages in it about 'saying the un-sayable'. It is where Christian mysticism is most like Zen.//

Coming from you that convinces me otherwise. — 180 Proof

You ought not say things like that 180. It just demonstrates that you are convinced by ad hominem. And that's known as a fallacy. Relying on ad hominem to make judgements of metaphysics is just not good. Why do you base your metaphysical judgements in fallacious logic?

Ah, I get it now: making no sense whatsoever is your superpower.

Pseudo Dionysius describes the kataphatic or affirmative way to the divine as the "way of speech": that we can come to some understanding of the Transcendent by attributing all the perfections of the created order to God as its source. In this sense, we can say "God is Love", "God is Beauty", "God is Good". The apophatic or negative way stresses God's absolute transcendence and unknowability in such a way that we cannot say anything about the divine essence because God is so totally beyond being. The dual concept of the immanence and transcendence of God can help us to understand the simultaneous truth of both "ways" to God: at the same time as God is immanent, God is also transcendent. At the same time as God is knowable, God is also unknowable. God cannot be thought of as one or the other only.

I would say instead "Love is god", "Beauty is god", "Goodness is god", because these are things we know and, at our best, make to be our gods and practice.

Likewise "Immanence is god", "Transcendence is god", "The knowable is god" and "The unknowable is god", because these are things we think and imagine and at our best, make to be our gods and practice.

Well, I'm keeping my word, I've made my last attempt to discuss my speculations with you, Gnomon. — 180 Proof

Hey! I didn't mean to offend you with my non-comprehension of your "via negativa" speculations. That approach is just as valid as my "via positiva" for conjectures beyond the scope of empirical science. It just doesn't fit my personal amateur methodology. I'm sure that lots of philosophers, including the Buddha, respond to ineffable topics with negations and koans. Even in my thesis, I admit that negations can carry Information. For example, "Zero" and "Infinity" are words & symbols that stand-in for that which is unknowable, yet meaningful. Apparently, you don't grok my Enformationism worldview either. And that's OK. I'm aware that it's an abstract & holistic concept that's hard to wrap your mind around. Merry Holidays to you! :cool:



Nassim Nicholas Taleb defines Via Negativa as, “The principle that we know what is wrong with more clarity than what is right, and that knowledge grows by subtraction.
https://coffeeandjunk.com/via-negativa/

Reason's Greetings. Happy Winter Solstice! :sparkle:

The Paradox of Metaphysics

Meta means after, metaphysics is what comes after physics (in Aristotle's corpus).

However, the subject matter of metaphysics is first principles of, inter alia, physics & all of philosophy which, logically, should come before physics.

So, anyway - Metaphysical questions cannot be addressed with yes or no answers. They’re not issues of right or wrong, what matters is usefulness — T Clark

I second your motion.

A metaphysical question like what is time? becomes easier to answer. Time is, in the most basic sense one of many things we use to organize our lives and also to comprehend reality.

-"Please don't give up on your Grail Quest for a definitive definition of the "M" word. "
-The definition of the word is already available to us. (Andronicuso of Rhodes made it clear to us)
Its any philosophical endeavor attempting to go beyond our current knowledge. Any conclusion that falls outside our Epistemology is understood as Metaphysical...that's all.
i.e.Evolution used to be a metaphysical claim until objective evidence rendered it in to Science
The big bang theory -//-
etc
Metaphysics is how we form hypotheses and science is how we verify or falsify them, its how we expand our Epistemology. Its how we form our Questions and guide our investigations.
So I will agree with you Metaphysics is the Third (in order) Most valuable step in the Philosophical Method. Without it we wouldn't have any progress in our philosophical/scientific inquiry

-"Yet, many physicists and philosophers reject such idealized notions as being-qua-being and essence to be un-real & super-natural, hence subversive of the Realistic & Materialistic dogma of post-Enlightenment Science. "
-Now you confuse Metaphysics with Supernatural. Supernatural Metaphysics is NOT philosophy. This is not because physicists and Natural philosophers reject those notions, but because you have ZERO epistemology to philosophize about such concepts. This is more of theology or Hollywood scripting than Philosophy.
Metaphysics IS an important step of Philosophy but MORE important are the steps of 1. Epistemology and 2. Physika (Modern Science). If you don't have any epistemic input to your Metaphysics then you have nothing to philosophize about...plus your metaphysics will always remain in the metaphysical realm since it will never inform the rest of the steps of the philosophical method(Aesthetics, ethics, politics), thus they can never become "wisdom", which is the ultimate goal of all Philosophical inquiries.!


-"FWIW, I have added a new post to my BothAnd Blog, as an attempt to explain, in more detail than possible in a forum post, my personal meaning of "Meta-Physics", as it applies to my personal philosophical and scientific worldview."

-Words have common usages. The best usage SHOULD have practical value, meaning that it should avoid ambiguities and it should be able to address a need to describe facts of life.
Metaphysics is any philosophical statement that can't be evaluated by our current understanding (knowledge) of the world. There are metaphysics that their conclusions expand on our current knowledge(Real Philosophy) and there are metaphysics that presume unfalsifiable dimensions(Supernatural) and they circularly conclude to them (Bad Philosophy).
One is guilty of the second type of philosophy when he accuses Philosophers/Physicists for rejecting their unfalsifiable supernatural principles.

-"Meta means after, metaphysics is what comes after physics (in Aristotle's corpus).

However, the subject matter of metaphysics is first principles of, inter alia, physics & all of philosophy which, logically, should come before physics. "

-Well this is not what metaphysics means. Metaphysics (μετα τα φυσικά) , in short, means "After you are done with your Science", meaning that any philosophical hypothesis that we form on the implications of what we currently know (science/φυσικά) inevitably falls beyond our current knowledge about our World.

So Metaphysics, according to its etymology and by definition is the philosophical step that follows Epistemology and Physika (Science).