In order to explain why this bundle is a unity and that bundle is not the event ontologist will inevitably have to invoke some additional principle, but this is just substance ontology all over again. — Theorem
If events are understood as happening within space and time then space-time itself is playing the role of substance and events are merely accidents belonging to that substance. — Theorem
So, if metaphysics is philosophy, then it's over-ambitious to say that metaphysics can be about Reality, unless you claim that words can accurately describe Reality. That's an issue that i don't want to debate, but if you say that metaphysics's range of applicability includes ultimate Reality, then you're implying an assertion that words accurately describe Reality. — Michael Ossipoff
That conclusion doesn't follow. You can talk a bout something without accurately describing it. So metaphysics can be about reality without accurately describing it. — Metaphysician Undercover
Can you use the word "philosophy" for matters unknowable, un-assertable, un-arguable and indescribable? — Michael Ossipoff
Can you use the word "philosophy" for matters unknowable, un-assertable, un-arguable and indescribable? — Michael Ossipoff
That's why I limit what I call "metaphysics", and use the word "meta-metaphysics" for matters of what-is that are (or might be) unknowable, non-describable, non-assertable, non-arguable.. — Michael Ossipoff
.Indescribable" means "non-relational", because every description of something is a presentation of this something in relations to other somethings ("it has such and such properties, such and such parts etc.").
.The something itself that stands in these relations is necessarily non-relational (different from its relations) and therefore indescribable.
.However, it doesn't mean that it is unknowable. We know many somethings even though they are indescribable: the somethings that make up our own consciousness.
Can you use the word "philosophy" for matters unknowable, un-assertable, un-arguable and indescribable?
Why not? Philosophy is to inquire into the unknown, and as unknown, we must allow the possibility that it is unknowable, unassertable, unarguable and undescribable. We will not know until we try,
That's why I limit what I call "metaphysics", and use the word "meta-metaphysics" for matters of what-is that are (or might be) unknowable, non-describable, non-assertable, non-arguable.
[/quote]How do you propose to identify the unknowable from that which is simply unknown?
Alright yes, that's true: When it isn't known that a topic is unknowable and indescribable, then it's a legitimate topic of philosophy, for discussion about that. — Michael Ossipoff
Yes, but couldn’t something also be indescribable by or to humans just because humans, by their own limitations, can’t describe it? — Michael Ossipoff
…but a description of its relations, if it has them, and if they’re describable, would count as a partial description of it. — Michael Ossipoff
True. We know ourselves directly, first-hand. But there’s a little that can be said about us, about Consciousness, with respect to the realm of the describable, and so we aren’t completely indescribable. — Michael Ossipoff
There may well be things about us that are quite indescribable and unknowable to us. But I feel that there should be an effort to describe as much as possible, before assuming indescribability. — Michael Ossipoff
.If there is a fundamental substance that is and always has been and is the source of all contingent things we can say three things about it-
.1. It is
.2. It has creative potential because it evolved into everything that is not fundamental
.3. It has the power to become life and consciousness, because this is what happened.
.…but a description of its relations, if it has them, and if they’re describable, would count as a partial description of it.
.The description of a thing's relations to other things could be regarded as a partial description of the thing but it will never be complete because the thing must be something above and beyond its relations to other things; otherwise there would be nothing that would stand in those relations and thus there would be no relations either.
.Ultimate Reality would be unitary and not in relation to anything else, because there wouldn’t be anything else that shares its reality.
.Likewise it wouldn’t have parts, because that, too, is a relation.
.True. We know ourselves directly, first-hand. But there’s a little that can be said about us, about Consciousness, with respect to the realm of the describable, and so we aren’t completely indescribable.
.Yes, for example you can describe red color (as a sensation) by referring to a tomato, or to the electromagnetic radiation of a certain wavelength, or to a certain pattern of neuronal firings, but these descriptions will always leave out what red color is in itself. A person who is congenitally blind will not know from these descriptions what red color is in itself; they will only learn about relations of red color to tomatoes, electromagnetic radiation or neuronal firings.
.There may well be things about us that are quite indescribable and unknowable to us. But I feel that there should be an effort to describe as much as possible, before assuming indescribability.
.By "unknowable" (to us) I would regard things that cannot be part of our consciousness. These things may even be parts of our own bodies but they are not part of our consciousness - for example, red blood cells. We may observe these things (for example red blood cells under a miscroscope) and thus become conscious of them but strictly speaking, all we can be conscious of is our own consciousness, and when we observe red blood cells we are conscious of the representation of red blood cells in our consciousness, not of the red blood cells themselves. Still, for reasons related to evolutionary fitness, there is probably some significant similarity between a thing outside our consciousness and its representation inside our consciousness, so in this sense we may partially know also things that are outside our consciousness.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.