Yes, I agree. It's the most general and therefore necessarily an abnormal or revolutionary discourse. "I think "sophistry" as its primordial ground, because you have to successfully established the rules of "logic" or "legitimate" reason within whatever discourse is most general. Thought rethinks its own essence, but that is almost to re-invent its own essence.And the fundamental claim of the book, in fact the very first statement, is that metaphysics is "the most general attempt to make sense of things." — darthbarracuda
Metaphysics is the attempt to understand the very fabric of intelligibility, the way we make sense of the world. — darthbarracuda
Nice. I agree. We posit necessary structures. Whence certainty? The beauty of the idea in our living context seduces. We live successfully as-if. No one has come along with something better yet.An analogy would be of watching a theatrical program and wondering how the various dramatic structures work behind-the-scenes; except in the case of metaphysics, we can't just sneak around the stage and observe the machinations of the playwright, because we are Beings-in-the-world, part of the world itself and thus unable to "escape" the world and view it outside of the lens of our own perceptions. The best we can do is speculate on the possibly-necessary. Indeed in the past any sort of unobservable entity in science was often said to be "metaphysical" - a possibility that was necessary for a theory to make sense. — darthbarracuda
Yes, that makes it sound more alive. We are all metaphysicians, even the illiterate, as soon as we can speak, if not before. We have "software" that can contemplate and edit itself --and can apparently contemplate this ability to contemplate and edit itself. We are self-consciously self-conscious. We can think about "unknown unknowns" in the abstract.I think the most important point of this statement is the identification of metaphysics as an attempt, and not a discipline. This loosens the definition of metaphysics, and turns it into something more akin to an anthropological drama; something that is inherently human. This coincides well with Nicholas Rescher's claim that philosophy, in particular metaphysics, is something that any rational agent inevitably does, because he has to. — darthbarracuda
Yes, that makes it sound more alive. We are all metaphysicians, even the illiterate, as soon as we can speak, if not before. We have "software" that can contemplate and edit itself --and can apparently contemplate this ability to contemplate and edit itself. We are self-consciously self-conscious. We can think about "unknown unknowns" in the abstract. — Hoo
Good points. Both of these point together toward a self-consciously pursued ideal of staying within the limits of intelligibility. I remember being younger and having a hunch that a certain phrase was profound and then repeating it without being able to paraphrase it or really master it. So I was passing on a string of marks/noises that "felt" valuable without having a strong grip on them. But at some point I started holding myself to a higher standard. Even today, though, there may be an inescapable "fuzz" on philosophical/analogical thinking. But one is (or strives to be) always ready to paraphrase.If we're too self-confident, we might step beyond the limits of intelligibility and into the realm of obscurantism and bullshit. If we're too self-conscious, we submerge into a quasi-masturbatory skepticism feigning as wisdom. — darthbarracuda
Because of the focus on transcendence, it seems to stand that the "subject matter" (if that is even applicable) of metaphysics is ultimately outside the domain of experimentation. Experimentation occurs within immanence, where things change and events happen. But the transcendent doesn't change. Events happen, but event does not. Things change, but thing and change itself do not. Because of the lack of change or occurrence in the transcendent, there cannot be any manipulative experimentation in the sense of "taking control of nature", because if we could take control of the transcendent, this would only necessitate the existence of another, true transcendent. — darthbarracuda
This is one idea that has troubled me for some time - what is the subject matter of philosophy? — darthbarracuda
What does a philosopher study? — darthbarracuda
Our transcendent concepts are empirically argued using examples. They arise as the inductive limits of what seems immanently to be the case. — apokrisis
Where metaphysics goes further is in apply dialectical or dichotomistic reasoning to generality itself. It derives polar pairs of limits to frame its talk about possibility. — apokrisis
We can argue - with logical rigour - that either flux or stasis, either chance or necessity, are the limits of possibility. And in being able to name the bounds of possibility, we are talking about the reality of the transcendent - that is, the limits where reality in fact has gone as far as it can possibly go. — apokrisis
Then science has another trick up its sleeve. It turns the empirical into a matter of measurement. It now turns the world into a play of numbers. Transcendence is brought down to the level of the confirming particulars. — apokrisis
And so generally we are stuck in an immanent reality. But we manufacture a transcendental point of view by establishing bounding limits both "looking upwards" and also "looking downwards". Looking upwards, we see metaphysical generality. Looking downwards, we then turn the micro view into patterns of numbers - digits read off measuring instruments. — apokrisis
This is one of the reasons I'm skeptical of particular-favoring nominalism, for particulars are only understandable within a broader general context. — darthbarracuda
I don't know what this means. Do you have any examples? — darthbarracuda
But this begs the question as to why reality is constrained as it is. Which leads us to the conclusion that there is something keeping it all in line, something fundamentally static, that acts as the joints or structure of reality — darthbarracuda
I would argue that objects exists everywhere, at any scale, micro to massive. — darthbarracuda
Certainly a human being is not a transcendent component of existence unless you're an idealists, and certainly we aren't "just" numbers that magically turn into matter. We ourselves exist in our own level, dependent but not identical to these other hierarchies. — darthbarracuda
It answers the question in terms of the emergence of a dynamical symmetry state, an equilibrium balance. An equilibrium has emergent stability because it is a state where continuing (microstate)change no longer makes a (macrostate)change.
There is an entire science of (thermo)dynamics now. — apokrisis
So if the universe has the possibility to be clumpy and object like, this requires in matching fashion that it has the possibility for empty spaces. Each possibility necessitates the other. And then if this dichotomy is freely expressed over all scales, then you will have objects and voids of every possible size. — apokrisis
And humans are measurably the most concentrated forms of intelligence. — apokrisis
(So if we ask what the subject matter of philosophy essentially is - even if it is only now becoming apparent - then it is thermodynamics. :) ) — apokrisis
Emergence from what? poof! existence, ta-da! — darthbarracuda
Voids can be objects, since we can predicate them. — darthbarracuda
How do you know this? — darthbarracuda
I mean I know this was more tongue-in-cheek than anything but if that's the case then everything is thermodynamics which makes it an empty term — darthbarracuda
Is there no evidence in the world of emergence? — apokrisis
On what exactly - their lack of predicates? — apokrisis
Neuroscience when it comes to measuring information density. Economics when it comes to measuring ecological footprint. — apokrisis
I don't see what you're saying here. I agree there are emergent phenomenon, but these nevertheless are dependent upon a more basic ontological level. — darthbarracuda
An object isn't just something that we can hold in our hands. Black holes, parasites, staplers and armies are all objects. — darthbarracuda
But surely you're not going to limit yourself to the immediately-accessible (Earth). That's just bad science. Unless there's a good reason to believe that humans are as good as information processing can get - in which case the AI dream is a pipe dream. — darthbarracuda
Isn't that what they say about quantum mechanics? You can't conjure up reality out of pure possibility? — apokrisis
Glad to know you have such a loose definition of objects. The vaguer your position, the less it can be challenged. — apokrisis
And you could say the universe must be full of entities with higher IQs. But we can say if they are in the vicinity, they're not waving back. (Just picking up the occasional country hick for a good probe.) — apokrisis
"Nothing" is incoherent. — darthbarracuda
What is everythingness? — darthbarracuda
I guess that what causes confusion here the is notion that this 'ur-stuff' is called at the same time 'material' and 'pure potentiality'. Usually, we refer to the 'potential' and the 'actual as opposites and we tend to consider all material stuff actual, not potential (even if they inherently have the potential to become something else). So, in this view, the unstructured primal material cannot be said to be (just) 'pure potentiality'. We might say that it is actually something (something formless) and potentially something else (something structured)? — Πετροκότσυφας
We agree nothing can't come from nothing. Which is why I support metaphysical positions which argue existence arises via the constraint of pure potentiality, called variously apeiron, tao, vagueness, firstness, indeterminacy, quantum foam, etc, depending on whose metaphysical system it is. And chaotic everythingness is another attempt at a descriptive term for the same idea. — apokrisis
But you're being inconsistent with your use of "existence". — darthbarracuda
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.