scientific constructions of reality become more predictively useful over time. — Joshs
scientific constructions of reality become more predictively useful over time. — Joshs
"Real", "existent" and "is" are metaphysically undefined. — Michael Ossipoff
Many people, known as Science-Worshippers, want to apply science outside that valid area of applicability, and have a belief that science describes, covers, applies to, all of Reality".
IF you believe that philosophy can describe , cover, and apply to all of reality,... — Joshs
... then I would suggest that so can science for the most part.
Not science as it has been conceived over the past 400 years by those working within the natural sciences.
Science, as it has been conceived since it stopped being considered a branch of philosophy, didn't concern itself with its origins or grounding, but simply took for granted as its starting point certain presuppositions about subject and object.
'these are things philosophy can investigate with greater depth and rigor than science'.
Yes, the assumption that "real" and "existent" (and even "is") mean something is the cause of much philosophical confusion.
"Real", "existent" and "is" are metaphysically undefined.
I use "Reality" (capitalized) to mean "All", or "All that is", where "is" is just as broadly defined. I don't use "real" metaphysically, because, as I said, it isn't metaphysically-defined. I avoid "exist" too, for the same reason.
Ii use "is" with the broadest, unlimited, meaning.
I take "exist" to refer only to elements of metaphysics, but I avoid using "exist".
But yes, much of philosophical discussion and debate seems to be unnecessary and pointless quibbling about what exists or is real.
Michael Ossipoff — Michael Ossipoff
My point isn't that these words lack meaning, or that they're "metaphysically undefined." My point is that they're like other words that tend to be vague, and as a result they don't lend themselves to precise definitions. — Sam26
If one is using the term exists to refer to something completely subjective, then that's problematic
Maybe, but it sure isn't clear that that's the case. — Sam26
: Let's assume that consciousness does survive bodily existence, — Sam26
Yes, it is never clear. All we have are our observations, some clues, and we try to put together the pieces into some image (ontology) of nature. These are not proofs, they are only clues. — Rich
.What aspects of reality do you think are not discussable and describable(ineffable?)?
.For my money, more primordial than any of these logics I listed is a simple change of sense. Think of it as a gestalt shift. You know, when a cloud can look like a cat one minute and a horse the next. That's a change of sense. A gestalt shift isnt causative in any formal sense. The cloud-as-cat didnt 'cause' the cloud-as-horse. There is no necessary relation of any sort being claimed between the two.
.I don’t think that's the way you understand if-then. You want to lock in a formal logic causation.
.As an adherent of modern scientific metaphysics, that would be not surprising.
.Are you referring to a spiritual dimension?
.To me what is of interest is not what supposedly exists in itself out there somewhere that we cannot see.
.For my money, more primordial than any of these logics I listed is a simple change of sense. Think of it as a gestalt shift. You know, when a cloud can look like a cat one minute and a horse the next. That's a change of sense. A gestalt shift isnt causative in any formal sense. The cloud-as-cat didnt 'cause' the cloud-as-horse. There is no necessary relation of any sort being claimed between the two.
., but how our constructions of meaning change. In that sense, what is indescribable now is simply that understanding which lies in our future.
.To me talking about what is not now describable is like talking about what range of behaviors an organism isn't capable of now but may be in a differently evolved state.
.Remember, I said a postmodern science would presumably treat implicitly the most primordial questions that philosophy would discuss explicitly. That means that many, but not all, aspects of aesthetic and ethical domains will be amenable to a self-reflexive postmodern science.
.Keep in mind all of the categories of contemporary empirical psychological inquiry that at one time were branches of philosophy(cognition, will, memory, perception).
.Metaphysics is part of philosophy. Are you saying that science can describe, cover and apply to all that metaphysics describes, covers and applies to?"
.Metaphysics used to be the crowning achievement of philosophy. Newer philosophical approaches don't believe in metaphysics any more.
.In fact, they don't exactly consider that it's possible to do philosophy any more in the strict sense( metaphysics as a beyond which organizes the physis, the objects of the world). By the same token, a postmodern science doesn't consider its role a strictly describing objective entities, having rejected the separation of subject and object which guided modem science.
."It's now agreed by all that, by the modern meaning of "science", science is about the relations and interactions among the things of this physical universe. In its purest form, that's physics."
."So science can describe, cover and apply to abstract if-then facts?"
.Let's talk about abstract if-then facts.
What is an if-then relation? I suppose the 'if' part introduces a starting fact
., maybe in the form of a proposition?
.Is this fact then a concept?
.What are we assuming…
.…about the history of this starting 'if' , this concept, in the individual's experience?
.Are we assuming…
.…that all concepts are mutually defined by reference to other concepts, like the word definitions in a dictionary?
.If so, then can we assume that everyone has their own mental dictionary, so that my 'if' concept may mean something slightly different to me than it does to you?
.Also, if the starting ' if'…
.…concept
.…of an if-then relation presupposes a prior history or context that defines its meaning, isn't this starting 'if' already a 'then' to a prior 'if'?
.After all, the starting 'if' doesn't come from nowhere, it emerges out of a background of my ongoing interest, concerns, activities.
.It is already framed in relation to this background.
.Now, when we think of all the ways that meanings can be related to each other, all the different types of causative logics(material, efficient, formal, final) ,I wonder what are the most primordial observations we can make about an if-then statement.
.For my money, more primordial than any of these logics I listed is a simple change of sense. Think of it as a gestalt shift. You know, when a cloud can look like a cat one minute and a horse the next. That's a change of sense. A gestalt shift isnt causative in any formal sense. The cloud-as-cat didnt 'cause' the cloud-as-horse. There is no necessary relation of any sort being claimed between the two.
.I dont think that's the way you understand if-then. You want to lock in a formal logic causation.
As an adherent of modern scientific metaphysics, that would be not surprising.
Thanks for the response. The challenge in our discussion I think is this: I'm familiar with the history and nature of the ideas you're presenting. Im not saying that I'm familiar with what you believe to be original in your model. — Joshs
But the history of Western metaphysics going back to the Greeks is something that I am well acquainted with, and what you've come up with is, as youve indicated, a variation on the modern scientific metaphysics. So you're prepared to go back and forth on definitions that come from various eras and chapters in that history, picking and choosing among them to build your own approach(I'm not sure how well versed you are in German Idealism or the analytic tradition. It's possible youre reinventing the wheel).
What I wrote you was not coming from that tradition, so all of my definitions will be alien to you, and they would not be something I could explain in a single post. So your response is not just a matter of disagreeing with my assertions, it's not having a sense of what kind of metaphysics ( or post-metaphysics) they're coming from. My terms will essentially be a foreign language to you unless you're well versed in writers like Nietzsche, Husserl, Merleau-Ponty, Deleuze, Heidegger, Derrida.
For instance, you say there are aspects of reality that language can't describe. In my chapter of philosophy , reality isnt a collection of things
, and language is not a tool to describe those things. Language is a transformation.
Imagine trying to insert your ideas into a conversation that is taking place among Ancient Greek philosophers. You would be able to intepret their concepts and state your preferences among their various models, but their unfamiliarity with modern scientific metaphysics, the empiricism of Locke, the idealism of Berkeley, the subjectivism of Kant, would make it impossible for them to make sense of your approach before you taught them this new language.
Because I can understand where you're coming from, I could choose to keep my own terms within the confines of the part of Western scientific and philosophical history you're familiar with. I could choose not to introduce into the discussion this other world of philosophy that is alien to you, where logic, language, reality, objectivity and subjectivity mean something very different than what they mean to you
There is one good reason I can think of to venture beyond your familiar territory, but it depends on the purpose that your model serves for you. What would you say it is intended to clarify about the world?
For instance. If your main interest is offering a new philosophical clarification on how today's physical science(physics, chemistry) is understood, then I don't think it would be particularly useful to you to insert Derrida or phenomenology into the conversation. As far as I'm concerned, your account is perfectly respectable for that purpose and I have nothing to critique in it.
But if you are trying to use your model to get a better understanding of ethics, aesthetics, affect and emotion,
I can elaborate further on this if you could say a few worlds about how your model deals with any of the areas I mentioned above.
Also, what motivated you in the first place to create your model? What specifically were you dissatisfied with in the way that other philosophies address the issues above?
How broad a range of things do you think that words accurately and completely describe? To me, it seems that the burden of proof is on the person who claims that words accurately and completely describe all of Reality. — Michael Ossipoff
What is it exactly that you're claiming we can't describe? I can't make any sense out of a reality that can't be described. — Sam26
Words don't accurately and completely describe any reality. — Sam26
Are there objects in this reality, is there light and darkness, is there space, are there beings? — Sam26
that's different from saying we can't describe some reality. — Sam26
And if it comes down to being able to accurately and completely describe some reality your [sic] not saying anything new or significant. — Sam26
.I’m not saying that I'm familiar with what you believe to be original in your model.
.It's possible you’re reinventing the wheel.
.But if you are trying to use your model to get a better understanding of ethics, aesthetics, affect and emotion, the nature of psychopathologies like schizophrenia and autism, biological evolution, the development of culture, social relationships, empathy, then I would argue that you are handicapped by the metaphysical
tradition from which your concepts are derived.
I can elaborate further on this if you could say a few worlds about how your model deals with any of the areas I mentioned above.
..
Also, what motivated you in the first place to create your model? What specifically were you dissatisfied with in the way that other philosophies address the issues above?
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.