The problem is that I think the positivist attitude really doesn't take into account the possibility that knowledge, even that gained by way of science, is limited in some fundamental respect. — Wayfarer
Going through the thread, this is the closest anyone has come to defining the term "metaphysics." If there's any other, I'd appreciate someone's pointing it out.In my view metaphysics is best understood as the basic framework one uses.
It therefore is a necessity for any worldview. It doesn't really matter if one is aware of the framework one uses or not. The key point is that a framework is needed. — CaZaNOx
Objectivity I say. That you can test them if the assumption is correct or false. — ssu
No, I'm saying that they can't be answered - well, they can't be answered unequivocally. They're in some sense beyond adjudication, you can't appeal an ultimate authority to judge the different responses.
— Wayfarer
What questions would you say that doesn't describe? — Terrapin Station
It is thus of some importance, then, to understand what absolute presuppositions are (in general), to recognize that they can change and that it is usually a big deal when they do change, and finally to identify in the system under scrutiny what they are and who holds them. — tim wood
I'd compare it to a fish asking what does the water feel like. A fish would never know the answer. — Wallows
But what's up with a fish who asks what water feels like? — frank
Why is it doing that? — frank
Why does the drive to work it out lead it to accept Fish-Kant? — frank
He never dismissed them as presented. — Valentinus
The only thing I think we strictly need metaphysics for are to tentatively fill the gaps in our knowledge with pretty and plausible interim truths (because otherwise we use the physical). — VagabondSpectre
I'd compare it to a fish asking what does the water feel like. A fish would never know the answer. — Wallows
When do we need these interim truths? When we ponder death? That sort of thing? — frank
I compare that to a set of spectacles, or something we use to frame and focus. And thinking about metaphysics, is directly comparable to 'looking at your spectacles' - rather than through them. — Wayfarer
And in which philosopher is that most obvious? I say it would be Kant. It was Kant who really tried to come to terms with the way in which the very elements that are the foundations of our worldview condition what we see - 'things conforming to thoughts'. That discovery (if you can call it that) is, as he said it was, a 'prolegomena to any future metaphysics'. Which I'm sure is true. — Wayfarer
You mean like a matter of taste? — frank
metaphysics comes from nothing, can be proven by nothing, and can be dismissed with nothing. — VagabondSpectre
physics — VagabondSpectre
In a nut shell, metaphysics comes from nothing, can be proven by nothing, and can be dismissed with nothing. — VagabondSpectre
What I'm saying is that, this is actually a pretty difficult thing to do. It takes a certain kind of mentality to question yourself that way. — Wayfarer
So, you see, this is illustrative of maybe the majority attitude in this day and age (outside the academy or specialised domains of discourse.) Metaphysics is essentially meaningless talk, the only real world is described by: — Wayfarer
But none of those questions are resolvable by physics itself - meaning that they must be 'meta-physical' (over and above, or beyond, physics.) — Wayfarer
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.