In terms of definition or reference (which is the y in question), all terms have the ambiguity you refer to re "eternal" for example. — Terrapin Station
I think the nature of the existence of numbers - the ontology of number, if you like - is actually a clue to the meaning of metaphysics. And I bet when you try and conceive of 'the abstract realm', your mind instinctively tries to imagine where such a realm could be. But 'where' is the 'domain of natural numbers?' Obviously nowhere, and the use of the word 'domain' is in some sense metaphorical in this context; but nevertheless, there is such a domain, because some numbers are 'in' it, and others are 'outside' it. — Wayfarer
Most abrahamic religion believe that God can see but since God is unlike any other creation as a creator, he is above comprehension. He sees without eyes and hears without ears. He exists but unlike creation, he is above space and time. Do they really understand the words see, hear and exist ( as used in their expression) ? — Wittgenstein
I think the nature of the existence of numbers - the ontology of number, if you like - is actually a clue to the meaning of metaphysics.
— Wayfarer
But if this is a clue, as you say, won't it make the subject of metaphysics non-urgent in the extreme, at least for the non-Platonist? — bongo fury
I mean, if number (etc), is real but not physical, then it's a defeater for physicalism, right? — Wayfarer
If the measurements are affected by the relative motion between observer and an object, does that make it less real. Entropy of a closed system will increase with time but consider this thought experiment, suppose two observers, one at rest and the other moving relative to the system observe it, will there be a difference in the observed entropy at a particular instance for both observers ? However,the system is one and its entropy should be same regardless of the observers of it.I would like to discuss time with a philosophical bent.I've thought about time a lot. So, I guess the questions is - is it real. Yes, I think it makes sense to think of it as real. We measure it. Other properties and behavior of matter and energy depend on it. We can manipulate physical phenomena and affect time. Look up the arrow of time or the direction of time. Wikipedia has a good summary as do other places. Personally, I am most comfortable with the thermodynamic explanation of the direction of time, although, as you'll see, there are many explanations which are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
I can see my thinking on existence going along those lines, but l would replace toa with something else. It appears that the infinity possibility of beings in this world and the uniqueness of each being in a sense of being irreplaceable indicates that a transcendental being ( God) is trying to reveal himself to his creation and he allows the manifestation of his attributes. It is also difficult to understand his essence because it is beyond our comprehension and existence is of his essence. Hence the ultimate existence cannot be understood, it can only be believed in by those who want to. I feel that the driving force behind existence is always love, whether it be the love of the parents for their child or the love of an artist for his craft.I would definitely say it's a metaphysical question. I personally like my understanding of the Taoist understanding of existence. See below. But there are lots of other valid ways of see existence, depending on the context.
We do consciously act and in a sense we tend to experience free will but the determinist believe that our brain has some sort of chain reaction due to cause/effect and we are not in control of this process. From stimulus and sense data to the thought process and finally the act itself are all interlinked in such a way that we do not participate actively. I think there is a middle ground between strict determinism and absolute free will.Whether or not there is free will is a metaphysical question. I've always thought it is a question whether or not it makes sense to hold ourselves and others responsible for our actions. Looking at my own life, I think it usually does. I recognize there are situations where it would make more sense not to.
After seeing countless debates on the existence of God, l can sense your frustrations. I think people believe in God for other reasons and using philosophy as hand maiden of religion will always create loopholes in the arguments and pointless debates. It belongs to metaphysics but as l far as l am concerned, it cannot be solved with reason.As for the soul and God - things brings up a fly in my ointment. Religious issues are usually lumped in with metaphysics when I think it often doesn't make sense, e.g the existence of a God that exists independent of ourselves and the universe. That seems to me to be a matter of fact, and therefore does not belong as a part of metaphysics. On the other hand, I think the general question of whether it makes sense in some situations to think of the universe as a living, perhaps conscious thing is metaphysical question
How is discussing the attributes of God irrelevant to religious discourse. How do you define religious discourse. Since you keep using the word discourse, can you justify the existence of different discourses for the same topic as legitimate on their own. Is it all language games and not real philosophical problems ?Your words don't convey any real understanding of religious discourse.
But in the context of the Western intellectual tradition, really understanding metaphysics takes some education in the foundational texts, beginning with Plato, and then a lot of further reading. (There's a useful index here.) But it also takes quite a bit of understanding of cultural psychology and the history of ideas. For instance, that the 'scientific revolution' embodied a very specific metaphysical framework, in which our own culture is now so thoroughly embedded that it's almost impossible to see, because we always look through it, rather than at it.
How is discussing the attributes of God irrelevant to religious discourse. — Wittgenstein
" How does God see? " is a valid question as it allows us to understand the usage of "see" when describing attribute of God. If l told you someone is playing football without using legs, you would question the use of "play" here, as it may imply playing a video game, not the physical act itself. So, how does God see ?It was the question you were asking i.e. ‘how can ‘God’ see if He doesn’t have eyes?’ To me, it conveyed incomprehension of the subject
Are those terms meaningful according to you. If you suggest that their meaning changes with the change of domain of discourse. I would contend that such changes imply that the terms are falsely constructed ( either one domain has got it right or all are wrong) since they all point to single reality ,the world. Metaphysics covers the foundation of many empirical subjects and hence it is not purely a theoretical enterprise but a practical one, which tends to be misguided.yes, if you situate the discussion in the context within which the basic terms of metaphysics - being, essence, reality, contingency and necessity - are meaningful.
Then positivism will end up being self-contradictory, since it makes a number of ontological assumptions and conclusions. You really can't avoid that unless you just stay silent. Even the explicit and implicit ideas around 'sense experience' are ontological ones and thus fall under metaphysics.But if you look at the subject from the perspective of positivism, then it’s meaningless as a matter of definition. Why? Because positivism starts with the axiom that ‘metaphysical propositions are meaningless’. — Wayfarer
Logical positivists were dumb ? :smile: — Wittgenstein
Comte's stages [of cultural development] were (1) the theological, (2) the metaphysical, and (3) the positive. The theological phase of man was based on whole-hearted belief in all things with reference to God. God, Comte says, had reigned supreme over human existence pre-Enlightenment. Humanity's place in society was governed by its association with the divine presences and with the church. The theological phase deals with humankind's accepting the doctrines of the church (or place of worship) rather than relying on its rational powers to explore basic questions about existence. It dealt with the restrictions put in place by the religious organization at the time and the total acceptance of any "fact" adduced for society to believe.
Comte describes the metaphysical phase of humanity as the time since the Enlightenment, a time steeped in logical rationalism, to the time right after the French Revolution. This second phase states that the universal rights of humanity are most important. The central idea is that humanity is invested with certain rights that must be respected. In this phase, democracies and dictators rose and fell in attempts to maintain the innate rights of humanity.
The final stage of the trilogy of Comte's universal law is the scientific, or positive, stage.
Schlick offered one of the most illuminating definitions of positivism as every view "which denies the possibility of metaphysics" (Schlick [1932-1933], p. 260). Accordingly he defined metaphysics as the doctrine of “true being”, “thing in itself” or “transcendental being”, a doctrine which obviously "presupposes that a non-true, lesser or apparent being stands opposed to it" (Ibid). Therefore in this work he bases the positivism on a kind of epistemology which holds that the only true beings are givens or constituents of experience.
Schlick offered one of the most illuminating definitions of positivism as every view "which denies the possibility of metaphysics" (Schlick [1932-1933], p. 260). Accordingly he defined metaphysics as the doctrine of “true being”, “thing in itself” or “transcendental being”, a doctrine which obviously "presupposes that a non-true, lesser or apparent being stands opposed to it" (Ibid). Therefore in this work he bases the positivism on a kind of epistemology which holds that the only true beings are givens or constituents of experience.
The answer is "yes, very useful." — T Clark
which is a metaphysical viewpoint. — Coben
...if all approaches are equally right regarding the world, won't that be a contradiction as there is a single reality out there ? — Wittgenstein
Which is already a kind of metaphysical assumption. And if we take in multiverse type models, it might be, in a sense or more than that, incorrect. But futher we assume that we all circle with our senses a thing, but perhaps it is vastly more malleable than that.There's one reality, but many possible explanations? — Pattern-chaser
Metaphysics itself was never in doubt; metaphysics as a science, never was at all. — Mww
I think you're saying that metaphysics is clearly not a science. I agree that metaphysics is not a science by itself, but there are a lot of smart people who disagree with you. As I've said, I think it is an indispensable part of science. — T Clark
But that's a bit like saying science is not a language. Well, yes, but uses one. Or Science is data. Well, yes, but...Science is not perception. Science is not logic. Science is not epistemology.Perhaps the only thing we can all agree on (even if it's for different reasons) is that metaphysics is not a science? — Pattern-chaser
All science is based on specific conclusions in metaphysics. — Coben
Yes, the word 'observation' is key. Or to look at what 'empirical' means.This is true, if one considers the fact that no empirical science whatsoever, is ever done that isn’t first thought. Even if all empirical science is itself fundamentally grounded in observation — Mww
It's not science. It's something else. Even if it is possible, it's not what eliminative materialists are doing or basing their conclusions on.So the question really boils down to.....is a non-empirical science possible. — Mww
Physics and specfically cosmology is really focusing a lot on metaphysics. All science is based on specific conclusions in metaphysics. Paradigmatic shifts that have taken place and in all liklihood will take place will have metaphysical aspects. Any scientist trying to decide what a model is and what it means about future research or what anomolies mean in relation to models, is likely mulling over metaphysical type stuff. — Coben
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.