The history of metaphysics is one of argumentation without any particular decisions made or consensus reached over any of the core issues. This is at least definitive in showing that metaphysics as a purported science was unsuccessful in its aims (since even if someone along the way got something right, the discipline itself is a failure insofar as it is impotent to communicate and establish that conclusion).
But the problem is not just that intelligible, difficult questions were asked, like 'how many stars are in the sky?' and people came up with differing answers to it before giving up. Rather, no inquiry was ever performed other than the conversations held, and even in this arena, where nothing was ever looked into and people apparently felt that nothing needed to be looked into, it was impossible to make any headway. This shows that there must be some defect in the discourse itself. — Snakes Alive
Somewhere in all the possible worlds you’re skipping about in a luxury yacht, while I’m chained, terrified, to the bow, gasping through mouthfuls of seawater. Somewhere your band of riders burned my village to the ground, and you’re drinking a toast to the gods from my jewel-encrusted skull. You can want all of this, and there’s no need to feel guilty: it could happen, so it happened; that’s all.
Because an argument is just an exchange of words, and one can use words in whatever way one pleases. It's evident that metaphysicians go back and forth forever without understanding anything, because they do nothing but shuffle words around. Shuffling words around is precisely not an index of understanding, as the history of the discipline shows. — Snakes Alive
But as I tried to point out before, you will find this sort of thing with any popular unsolved question. — Marchesk
Or just a paragraph, or short story, or anything. For example, can you write or imagine two scenarios, one in which there are universals, and one in which there aren't? Conversely, if someone else wrote two such scenarios, could you tell the difference between them at better than chance? — Snakes Alive
I'm trying to be nice when I say this, but I sincerely have no idea what you're talking about or what it has to do with my posts. I would suggest you read what I've actually said, and not respond based on what you think I've said. Whoever you're objecting to, it's not me. — Snakes Alive
The point is, again, not jus that the question is difficult, but that one does not know what it would be to answer it, in principle. — Snakes Alive
Your sample question: how many stars...?. This is not a metaphysical question. — Wayfarer
Fans will debate endlessly who's the best in a sport. It's meaningful, but is there a right answer? — Marchesk
Did you read what I wrote about the Matrix above? I do think the claim that we live in the Matrix is intelligible, but that's just an empirical claim about robots and vats and so on. Idealists do not mean things in this concrete way. — Snakes Alive
Your sample question: how many stars...?. This is not a metaphysical question.
— Wayfarer
I know. That was the point! You clearly didn't read very carefully! — Snakes Alive
It's only empirical if you can unplug. Otherwise, your senses are going to tell what the Matrix shows them. The universe being a simulation would be one where we can't unplug, since we're part of the simulation. Idealists would mean it that way, except there's no bottom-level physical world running the simulation. — Marchesk
What would it take for you(or me for that matter) to understand my claim? — creativesoul
So, I'll ask again: what is the difference between universals existing, and not existing? Can you describe two scenarios, one in which they do, and one in which they do not? If you cannot do this, why should I believe you understand the claim or its denial? — Snakes Alive
But I don't know how you would actually "show" a universe with or without universals other than just stating it — Marchesk
Exactly! You're so close to getting it! — Snakes Alive
But the problem is not just that intelligible, difficult questions were asked, like 'how many stars are in the sky?' and people came up with differing answers to it before giving up. Rather, no inquiry was ever performed other than the conversations held, and even in this arena, where nothing was ever looked into and people apparently felt that nothing needed to be looked into, it was impossible to make any headway. This shows that there must be some defect in the discourse itself.
As to what that defect is, we can take specific metaphysical examples and use diagnostics to test whether they have any descriptive criteria. Here's one: take metaphysical hypotheses A and B. Can you write a story in which A is true, but not B, and have it be distinguishable from the plot itself, from a story in which B is true, and not A? If not, then it is likely you do not have the ability to intelligibly describe what it is for A or B to be true, and hence you are not debating matters with coherent criteria of application that you can comprehend. — Snakes Alive
Imagine there was no one to challenge you, imagine everyone agreed, there was no proponents of scientism to counter with quotes from Bohr. I would imagine this would free up time to spend practicing. That would be a boon, right? — csalisbury
Is there something in metaphysics, and its defense against the proponents of scientism , that is serving some other function for you? And, if so, how does that fit in this conversation? — csalisbury
Why would we ever think we could figure out the basic nature of the elements of the universe by talking? — Snakes Alive
What should we say about these kids? What should we say about their disagreement? — Snakes Alive
Right, but that's not how metaphysical arguments go. — Marchesk
What is there to argue about? — Snakes Alive
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.