So, now I basically look for a theory about other theories which has the power to organize the room of theories. From my understanding, I now want to learn about the meta-meta theory. — Trachtender

What makes you think you'll find ONE meta-meta theory instead of a bunch of conflicting ones again? Or that you'll find one meta-meta-meta theory even, ad infinium.

Heck what counts as meta is in itself a point of debate. Philosophers think, and psychology/neurology study why and how we think, so are they "meta-philosophy"? But at the same time there were philosophical foundations required for psychology and neurology to be studied. So which came first? It's a chicken and eggs problem.

My advice is to just learn to live with the uncertainty and get on with your day anyways.

I can't think why you would want a 'heterogeneous solution'. It sounds like a rather nasty affliction. Personally, I am a bit suspicious of any attempt at a meta meta theory, as it seems to be a way of trying to put everything into neat little boxes. Probably some people seek to do it, but it seems to me like an attempt to try to force the sea into an enclosed space. Life is too wild to be contained within fences. I would say it is braver to live with the pluralistic search for truth.

I can help you with that. Start with epistemology, as related to the philosophy of science, and stay clear of subjectivism and post modernism. It leads to toxic wokeness and performative virtue signalling - and you don't want philosophy to turn you into a weak kneed, perpetually offended knobhead!

Mr. Lyotards and other post-modern thinkers seem to talk about this issue, if I understood it correctly. The result seems to be that there lots of different narratives that are all “true”. So I search for this super theory that explains how everything is a theory and has some truth elements in it although the theories may be contradicting each other. — Trachtender

What you ask for here is incoherent due to your insistence "it has some truth elements it". Now that can only be ascertained using this "master theory" that you would like to have. However, if we had that we would not have all these other theories anymore. We do not have a foundation for what is ultimately real. Even our dichotomy 'real / unreal' is itself an operation of thought. That is not to say of course that there is no progress in philosophy, we learned how to ask more probing questions. If you would like something really meta and explaining how everything is a theory and has its place in the history of philosophy, I suggest reading Hegels Phenomenology of spirit and Logik, however be advice that Kierkegaard thrashed it and so do all the analytic phillosophers. So het no idea if that is true or not ;)

Ohh and I would not advice listening to counter punch. He seems to hold an odd conspiracy theory informed vision of philosophy.

Ohh and I would not advice listening to counter punch. He seems to hold an odd conspiracy theory informed vision of philosophy. — Tobias

Not exactly. It's irrefutable that science as an understanding of reality has been downplayed, by emphasising the subjective - as consistent with the spiritual, and de-emphasising the objective as consistent with the profane - in service to the religious, political and economic ideological architectures of Western civilisation.

It's a mistake rather than a conspiracy - a product of education reserved to the wealthy few, who prefer delightfully perfumed smoke to be blown gently up their well pampered arses to the brutal truth proven by scientific method.

For example, Galileo was tried for heresy, threatened with torture and held under house arrest for the rest of his life. His contemporary, Descartes - who flattered the Church, became the pet philosopher of Queen Christina of Sweden.

Newton had to hide his unconventional religious ideas to advance in his career, particularly when appointed to the Lucasian chair at Cambridge.

Darwin delayed publication of Origin of Species, for 20 years, and worried himself sick - before publishing, and then being attacked by the Church. Evolutionary denial continues unto this day.

Conspiracy implies deliberate deceit; and so the question becomes one of piety. I have no reason to doubt the piety of those who have bullied and demeaned science in favour of religious dogma. They think they're right. They're mistaken is all.

I search for some sort of ultimate truth. — Trachtender

Try to figure out what "truth" means, exactly. Not what you hope it might refer to, but what it means. I think you will conclude that the important word is "true." That whatever meaning truth has, it is by reference, and only by reference, to some thing or things that are true. And those things that are true are propositions. Keeping this in mind and working out the implications ought to help you keep your feet on the ground while thinking about these matters.

Also, for a given true proposition, try to work out a) why it is true and b) what it means for it to be true. These exercises ought to persuade you there are lots of different ways to be true, even different kinds of true. And no mysticism or magic anywhere at all. Just not-so-easy thinking that, finally, is not very interesting nor even very important.

Not exactly. It's irrefutable that science as an understanding of reality has been downplayed, by emphasising the subjective - as consistent with the spiritual, and de-emphasising the objective as consistent with the profane - in service to the religious, political and economic ideological architectures of Western civilisation. — counterpunch

Yes Galileo Galilei has been bullied, but is that because of the prominence of the subjective in church writings? Weren't they simply bickering about an accurate objective description? Galilei did not care for metaphysics, and why should he? I think actually Western scientific practice and method has rather triumphed no, also during Descartes turn to the subjectve as an important pole? Newton had to hide his alchemistic writings which actually still are not considered when he is being discussed as a scientist, because that does not fit his place in the canon of great scientists.

You seem to equate philosophy with science but I think that is mistaken. Philosophy questions assumptions and science accepts some to make sense of the world in a way that gets things done. Galilei, Newton, but also Descartes showed Aristotelianism to be wrong, but that does not mean they were devoid of metaphysical assumptions. Both are very valuable, but do different things. I can very well be a postmodern thinker and a rocket scientist at the same time. The OP asks a metaohysical question, one theory to rule them all and alas we do not have it. Science gives us access to reality, but does not answer the question what it is for anything to be real...

Glad to see I was wrong about your conspiracy theoretical framework. It is a view I find reductionist though, but to each their own.

"From 1629 to 1633, Descartes worked tirelessly on his treatise Le Monde ou Traité de la lumière, which detailed his ideas on physics. Unfortunately, in a seemingly knee-jerk reaction, Descartes stopped publication immediately upon hearing news of Galileo’s trial for heresy as he was convicted for Copernican beliefs."

Descartes wrote Mediations on First Philosophy, published 1641 - in terror of a Church that was burning people alive for heresy right through to 1792. In it, he asserts the primacy of subjectivism - 'I think therefore I am' as the only certainty.

I think actually Western scientific practice and method has rather triumphed no, — Tobias

No. Decrying science as heresy rendered science a whore to military and industrial power - justified by religious, political and economic ideologies. Technologies have been developed and applied, not as a scientific understanding would suggest, but for power and profit. That's why we are destroying the environment. That's why we are threatened with extinction. We have used the tools - but not read the instructions. A scientific understanding of reality is the instruction manual for the application of technological tools.

You seem to equate philosophy with science but I think that is mistaken. — Tobias

I'm an epistemologist. The questions 'what can we know?' and 'how can we know it?' are the two principle questions of epistemology, and are best answered by science. Epistemology is the epitome of philosophy, and in my view, the only real starting point for any philosophy worth a damn.

The OP asks a metaphysical question, one theory to rule them all and alas we do not have it. — Tobias

Odd, no - that philosophy has established no method, no approach, no prioritisation of truth, that it remains an undisciplined free for all. Do you suppose that explains why philosophy has become a marginalised pursuit engaged in almost exclusively by the socially challenged? Zero barriers to entry - and no required standards!

Science gives us access to reality, but does not answer the question what it is for anything to be real... — Tobias

That's a sceptical question based in unreason; which is rather the problem with Descartes subjectivism. It may be that you are deceived by an evil demon, but as with all methods of sceptical doubt, it raises more questions than it answers - because, as Occam's Razor states: the simplest adequate explanation is the best. We experience an objective reality because it exists, and exists independently of our experience of it. That is what it is to be real, and this assumption underpins empirical science.

Glad to see I was wrong about your conspiracy theoretical framework. It is a view I find reductionist though, but to each their own. — Tobias

If by reductionist, you mean exclusive of nonsense - then yes, it is a reductionist view.

Descartes wrote Mediations on First Philosophy, published 1641 - in terror of a Church that was burning people alive for heresy right through to 1792. In it, he asserts the primacy of subjectivism - 'I think therefore I am' as the only certainty. — counterpunch

Yeah sure, so? A rather momentous achievement in philosophy. That he happened not to publish another treatise is no reason to dismiss this one.

No. Science has been rendered a whore to military and industrial power justified by religious, political and economic ideologies. Technologies have been developed and applied, not as a scientific understanding would suggest, but for power and profit. That's why we are destroying the environment. That's why we are threatened with extinction. We have used the tools - but not read the instructions. A scientific understanding of reality is the instruction manual for the application of technological tools. — counterpunch

Science is used by people for certain ends. Rather you seem to believe in some kind of exalted science for science sake, a kind of master discourse of science which determines its own ends... Scientific understanding does not suggest anything though, your subjective interpretation of the facts uncovered by science does. a possible cure for cancer is a product of science in the same way as the nuclear bomb is. Are we destroying the environment? Yeah sure, but we also look at science to save it. However, our comportment toward the abstract reality that is 'the environment' is ethical. No science will tell you whether 'the enviromnment' is worse saving or how to balance the interests of future generations with those of the current one. These are ethical questions, maybe legal questions but not scientific questions. Especially an epistemologist should know what questions belong to what realm. My feeling is that you simply accept some assertions as true unquestioningly when you usher in normative ideals in your scientific instruction manual.

I'm an epistemologist. The questions 'what can we know?' and 'how can we know it?' are the two principle questions of epistemology, and are best answered by science. Epistemology is the epitome of philosophy, and in my view, the only real starting point for any philosophy worth a damn. — counterpunch

It might answered by scientists, but then they are doing philosophy. Moreover they cannot know it by using the scientific method. We cannot experiemntally test the limits of knowledge. What they can say is: using the scientific method we can know X and we may not be able to know Y. However the question 'what can we know' is broader than what can we know scientifically. Scientifically for instance we might not know how to punish rape, however a lawyer or legal theoretician might provide you with an answer. A provisional one, surely, but so are all scientific answers provisional until refuted. I think you are reasoning in a circular way. whatever can be known can be known scientifically and science determines what can be known...

Odd, no - that philosophy has established no method, no approach, no prioritisation of truth, that it remains an undisciplined free for all. Do you suppose that explains why philosophy has become a marginalised pursuit engaged in almost exclusively by the socially challenged? Zero barriers to entry - and no required standards! — counterpunch

A prioritsiation of truth... I would not know how that would work. Well, it has not established a rigorous methodology at least not as rigorous as the natural and social sciences. Whether that means no methodology I would doubt. There is in any case the methodological criterion that the best argument wins. There are certain methodological devices such as the thought experiment, the deduction and the reductio ad absurdum. Moreover it is easy to recognise good from bad philosophy through following the thread of the argument. I again think you want philosophy to do something that it cannot do, provide you with answers. Philosophy provides you with a sense of what questions are meaningful and which are not. Other than science which deals with the objective and knowleble, philosophy deals with the subjective and knowledge as such.

That's a sceptical question based in unreason; which is rather the problem with Descartes subjectivism. It may be that you are deceived by an evil demon, but as with all methods of sceptical doubt, it raises more questions than it answers - because, as Occam's Razor states: the simplest adequate explanation is the best. We experience an objective reality because it exists, and exists independently of our experience of it. That is what it is to be real, and this assumption underpins empirical science. — counterpunch

You misunderstand the nature of the methodological device employed by Descartes, namely the thought experiment. It does not matter whether the malicious demon is a plausible scenario, but our resolving that scenario tells us something about assumptions we (according to Descartes) have to accept, namely the fact that I think. Since the I think is not vulnerable to the demon hypothesis and the physical world (res extensa) is, thought rests on a firmer basis. There might be all kinds of things wrong with the argument, but that does not mean his method is bogus. Your invocation of Occam by the way is also not scientific, tried tested and proven in experiment, it is a heuristic device. Moreover it does not save you because we indeed perceive an objective reality, but we also notice that everyone perceives it differently. That it exists independently of us is also not scientifically provable, but an assumption.

Okay, listen carefully. There's something that you do not understand - that I am going to try to help you see. Just go with it, and after you "get it" - then you can object. But if you go into this objecting, refusing to understand, you won't see it. Okay?

I'm going to contrast and compare an ideological understanding of reality with a scientific understanding of reality.

Broadly, religion describes reality as heaven above, hell below - the earth inbetween, God in heaven, Satan in hell, and man inbetween. God is good, Satan is bad, and man is inbetween. Politics describes a world made up of nation state shaped jigsaw puzzle pieces. God is traditionally, the authority for political power in a given territory, and different territories have different ideas of God. There's also money, but let's put that aside. That is an ideological understanding of reality.

In contrast, science describes a single planetary environment, and the evolution of humankind - who emerged from Africa about 70,000 years ago, and dispersed in every direction. Human beings began as nomadic hunter-gatherers, in tribal groups between 40-120 strong, then hunter gatherer tribes joined together to form societies and civilisations, began farming, and adopted a settled way of life. Science describes a solar system, with the sun at the centre, and planets in orbit around it - as one solar system of 200 million in our galaxy, and our galaxy as one of trillions in an infinite universe. That's a scientific understanding of reality.

You say:

a possible cure for cancer is a product of science in the same way as the nuclear bomb is. — Tobias

I say, only if you're an ideologue. If you accept that science is a valid description of reality, there's no scientifically valid reason to create nuclear weapons. Get it?

In English-language literature a good keyword to search for would be pluralism. I don't know if there is an all-encompassing meta-meta theory of the sort that you outline, but there certainly are pluralistic positions in more specific areas - epistemic pluralism, ontological pluralism, pluralist theories of causation and so forth.

Here is one example: Epistemic Pluralism, Annalisa Coliva & Nikolaj Jang Lee Linding Pedersen (eds.), Palgrave Macmillan 2017. Some of the papers in this collection are available on the web.

Ohh and I would not advice listening to counter punch — Tobias

And yet here you are doing just that...

meta — khaled

Thank you for your answer, you were right my assumption that there would be only 1 meta-meta theory is not justfied and I realize that now too. My thoughts were that when position A says X=1, position B says "No" X must be =0, and position C says X=3, then the next level theory should have the power to say X=0,1,3 and thus integrate all the lower theories. (I use numbers here as example for complex theories that may contradict each other but still make sense in themselves) ...but that there could be more such theories I wasnt aware off, which then would need another meta*3 theory...

Do you have a reading recommendation about uncertainity?

I was led to believe that different worlviews are mutually incompatible i.e. it would be quite a (mental) feat to have them sit at the same table and chatting amicably with each other, in a manner of speaking of course.

Nevertheless, I must say that I've heard of the phrase concordia discordis which, to my knowledge, is the position that conflict, between thesis and antithesis, resolves, or is supposed to resolve, into a mutually acceptable compromise; sorry, no real world examples I can think of at the moment.

I'm not really sure about this but one of the reasons cognitive dissonance (inconsistency) is viewed with such dread is because it makes us look, well, foolish. I'm, as of now, at an age when mid-life crisis, whatever that means, is a real issue but when I look back into my past, there was a distinct phase in my life when I did all I could possibly do not to look foolish - I believe it's called the teens. I feel there's an element of infantilism in trying to avoid being the idiot in the group, a lack of maturity so to speak. You need to be of a certain mental age to be able to take jibes, sneers, contempt, laughter in one's stride. In other words, for goodness sakes stop worrying about being inconsistent and/or harboring a cognitive dissonance or two and stop trying to construct that perfect worldview that both makes sense of everything and also is free of contradictions. Off topic?

Thank you for your post, do you have a concrete literature recommendation like a specfic title or author?

Maybe my word choice was a mistake, I try to prevent that by thinking that there should be many ways possible to deal with the ocean.


Your answer makes me think especially sentence no.2 will be something I have to consider.


Another inconsitency in my thinking, I realize your objection now too... thank you for the concrete literature recommendation. Since Hegel is notoriously hard to understand and 200 years old, are you familar with a more current thinker that has synthetized this approach further and in a more "understandable" way - or is Mr. Hegel still the way to go?

Your comment seems to be for me perfect on topic. I am actually comming from a practical issue, when ever we have a look at a certain topic (could be anything from religion, business, sport, biology, diet) a school of thought explain it is A, another says it is B... and so on, the question is now how to deal with the different opinions? It is impossible not to have worldview or some sort of mental map for what is happening in your life. So when there are contradictions and you dont want to be disintegrated you need a common map, I think. For example if you are a strict Christian and at the same time a physicist scientist, if you dont close your eyes, then there are some sort of inconsistencies in your map (and if not then we just assume it now for the exmple).

Thank you for the book recommendation and search term, I will check it out, luckily Springer books are available for students.

Another inconsitency in my thinking, I realize your objection now too... thank you for the concrete literature recommendation. Since Hegel is notoriously hard to understand and 200 years old, are you familar with a more current thinker that has synthetized this approach further and in a more "understandable" way - or is Mr. Hegel still the way to go — Trachtender

Well, I might not be totally up to date with current developments... I do think Hegel is the way to go, because after him the whole idea of a kind of theory of theories has died down. He was the last to formulate such an all encompassing system. that whole approach was dismissed by his critics and the philosophy of finitude of 'difference' came in vogue. I would not start with Hegel though, but something about Hegel to see if it is a direction you like to explore further. Peter Singer has written a very small and accessible book on Hegel. There will be issues to quibble with in that book, but is small and easy to read witch is valuable too.

Okay, listen carefully. There's something that you do not understand - that I am going to try to help you see. Just go with it, and after you "get it" - then you can object. But if you go into this objecting, refusing to understand, you won't see it. Okay? — counterpunch

I stopped reading here. Condescension pisses me off.

I think Alan Watts would be best. He’s not really an philosopher he’s a zen guy. But he goes over this topic a lot. A popular quote in zen is: “In Zen, you do not find answers, you lose questions”.

Thank you for your post, do you have a concrete literature recommendation like a specific title or author? — Trachtender

I'm sorry, no. I don't know of anyone else who attributes the climate and ecological crisis to a misapplication of technology, in turn attributed to a mistaken relationship to science that dates back to the trial of Galileo. That distinction between a scientific understanding of reality and an ideological understanding of reality is almost impossible to put across to people, and as far as I'm aware - I'm the only person on earth who thinks it even remotely significant. It's like it exists in a blind-spot.

I've been into science since I was young, and studied politics at university, so it jumps off the page at me - that there's a stark contradiction between the two conceptions of reality, and approaching upon extinction - I maintain we need to learn from that mistake.

It's like Biden in the US; he has acknowledged the scientific fact of climate change, at last - but his approach to addressing it is entirely ideological. Wind and solar cannot meet US energy demand, less yet the rest of the world. They're profitable industries - he'll get kick backs from industry, and create 'green jobs' - but barely take the edge of carbon emissions, and 25 years from now it will all be scrap.

Looking at the problem in scientific terms, we need to tap into the heat energy of the earth on a massive scale, sufficient to solve climate change and set humankind on course for a high energy prosperous and sustainable future. We cannot solve this if we cannot see beyond ideology to the scientific reality.

No, you should get into proper dialogue with someone without being condescending. an argument does not become any better by addressing your interlocutor in a patronizing way.

I was sorry you felt condescended to. Now I'm sorry you're not willing to work at philosophical understanding. You just sit there with your fucking mouth open. Someone will surely be along to spoon feed you some easily digested surface level shite presently!

I was sorry you felt condescended to. — counterpunch

Sure you were :rofl:

Then be pissed off. I don't know how else to address the fact that you don't get it. Should I just let you go on and on - talking bollocks because you don't get the basic idea? — counterpunch

Now I'm sorry you're not willing to work at philosophical understanding. — counterpunch

You just sit there with your fucking mouth open. — counterpunch

Saying “I’m sorry” then proceeding to be a prick is not very effective.

Saying “I’m sorry” then proceeding to be a prick is not very effective. — khaled

I only tried to help the guy understand and he threw it back in my face. I apologised. My apology was not accepted. I've been more than reasonable.

What does one have to do with the other? No I am not willing to engage with a condescending person, someone who I also begin to suspect, has little actual knowledge about philosophy. Though even if you had I would still object. Yes, I am willing to work to work at philosophical understanding. The fact that I do not like to engage with you because of your condescending attitude does in no way imply I do not like to engage in philosophical understanding. The two are not related. your argumentative skills are below par.

I apologised — counterpunch

Oh, an APOLOGY is what that was huh. Good to know...

What does one have to do with the other? — Tobias

You're not very bright, are you?

You failed to understand my basic idea of a disparity between a scientific understanding of reality and an ideological understanding of reality. When I explained it again, you burst into floods of tears.

"Boo hoo - I've been condescended to!"

Do you think philosophy is easy? Do you imagine that you'll never have to go back and re-examine something?

Get over it!

Is there any of your business here? I don't think so.

well in order not to derail Trach's thread and to engage with the question at hand the difference between philosophy and science is interesting.

I say, only if you're an ideologue. If you accept that science is a valid description of reality, there's no scientifically valid reason to create nuclear weapons. Get it? — counterpunch

There is not scientifically valid reason to build and atomic bomb I agree with you. Then again there is no scientifically valid reason not to either. I said they are both products of science. through science we acquire knowledge of the world and we can use that knowledge for a variety of different reasons. One is to wipe out enemies. Science has nothing to say about it except perhaps warning me about the consequences of my actions, but that's it.

I'm going to contrast and compare an ideological understanding of reality with a scientific understanding of reality.

Broadly, religion describes reality as heaven above, hell below - the earth inbetween, God in heaven, Satan in hell, and man inbetween. God is good, Satan is bad, and man is inbetween. Politics describes a world made up of nation state shaped jigsaw puzzle pieces. God is traditionally, the authority for political power in a given territory, and different territories have different ideas of God. There's also money, but let's put that aside. That is an ideological understanding of reality.

In contrast, science describes a single planetary environment, and the evolution of humankind - who emerged from Africa about 70,000 years ago, and dispersed in every direction. Human beings began as nomadic hunter-gatherers, in tribal groups between 40-120 strong, then hunter gatherer tribes joined together to form societies and civilisations, began farming, and adopted a settled way of life. Science describes a solar system, with the sun at the centre, and planets in orbit around it - as one solar system of 200 million in our galaxy, and our galaxy as one of trillions in an infinite universe. That's a scientific understanding of reality. — counterpunch

What does this have to do with anything? I think, but I am guessing here because you do not give a proper argument, that you mean to say the scientific description of the world is real and the ideological description is not. Well, that is clearly false. If you go to another country you will have a hard time convincing the border guards that well the frontier is an ideological construct and therefore not real. you will face a very real front end of the stick. And the scientific understanding of reality? Sure accepted, but what do you want to tell me with it? It is a set of facts no more and they have no normative import.

Anyway, I would love to hear what kind of question you are answering by presenting me your different worldviews. Now I do not think science is unideological, but I cannot even begin to address that unless I know why you give me these supposedly different world views. Come to think of it, they are not different, they peacefully coexist, apart perhaps from the God claim in the secularisation...

I'm sorry, no. I don't know of anyone else who attributes the climate and ecological crisis to a misapplication of technology, in turn attributed to a mistaken relationship to science that dates back to the trial of Galileo — counterpunch

Only the whole environmentalist movement since the beginning the 20th century....

That distinction between a scientific understanding of reality and an ideological understanding of reality is almost impossible to put across to people, and as far as I'm aware — counterpunch

Can it be because you do not explain it very well?

as far as I'm aware - I'm the only person on earth who thinks it even remotely significant. It's like it exists in a blind-spot. — counterpunch

If you are the only one that can mean a couple of things. One, you do not explain your arguments very well or they do not hold water in the face of an academic forum, or they are a convoluted mess of misunderstandings. Put more succinctly, you are a crack pot.

Or two, you are the next Martin Heidegger and your genius has gone sadly unnoticed. Both might be, but there a lot of crackpots and little Martin Heidegger's.