Philosophy and Metaphysics

3017amen

The Kant thread about Metaphysics inspired this post about the fundamental nature of reality (or what I often refer to as, the nature of existence). Most of us know that logic itself, as does science, has its limitations, in its methodologies to pursue such questions about said nature of reality. And as such, in the natural sciences (physics), we also know that in practice, synthetic a priori propositions are almost always asked in order to carry a hypothetical forward.

The video below is a wonderfully lucid and hopeful exposé that posits such metaphysical questions:

1. Because we have a consciousness, when we ask philosophical questions relative to the nature of our self-awareness; intentionality, wonderment, the will, Being (ontology), logic (epistemology) and the like are we really all metaphysicians and don't know it?

2. Much like how partisan politics plays a role in creating laws in a democracy, does much of science engage in some sort of metaphysical philosophy without actually knowing it (i.e. theoretical physics)?

3. If other features of consciousness such as sentient qualities/phenomena associated with the perceptions/sense data and feelings of love; the Will, redness, wonderment, causation and the like are considered all part of an abstract nature, does an argument for a Platonic reality only strengthen there ( mathematical reality also being abstract)?

4. What, as a part of consciousness, is considered a timeless truth, besides our apperception of mathematical structures?

5. Do we unknowingly choose to take a metaphysical position on things-in-themselves by claiming there are no abstract objects?

6. What are my experiences made of?

7. Through self-awareness, when we ask ourselves questions, does that in itself, by its very nature, imply Dualism?

8. With respect to the natural/physical sciences, like science and religion, ideally or theoretically, should philosophy and [physical] science work together to help better understand consciousness?

I hope you will take the time review the video, as it uncovers many of those fundamental/metaphysical questions that cross over into these various areas of discourse:

Mww

↪3017amen

Good. Perhaps, as he says, the power of metaphysics rests in nothing more than.......”I like it”.

3017amen

.......”I like it”. — Mww

Mww!

Explain what it means to like some-thing?

Jack Cummins

↪3017amen

I listened to some of the video, but not all of it because my mobile signal is a bit wobbly. However, in response to your whole series of questions, I just thought I might as well throw in a few thoughts from discussions which I have engaged in during the last few days.

I am sure that you remember me pondering the whole question of consciousness. In discussions with others, including @FrancisRay, we have been looking at the limitations of dualism. Generally, I think that I have been aware of some inadequacies in dualist thinking for some time. This has been explored by writers, such as David Bohm and Fritjof Capra. In particular, Capra speaks of rather than mind and body being separate, mind can be seen as being immanent in nature. At the moment, I plan to do more reading in the direction of non dualist perspectives on reality.

3017amen

↪Jack Cummins

Thank you Jack!

Great question/post. If you get time, scroll over to about 17:44 where Dennett discusses Dualism. From my interpretation, he seemingly/unknowingly advocates for it. Because he says that by virtue of the ability to ask ourselves questions (self-awareness/consciousness), that we... "are not as unified as we think we are". And so I interpret that literally, as another form of Dualism. We are, in fact, not unified. This process of self-awareness implies a third-person... .

3017amen

↪Jack Cummins

...also, scroll over to 21:00 for additional fodder relative to physics v. metaphysics vis-à-vis consciousness.

Mww

Explain what it means to like something? — 3017amen

What it means: Find favor. Alleviates ill-will.

Technically, the inclination to an idea and the judgement made on that inclination, do not conflict with each other.

MondoR

This process of self-awareness implies a third-person... — 3017amen

Why so? The Mind is looking upon itself.

3017amen

↪Mww

Thanks Mww!

Well, does that tell us about the nature of said; will, favor, judgement and inclination?

For instance, if one 'likes' a some-thing, at least two questions must be asked:

1. [How] can I describe 'likeness' as a abstract universal?
2. What really is that thing that I like, and why does it matter (no pun intended) ?

Otherwise, you mentioned one's will. Why does will matter when instinct can easily take its place? In other words, what is the existential purpose of the Will?

3017amen

Why do? — MondoR

Nice!

Because, if philosophy lives in words, and words have meaning, then just by mere definition of Human Being, conveys or implies an action (verb). However, existentially, we cannot escape doing. We are trapped in an ordinary life of doing or Being. Yet being and becoming are seemingly two contradictory things. Imagine that(?).

Maybe time is just an illusion. Or, as you suggest, the metaphysics of Tao is an optical delusion of consciousness:

https://www.spaceandmotion.com/Philosophy-Taoism-Tao.htm

Mww

↪3017amen

Ya know......just because we can ask a question, doesn’t mean we should.

“....To know what questions we may reasonably propose is in itself a strong evidence of sagacity and intelligence. For if a question be in itself absurd and unsusceptible of a rational answer, it is attended with the danger—not to mention the shame that falls upon the person who proposes it—of seducing the unguarded listener into making absurd answers...”

That being said, and admitting your questions aren’t exactly absurd, I don’t have any good answers for them. And why does everything have to have a “nature”? Nature of this, nature of that.....why can’t it be just whatever we think of it? Which is, when it comes right down to it, exactly what it is anyway.

MondoR

Maybe time is just an illusion. — 3017amen

Time is essentially the experience of change within our experiences/memory. In essence, Mind is Time.

3017amen

Ya know......just because we can ask a question, doesn’t mean we should. — Mww

Mww!

Thanks for continuing the discussion. Are you suggesting, say in science, that there are forbidden questions one should never ask? If so, what would that look like (advancement/discoveries would not occur, no)?

And why does everything have to have a “nature”? Nature of this, nature of that.....why can’t it be just whatever we think of it? Which is, when it comes right down to it, exactly what it is anyway. — Mww

What is intriguing (in philosophy) is your "whatever we think of it". Right?

3017amen

Time is essentially the experience of change within our experiences/memory. In essence, Mind is Time. — MondoR

MondoR!

If time consists of past-present-future, then how big a slice of time does the present represent? In other words, how do we apportion the past present future(?)

ghostlycutter

Most academic disciplines are philosophy (the latter being psychology-based); take for example Computing, which involves advancing computer technology, a device that stemmed from technological science.

How do we build a computer? How do we program machines?

Questions as such make use of a conditioned philosophical mind, understanding and reproducing logic, can only be tempered in philosophy, and lots of philosophy is learned in social communities.

Computers themselves were built by man because man understood that the population would enjoy it.

In the process of designing the first computer, more philosophy was conducted.

tim wood

1) No. Unless accidentally on some occasion or other. The distinction to be made is in competence and knowledge, and lack of same. I have a cowboy hat; doesn't make me a cowboy. And I can hit a baseball with a bat and a golf ball with a golf club. Neither of which is an indication of of any level of achievement at all beyond that of many four-year-olds.

2) No. Nonsensical and offensive to sense. Partisan politics at best leads to compromise. Science is not about compromise at all.

3) "if...". Grant the "if" and you can claim and prove anything you want. Which is to say actually prove nothing whatsoever.

4) What is a timeless truth and how does it differ from truth? And what, exactly, is truth?

5) I do not know what this question means or is for.

6) What is your round for supposing that your experiences are made of anything?

7) ???

8) "With respect to the natural/physical sciences, like science and religion...." Stop right there! Exactly when did religion become a natural/physical science? This question alone proves you do not understand the words and concepts you are using. That, or you're vicious with an LOL.

And the video is not worth the time or effort.

MondoR

If time consists of past-present-future, then how big a slice of time does the present represent? In other words, how do we apportion the past present future(?) — 3017amen

The past is what we are as a whole. An experience that are memories. The present, is the sense of becoming different. Of memory changing. The future, is an image of what might become as a possibility. All of which we feel as time.

Joshs

↪3017amen

The video introduces metaphysics this way:

‘Some say experience and feelings are the clearest way to truth, but I need rational analysis.’
He thus equates metaphysics with ‘rational analysis.’
He might instead have clarified that the notion of metaphysics as rational analysis is only one particular definition of metaphysics, one based on Enlightenment rationalism and German idealism.

Joshs

↪MondoR

All of which we feel as time. — MondoR

And all of which we feel in the same moment ‘as’ the present moment, retaining the just past within it and anticipating beyond itself.
As William James wrote :

“...earlier and later are present to each other in an experience that feels either only on condition of feeling both together.” In its most primordial form, consciousness is time consciousness.

3017amen

Some say experience and feelings are the clearest way to truth, but I need rational analysis.’
He thus equates metaphysics with ‘rational analysis.’ — Joshs

Joshs!

Thank you for that. You must have at least viewed some of the video (if not all).

Couple thoughts:

I also find it intriguing that 'feelings' and 'experience' are path's to truth. Feelings themselves do not appear to be exclusively physical absolutes.

Secondly, the irony is that we are trapped in our logical/'rational analysis' in order to discover truth's, which go beyond (transcend) the physical. It's kind of like saying in 11:20 of the video, that by virtue of taking a position on the question of universals, implies one has complete understanding or understands in this case, the nature of reality.

So we use logic to arrive at an illogical sense of reality (metaphysics). Which in turn, is not so illogical at all (abstract mathematics, love, the will, intentionality, redness, ad nauseum). Or is it?

3017amen

) What is your round for supposing that your experiences are made of anything? — tim wood

Hello Mr. Wood:

Thank you for your input. Let's parse one at a time. If my experiences are made of nothing (as you seem to be implying), are you suggesting some sort of metaphysical reality instead?

Joshs

↪3017amen

So we use logic to arrive at an illogical sense of reality (metaphysics). Which in turn, is not so illogical at all (abstract mathematics, love, the will, intentionality, redness, ad nauseum). Or is it? — 3017amen

We use logic to work within normative rules that define a the conditions of ‘truth’. But the normative conventions that determine what is true for us and thus what is logically necessary are themselves the product of a value system. Idealist metaphysics , like the video offers, ossifies a particular value system as THE metaphysical
truth. Post-idealist approaches recognize
that value systems are constantly fading and new ones coming into being. The movement from
one value system to another can’t itself be described via a causative logic or rationality. So the role of ‘feeling’ is closely bound up with valuation.

tim wood

↪3017amen

Maybe. I suppose that the "metaphysical" in metaphysical reality means not real. My division between material things, ships and stones and sealing wax, these being real things, and ideas, ideas being not real (material) things. Whether or not that which carries ideas, whether electrical or chemical activity or both be considered a real material thing does not address the content of ideas, their interpretation and any understanding of them, these latter themselves being ideas.

The hazard is that ideas become considered (materially) real in themselves, an untenable claim only maintained through incoherence. You can have all the ideas you want, and should have them. But "metaphysical reality" is jargon-nonsense that imo needs to be combatted.

jgill

. . . does much of science engage in some sort of metaphysical philosophy without actually knowing it (i.e. theoretical physics)? — 3017amen

When physicists speculate in the area of quantum mysticism, trying to find a real-world interpretation of what they observe rather than simply "doing the math", it seems to me they are engaging in metaphysics. But then again, I'm not clear on what the term even means. It would seem to go beyond reasoning. I think Leibniz was engaged in the practice when he postulated infinitesimals. .

3017amen

But then again, I'm not clear on what the term even mea — jgill

You mean Metaphysics?

It would seem to go beyond reasoning. — jgill

As alluded to earlier metaphysics in this context means the study of topics about physics. Traditional metaphysical problems have included the origin, nature and purpose of the universe, how the world of appearances presented to our senses relate to its underlying reality and order, the relationship between mind and matter, etc..

Science is deeply involved in such issues but any meaning-of-life questions are deferred or subordinated to the philosopher.

However we can say that ...."quantum mechanics exposed the subtle way in which the observer and [the] observed are interwoven"- Paul Davies.

Mww

Are you suggesting, say in science, that there are forbidden questions one should never ask? — 3017amen

Not at all. There are never forbidden questions, only those that don’t have rational answers. Rational answers are those that do not contradict possible experience or the laws of logic.
————-

What is intriguing (in philosophy) is your "whatever we think of it". Right? — 3017amen

Dunno about intriguing, but it seems to have become neglected. Dismissed. Supervened by the Almighty Test Equipment.

Mikie

↪3017amen

All kind of fun.

Yet it has to be pointed out, again and again, that before any discussion gets off the ground it's helpful to know a few things -- like, "what is metaphysics"? and what is "consciousness"? This thread presumably takes these things for granted. If we don't give even a tentative definition, it's hard to know what we're really talking about.

So, for example, when the question is asked "What are experiences made of?" it's a difficult to even imagine a serious answer, since we have no technical notion of "experience" -- and, in fact, we lack even a tentative definition. Are we simply saying "what is being alive made of?" or "What is being made of?" Seems odd.

jgill

However we can say that ...."quantum mechanics exposed the subtle way in which the observer and [the] observed are interwoven"- Paul Davies. — 3017amen

Especially since the "observer" is a machine. :cool:

Traditional metaphysical problems have included the origin, nature and purpose of the universe, how the world of appearances presented to our senses relate to its underlying reality and order, the relationship between mind and matter, etc.. — 3017amen

nice summary. Thanks. Would you consider infinitesimals metaphysical?

Apollodorus

The question, though, is do we have a consciousness or does consciousness have us?

Isn't everything a matter of perspective?

Otherwise put, which view is correct (1) the earth goes around the sun or (2) the sun goes around the earth?

1 is correct in a scientific perspective, 2 is correct in everyday experience.

By definition, we can't know what "ultimate reality" thinks of us or of itself or, for that matter, whether it is single or dual.

This is why many metaphysical systems recommend certain techniques such as meditation as an aid to raising our consciousness, i.e., ourselves, to higher levels of experience that go beyond normal experience and though-processes.

Unless and until we've reached those higher levels of experience, all our theories are just speculation. This, of course, doesn't mean that we can't speculate in the meantime.

Manuel

The most fascinating question of them all, at least to me. I think we tend to adapt metaphysical views based, to some extent, on what we believe to be the case. A religious person may well find idealism more attractive than other varieties of thought, whereas many scientists would likely prefer materialism, in so far as it can be articulated. Chomsky would say that materialism can't be formulated.

Not that these views necessarily need to clash with each other. It depends on how you use the terminology. I think Strawson's "Real Materialism" is possibly the most sensible metaphysical view, taken as a whole. But I suspect some people here will take it to be vacuous.

I also suspect we also choose if it makes sense to believe the world to be "ghostly" or "machine-like". Also subject to temperament: tender minded vs tough minded as William James put it.

It keeps coming back to consciousness. You know, what is it? Something the brain does, as the heart pumps blood. But obviously consciousness is our access to the world.

So I agree with Xtrix, the following questions are crucial:

"what is metaphysics"? and what is "consciousness"? This thread presumably takes these things for granted. — Xtrix

Metaphysics has many definitions. Maybe the safest characterization of it would be, metaphysics tries to articulate, in the broadest possible manner, what the nature of the world is like, based on experience. Besides saying consciousness is something the brain does - which is true - what can be said about it? Well, conscious activity, when directed at the world, has intentionality.

In the human case, we have reasons to believe that besides consciousness, we have self-consciousness: awareness that we are aware of the world. In poetic terms, I believe Schopenhauer said it somewhere not in these terms, that in human beings, our conscious awareness is nature being able to look at herself.

All very hard questions. I'll end my mad ramblings here. :)

tim wood

Thank you for your input. Let's parse one at a time. — 3017amen

My turn. Answer this:

"With respect to the natural/physical sciences, like science and religion...." Stop right there! Exactly when did religion become a natural/physical science? — tim wood

Philosophy and Metaphysics

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions