↪Cheshire Reification fallacy I think (or is it misplaced concreteness?). Prescription lenses*, for instance, are just pieces of 'glass' independent of us. 'Ideas' are abstract tools insofar as we (or some complex information processing systems) use^ them, otherwise they are just 'footprints on the beach at low tide' so to speak. *Benny & ^Witty, respectively. — 180 Proof
Precisely. 'The metaphysical' is not real, rather an idea / ideal is a speculative tool by which we attempt to orient ourselves with respect to the (encompassing) real – naively invisible to us for being too close (i.e. transparency of water to fish) – and thereby, once the real is made explicit / visible, it can be used as the most general abstract criterion for composing alternative frameworks for interpreting (promixal) reality. Thus, like 'prescription lenses' – eyewear, microscopes, telescopes, cameras, etc.I can't burn an idea for heat. — Cheshire
Precisely. 'The metaphysical' is not real, rather an idea (ideal) is a speculative tool for orienting us with respect to the (encompassing) real – naively invisible to us for being too close (i.e. transparency of water to fish) – and, once made explicit (visible), thereby the most general abstract criterion for composing alternative frameworks for interpreting (promixal) reality. Thus like 'prescription lenses' – eyewear, microscopes, telescopes, cameras, etc. — 180 Proof
Would it be, in your opinion, more appropiate or agreeable to say 'bullshitting' than "peddling woo"? Speaking for myself, I object emphatically to anyone insisting that unwarranted claims (magical thinking, evidence-free discourses) be accepted on par with warranted claims (defeasible thinking, evidence-based discourses) and taken just as seriously to justify their position in a discussion or argument. Exchange of ideas is, I think, what we're here for but active critique goes with the principle of charity and that includes separating wheat form chaff calling "bullshit" whenever it's thrown against the wall just to see what sticks.It becomes tiresome when people repeat the same phrases - like 'peddling woo'.
What is that all about ? Meant to insult. — Amity
If there is a more effective way to philosophize in public, then by all means, Amity, explain to me / us.Philosophy does not serve the State or the Church, who have other concerns. It serves no established power. The use of philosophy is to sadden. A philosophy that saddens no one, that annoys no one, is not a philosophy. It is useful for harming stupidity, for turning stupidity into something shameful. — Gilles Deleuze
Reification fallacy I think (or is it misplaced concreteness?). Prescription lenses*, for instance, are just pieces of 'glass' independent of us. 'Ideas' are abstract tools insofar as we (or some complex information processing systems) use^ them, otherwise they are just 'footprints on the beach at low tide' so to speak. *Benny & ^Witty, respectively. — 180 Proof
and ontologically independent. — 180 Proof
I agree but that's not what you wrote previously. — 180 Proof
I can't burn an idea for heat
— Cheshire
Without the idea of 'fire', you couldn't burn anything for heat. — Olivier5
To me meta-physical the word implies what you are saying. Something that exist in reference to the physical world, rather than something that exist in it like a physical thing. The difference it seems is I want to place the metaphysical things in reality, because that's where I keep all my things. But, you are suggesting they are not part of reality. Really, it's seems like both in a way. I can have my book of ideas and I can have the conceptual thought of a book of ideas. They aren't the same.↪Cheshire Not sure I follow you. My point was / is 'don't forget that maps (ideas (e.g. metaphysical speculations)) are not the territory (reality)', even though mapmakers (mapmaking) is a constituent of the territory, so try not to mistake one for the other (e.g. reification fallacy, misplaced concreteness, category error). — 180 Proof
Why theists and other supernaturalists always refuse to accept my own oft-stated self-designation freethinker (or antitheist naturalist) escapes me. The lack of good faith most theists (& supernaturalists) usually bring into a 'theism/atheism' discussion never ceases to amaze me. — 180 Proof
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.