Will you give me some examples of those Metaphysical rules?For me, metaphysics is the set of rules. — T Clark
I was not familiar with Collingwood, so I googled and scanned the Stanford biography. I didn't see anything specifically about a list of rules. And in general, his approach seemed to be more theoretical & academic abstractions than pragmatic & everyday applications. He seems to be mostly concerned with classifications & distinctions. One distinction mentioned in the article was between Realism and Idealism, and it said "Collingwood is often referred to as a British idealist". I didn't see anything that would distinguish his definition of "Metaphysics" from any other philosophical topic. Can you summarize his "metaphysical way of seeing things"? Is it a spiritual worldview? :smile:I was never really interested in discussing "metaphysics" or metaphysics as such. I want to talk about, and use, Collingwood's metaphysical way of seeing things in my everyday and intellectual life. — T Clark
Is your claim that it is metaphysics all the way down itself a metaphysical or ontological, or a merely epistemological one? — Janus
I'm not sure if you're being serious, — Janus
my retort would be that there is no fact of the matter regarding what we should call the study of the history of metaphysics, which is what Collingwood refers to as just 'metaphysics'. — Janus
There is, distinct from this historical study of metaphysics, the possibility of practicing metaphysical thinking which has no truck with any traditional metaphysics. — Janus
Will you give me some examples of those Metaphysical rules? — Gnomon
I feel very at home with Collingwood. — T Clark
There is an objective reality independent of human thought. — T Clark
There is an objective reality independent of human thought. — T Clark
Alternatively, existence is inseparable from human interaction. — T Clark
Physical laws that apply now have always applied and will always apply everywhere. — T Clark
There is no absolute point of view or scale. — T Clark
The universe has a living essence, a personality, which some people call God. — T Clark
There is an objective reality independent of human thought.
— T Clark
Objectivity is over-rated. What is seen as objective is highly dependent on many contingent factors, and whatever is ascertained to be real is obviously a matter of judgement, which is a rational process. Being able to criticize this attitude is where metaphysics begins. — Wayfarer
The universe has a living essence, a personality, which some people call God. — T Clark
It's likely that there's no non physical realm that can have any effect on the physical realm simply because it's not able to perform physically; so, I suggest that all that goes on is purely physical. — PoeticUniverse
Generally I agree, although I don't understand the distinction you are making by calling it the history of metaphysics. — T Clark
Metaphysics is the attempt to find out what absolute presuppositions have been made by this or that person or groups of persons, on this or that occasion or groups of occasions, in the course of this or that piece of thinking. — T Clark
Reality itself has a fundamentally subjective aspect, which is intrinsic, but is never knowable by objective means. — Wayfarer
NOT STUFF. Not an object, not a thing. — Wayfarer
I feel very at home with Collingwood.
— T Clark
Who goes by a rather precise (but perhaps restrictive) definition of metaphysics as the study of absolute presuppositions of knowledge. — Olivier5
Metaphysical statements are not themselves provable. — Olivier5
2. We all go with certain basic presuppositions, ergo we all sport some metaphysics or another, consciously or not, even those of us professing otherwise, whom Collingwood humorously calls the "anti-metaphysicians". — Olivier5
3. There is metaphysics at the heart (or rather seed) of physics and any other other science, since all sciences are built on certain absolute presuppositions. — Olivier5
The directions taken by our truth-seeking efforts (our observations of the world around us, in particular) are framed by and interpreted within our metaphysics. Therefore one rarely changes one's metaphysics, not based on empirical observation anyway. — Olivier5
People are 'ticklish' about their metaphysics. They can get angry if you challenge their absolute presuppositions (even so-called anti-metaphysicians). It is a natural reaction, as these absolute presuppositions underwrite their (our) whole world view. Hence perhaps the irksome tone of some metaphysical discussions. — Olivier5
Metaphysics as defined by Collingwood is a historical science in that absolute presuppositions are both a product and an engine of history: they are born at a certain time in a certain place, their popularity ebbs and flows, they are a bit like mental viruses. And since they can shape discourse, they can shape politics. Metaphysical ideas can have a political impact. — Olivier5
True. But different human thoughts can refer to different objective realities, a concept that's hard to grasp for western thought somehow. — Verdi
Obviously. — Verdi
Not true. — Verdi
There is no absolute point of view or scale.
— T Clark
There is. Dependent on which theory one prefers. — Verdi
That's highly questionable and not really a metaphysical rule, — Verdi
Attempting to find out "what absolute presuppositions have been made..." just is the study of the history of metaphysics. Making absolute presuppositions yourself is doing metaphysics (making metaphysical claims or adopting a metaphysical standpoint); so you have a distinction between studying the history of (other people doing) metaphysics and actually doing metaphysics.. — Janus
is not studying the history of metaphysics, but rather making a particular metaphysical claim, selected from among many other possible metaphysical views on account of personal preference. — Janus
I don't want to hijack Clark's thread. Suffice to say the observation about the subjective nature of reality is grounded in long-term study and meditation. I'll leave it at that for now. — Wayfarer
I think people change their metaphysics all the time. You can be running two metaphysics programs at the same time if you're dealing with two situations simultaneously e.g. talking philosophy at the dinner table. — T Clark
That's true, but it's about psychology, not philosophy. — T Clark
Not so simple. People can't really believe in, say, one unique god in the morning and believe in no god or many gods in the afternoon. — Olivier5
I have trouble including existence of a personal God in metaphysics. — T Clark
A Taoist scientist might experience the Tao during meditative practice, but then have no problem dealing with the world as an objective reality at work. — T Clark
It's a classic metaphysical question, though. Collingwood goes as far as advising to use religious language to frame absolute presuppositions, as an indicator of whether we are truly at the right foundational level. E.g. "God is a mathematician" is his way of phrasing the absolute presupposition that quantitative differences are all there really is 'out there', i.e. that qualitative differences are not fundamental but rather the expression of mere quantitative differences. He sees this presupposition as being at the heart of the scientific revolution. — Olivier5
But we are talking here of methodological choices, of people saying "for the sake of the argument, let us pretend that X is true even though I don't actually believe it true." — Olivier5
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.