Janus: Collingwood is not a metaphysician.
T Clark: Why not?
Janus: Because he's wrong.
T Clark: Why is he wrong?
Janus: Because he's not a metaphysician. — T Clark
Janus: Collingwood is not a metaphysician.
T Clark: Why not?
Janus: Because he's not doing anything that would conventionally be considered, according to either the ancient or modern conceptions, metaphysics. — Janus
OK, I didn't remember that, but it's years since I read it. If I can find the reading time I'll take another look. — Janus
Janus: Collingwood is not a metaphysician.
T Clark: Why not?
Janus: Because he's not doing anything that would conventionally be considered, according to either the ancient or modern conceptions, metaphysics. — Janus
As I noted, for me, theistic religion's place in metaphysics is ambiguous. My solution? Don't worry about it. — T Clark
Your historian is responsible for his own metaphysics. — T Clark
That's you, but it is a luxury that a historian like Collingwood could not afford. Faith exists as a historical force and needs to be reconned with. Besides, he was evidently a Christian himself and cared about it a great deal. — Olivier5
Your historian is responsible for his own metaphysics.
— T Clark
He will simply not be able to publish in a scientific journal as his peers will 'cancel' him due to his heterodox metaphysics. So it's not just his problem. Other historians will make it their business. — Olivier5
Let me take another example: a Chinese physicist demonstrates that over there in China, E=MC3. Or a Zimbabwean mathematician proves that, over there in Zimbabwe, Pi equal 12. — Olivier5
As I've noted previously, the existence of God is a matter of true or false. As such, it is not a metaphysical question. — T Clark
I'm not sure what you mean by saying that absolute propositions are not true or false. Can you give an example? — Janus
The difference between the two is the difference between the different grounds of being in each. The ground of being in the Tao Te Ching is the Tao, the undifferentiated unity which is the natural state of existence before humans get involved. For science, it is objective reality, which represents the multiplicity of concrete phenomena that would make up the universe even if there was no consciousness.
Although they seem contradictory ... — T Clark
Although they seem contradictory, I didn't feel any conflict in using both ways of understanding. I could hold them both in my mind at the same time. That's when I started to think about the fact that they weren't true or false. Sometimes it made sense for me to think in one way and at other times the other. That's what made it clear that neither was true or false. — T Clark
Cliophobia even more so.A quick one: metaphysics is chronophobia. — StreetlightX
We have metaphysics in order not to despair of the real. — Thus Spoke 180 Proof
Janus: Because he's not a metaphysician. — T Clark
And so Collingwood doesn't really count as a metaphysician, whatever else you might think he counts as. At most he counts as a kind of historian or historiographer of metaphysical thought, which as I have already pointed out, is not the same thing as a metaphysician. — Janus
But from the point of view of a kind of Kantianism--particularly Schopenhauer's--these two are consistent. At least, they're consistent if science's objective reality is not taken as the ground of being. — jamalrob
science's objective reality is not taken as the ground of being. My guess is that this is quite a common stance even among scientific people. — jamalrob
You know the story: we perceive and model the world in the way we do owing to the way that we must do according to our perceptual and conceptual faculties. We never get beyond that to see the world in itself, the ground of being. What we have then, and what we study scientifically, is empirical reality, i.e., real and objective but bound reciprocally with human beings. (Whether this is coherent or not is another story). — jamalrob
It was Schopenhauer who took it a step further and asserted positively that the thing in itself, that which is beyond human perception and concepts, is an undifferentiated unity. He might have been encouraged in this by his reading of Eastern philosophy. — jamalrob
So it seems to me that it doesn't necessarily follow from one's ability to hold both positions at the same time that they are neither true nor false. — jamalrob
They might be doing different things, and are true in their own ways, meaning at their own levels of description or within their own scope. — jamalrob
Those are examples of ideas & opinions, which are by definition : Meta-Physical. But are they "rules" or "laws" governing subjective reality? That's what I thought you meant. :smile:There is an objective reality independent of human thought.
Alternatively, existence is inseparable from human interaction.
Physical laws that apply now have always applied and will always apply everywhere.
There is no absolute point of view or scale.
The universe has a living essence, a personality, which some people call God. — T Clark
Those are examples of ideas & opinions, which are by definition : Meta-Physical. But are they "rules" or "laws" governing subjective reality? — Gnomon
I have read Collingwood's book and I still don't really understand what it could mean to say that metaphysical propositions or axioms are not true or false, unless you were to follow the positivist line in saying they are "not even wrong". But I don't think that's what Collingwood means. If you think you can explain it, then by all means have a go. — Janus
Of course, ideas & opinions have a physical substrate, but the neurons themselves are meaningless. So, my comment was directed at the subjective meaning, not the objective container. If ideas were physical, mind-reading might be as simple as an MRI readout, or drinking a brain cocktail. Therefore, by my definition (see below), Ideas are literally non-physical. Brain is an information processor, but Mind is the meaningful output. :nerd:Ideas and opinions are not "by definition" metaphysical. — T Clark
For Newton, then, some events caused, some not. For Kant, all caused. For modern physics, no events caused. And this not up for debate because Collingwood's metaphysical analysis shows these all a matter of historical fact. — tim wood
A benefit for any attentive reader is that, having read, he or she is forever inoculated against all manner of dogmatic nonsense. — tim wood
Of course, ideas & opinions have a physical substrate, but the neurons themselves are meaningless. So, my comment was directed at the subjective meaning, not the objective container. — Gnomon
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.