I understand that if Newton supposed some events to be caused and some not, and if Kant supposed that all events must be caused, and if modern physics supposes that no venets are caused, then the truth of those suppositions will not be questioned. But that is not the same as to claim that they are neither true nor false. — Janus
The point is that they were - are - all true in the sciences for which they are absolute presuppositions, — tim wood
Your mistake. The idea isn't to be free of them - for that is impossible - but rather to know them for what they are. — tim wood
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 — Janus
How would you characterize your philosophical understanding of the nature of reality? Realism, materialism, idealism, physicalism? Is objective reality all there is? Is reality just information? Is it just an illusion that only exists in our minds? For me it's easy - I'm a pragmatist, which means you can't tie me down to anything. When I was young, though, I was a strong materialist. Wore the label proudly. It seemed self-evident to me that the world is just the physical stuff that we interact with. — T Clark
I don't really see that running through this will resolve the disagreement we have, but I thought it might be interesting. — T Clark
I agree. That's why I went back (meta-), beyond medieval theologians, to see what Aristotle was talking about in his second volume. The first volume, Physics, was about physical things (Quanta ; Science), but the second volume, "Metaphysics", was about non-physical concepts (Qualia ; Philosophy), such as abstractions, wisdom, ideas, meanings, attitudes, relationships, primary causes, etc . . .I don't believe your understanding that all mental phenomena are considered metaphysical is consistent with any generally accepted definition of the word. — T Clark
That we cannot definitively answer such questions I would agree, but that there is no truth of the matter I don't have a settled opinion about. — Janus
I'm not even sure we are disagreeing. — Janus
If all he means is that their truth cannot be questioned from within the systems that they are foundational then I would agree. Do you think he wants to claim more than that? — Janus
Anyway it has been interesting and somewhat (which is probably the best we can hope for) clarifying; so thanks. — Janus
So I guess here's the real difference in our views - As I see it, if we cannot definitively demonstrate the truth of a proposition, even in principle, then it has no truth value. — T Clark
I have read the book, and I believe I have understood it. Must I then agree with it? I agree that all systems of thought have their founding or grounding presuppositions, the truth of which cannot be questioned from within the system. But I don't understand that to be the same as to say that those propositions are incapable of being true or false tout suite. — Janus
I'm sorry that you are frustrated by the lack of progress on this perennial philosophical stalemate. But, this topic is labeled "what is metaphysics. yet again". So, I think it's essential that we at least agree on a clear distinction between "Physics" and "Metaphysics". Otherwise, we'll never find any common ground for a rational discussion. And "physical" versus "mental" seems to be the closest to a black & white dichotomy. Of course, in philosophy, the setup is seldom that simple. But, if we can begin there, perhaps we can chip away at any other obstacles to mutual understanding.I think you and I have taken this as far as we can for now. — T Clark
I'm sorry that you are frustrated by the lack of progress on this perennial philosophical stalemate. But, this topic is labeled "what is metaphysics. yet again". So, I think it's essential that we at least agree on a clear distinction between "Physics" and "Metaphysics". — Gnomon
Yes. But such misunderstandings are the fodder for Philosophy. Only in Politics would it lead to retreat or attack.I'm not frustrated, I just think your understanding and use of the word "metaphysics" is too different from mine for us to have a fruitful discussion now. — T Clark
So in plain words "Metaphysics" just means: The philosophical work we do AFTER we have finished doing our scientific investigations. Its labels our philosophical efforts to understand what those new scientific data mean for our understanding and what are the implications on our current epistemology and the world. — Nickolasgaspar
Any hypotheses of science is nothing more than Metaphysics. Only after we verify or falsify them, they either become Theories(part of our Epistemology) or they are dismissed. — Nickolasgaspar
Those are examples of ideas & opinions, which are by definition : Meta-Physical. — Gnomon
Yes, I know Aristotle didn't use that term, but when spelled with a hyphen, "Meta-Physics" denotes the practical distinction between material Science and mental Philosophy : that which is beyond the scope of physical examination, but is amenable to rational scrutiny...
What is metaphysics according to Aristotle? "
Summary Metaphysics. What is known to us as metaphysics is what Aristotle called "first philosophy." Metaphysics involves a study of the universal principles of being, the abstract qualities of existence itself. — Gnomon
I harp on the not-physical implications of "Meta-Physics" in order to distinguish a Philosophical concept from a Scientific topic. Empirical Scientists don't usually concern themselves with abstract concepts, such as Being and Ontology. But posters on this forum often try to place "metaphysics" under the umbrella of physical science, in order to avoid its spiritual implications. Which is why I point-out the second dictionary definition : "abstract theory with no basis in reality." ___Oxford. Can we simply agree that "abstractions" are not Real, but Ideal --- existing only in abstract Minds instead of concrete Brains? — Gnomon
PS___See the post by Nickolasgaspar above — Gnomon
But such misunderstandings are the fodder for Philosophy. Only in Politics would it lead to retreat or attack. — Gnomon
On this forum, I've been struggling to separate "Metaphysics" from its "Supernatural" heritage in Western Religion. That's why I have suggested going back beyond (meta-) Christian Theology to see what non-religious Aristotle was actually talking about. As you noted, it certainly wasn't about anything supernatural or spooky, but about making a philosophical distinction between Qualia & Quanta, between Potential & Actual, and betwixt Cause & Effect. Unfortunately, to this day we still portray Mind metaphorically as a Brain, which leads some to think that only Matter matters for thinking.No it doesn't mean "outside physics".
That would be the term "υπερφυσικός" or supernatural (beyond nature). — Nickolasgaspar
So, there's no such thing as Meta-Physical? Hence no need for philosophical terms like Qualia and Quanta? If so, why do we keep trying to split Nature into two different philosophical categories? Are philosophers just frustrated scientists, trying to make their wordy theories seem applicable to the real world? Why then is Dualism so attractive to most non-philosophers? :cool:I don't think there is any way to find agreement between our two positions. — T Clark
PPS__ I apologize for not just going away quietly, but I think this topic is essential. Plus, I really get into this unreal stuff. — Gnomon
Its not an argument. I describe facts. I came in Greece in an early age. Here they have an obsession with the legacy of their classical Philosophers so from early age we start learning the basics.
I understand that people and time tend to distort words and common usages but that usage is the original, official and only useful, since for almost any other usage we already have words for them. — Nickolasgaspar
Well metaphysics is ANY claim that makes hypotheses beyond our current knowledge.It isn't limited to any specific philosophical distinction. Those are conversations based on metaphysical hypotheses on the differences in the ontology of those phenomena.
-the big bang cosmology before its verification was metaphysics.
-Germ theory was metaphysics and it was assumed a supernatural one (Agents in addition to nature)
-Continental drift theory was metaphysics until we measured the shifting of tectonic plates.
etc. — Nickolasgaspar
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.