Merriam Webster says a proposition is "A statement to be proved, explained, or discussed."
MW says a statement is "Something that you say or write in a formal or official way : something that is stated."
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says, "Propositions, we shall say, are the shareable objects of the attitudes and the primary bearers of truth and falsity."
So, whether or not a proposition has to be true or false is an ambiguous question. Still, it's clear from the context that, for the purposes of this discussion, propositions do not have to be true or false. You're the one playing with language here — T Clark
I think truth is over-rated, but I can talk truth when it's called for. It can be a useful concept. Hey, wait... I think that's metaphysics.
In this particular discussion, I'm trying to use "truth" as it is normally used in philosophical discourse. — T Clark
You need to go over what you said above carefully, specifically the parts underlined. — TheMadFool
A statement/proposition is a sentence that's either true or false. — TheMadFool
Please don't give up on your Grail Quest for a definitive definition of the "M" word. For some on this forum it's a four-letter word, rhyming with "cr*p". But for me, Metaphysics is the essence of Philosophy. So, if we are going to dialog effectively on this forum, we need to get the General Principles nailed down before we get bogged-down in Specific Details. Yet, many physicists and philosophers reject such idealized notions as being-qua-being and essence to be un-real & super-natural, hence subversive of the Realistic & Materialistic dogma of post-Enlightenment Science. So, if 21st century Philosophy has any purpose at all, it should fall under the categorical heading of "Before Physics", or "more General & Universal than mere physical phenomena". Admittedly, Philosophy shares some of those supra-mundane interests with traditional & mystical Religions, but it also shares the goal of understanding the mundane real world with Physics. "Can't we all just get along?". ___Rodney King :cry:“What do you mean when you say ‘metaphysics’” — T Clark
How do we know Aristotle wasn't suffering from episodic psychosis and that metaphysics was what happened in one of his fits of madness? — TheMadFool
How about: because Aristotle's Metaphysics is as sane, sober, dry, and methodical piece of philosophical reasoning as exists anywhere in the corpus. What you're describing seems much more characteristic of Nietszche than anything in Aristotle. — Wayfarer
To do so we must find an inescapable, or deniable only on pain of self-contradiction, position from which to proceed; if so, then I propose the Principle of Non-Contradiction (PNC) with which to begin and regulate (my own) speculative droppings ...Metaphysics is the essence of Philosophy. So, if we are going to dialog effectively on this forum, we need to get the General Principles nailed down before we get bogged-down in Specific Details. — Gnomon
My bias against Plato (in particular) begins with [...] — 180 Proof
I understand 'metaphysics' to pertain to concepts (& systematicity) and not how the world must or happens to be. — 180 Proof
Are there legitimate Metaphysical Questions?Though our thoughts apparently diverge quite radically, Gnomon, we seem to agree that nature is an emergent 'system of transformational structures' and is not itself fundamental. What is fundamental, however, is unknown (or unknowable) and profoundly open to speculation. 'My metaphysics' (speculative framework, so to speak) is [...] — 180 Proof
"Certum est, quia impossibile" ~TertullianCataphatic metaphysics (i.e. deductively positing categories/universals), I completely agree, is obsolete but not apophatic metaphysics (i.e. deductively negating categories/universals) which has not yet been adequately explored. — 180 Proof
Metaphysics, again as I understand it, proposes criteria for discerning 'impossible worlds' (i.e. ways actuality necessarily cannot be) from 'possible worlds' (i.e. ways actuality can be) - btw, I'm an actualist, not a possibilist - thereby concerning the most general states of affairs; unlike the sciences, which consist of testing models of how possible transformations of specific, physical (class, or domain, of) state of affairs from one to another (can be made to) happen, and thus is explanatory (even if only approximative, probabilistic), metaphysics explains only concepts abstracted from, and therefore useful for categorizing, (experience of) 'how things are', and does not explain any facts of the matter. Metaphysics isn't theoretical. — 180 Proof
A "necessary fact" is only true in (all) impossible worlds. — 180 Proof
We can know all impossible worlds a priori – (as a rule) they are worlds constituted by contradictions and/or which consist of objects with inconsistent predicates (re: members of the empty set). — 180 Proof
What's your ontology?Necessarily, 'necessary facts' are impossible; therefore, [...] — 180 Proof
Complete vs incomplete realityI'm much more interested in what we can make of and do with "metaphysics" and "ontology" for tomorrow than whatever has been failed to be done speculatively for millennia. Like anybody, I'm groping around "in a dark room and looking for a black cat that isn't there" ... — 180 Proof
:scream:Prolegomena for the Fourfold Root of Insufficient Reason — 180 Proof
compostscript:... metaphysical paradox ... — 180 Proof
And you're an idealist of some flavor, right? Well then, how can you use physical sciences and (interpretations of) physical theories to support your purportedly non-physicalist (idealist) philosophical positions without being flagrantly inconsistent? — 180 Proof
Metaphysics is about first principles which, from a scientific standpoint, are theoretical frameworks or theories in short. — TheMadFool
How do we know YOU are not suffering from some psycho malady? I don't care. On this text-based forum, I'm interested in the reasonableness of your expressed ideas, not your mental health. Besides, an ad hominem attack on an ancient philosopher, who remains a major influence on Western thought after thousands of years, is (or should be) beneath you. :cool:↪Gnomon
How do we know Aristotle wasn't suffering from episodic psychosis and that metaphysics was what happened in one of his fits of madness. — TheMadFool
I'm not sure you and I are using "theory" the same way. I don't see a scientific theory, e.g. general relativity, as a metaphysical entity. They have truth value. For me, the scientific method is a metaphysical entity. Perhaps that includes the methods by which theories are developed and verified. I'll have to think about that. — T Clark
How do we know YOU are not suffering from some psycho malady? I don't care. On this text-based forum, I'm interested in the reasonableness of your expressed ideas, not your mental health. Besides, an ad hominem attack on an ancient philosopher, who remains a major influence on Western thought after thousands of years, is (or should be) beneath you. — Gnomon
I'm not smart enough to know anything with such absolute certainty. That's why I look to geniuses like Aristotle to categorize General Principles that stand the test of time. And PNC was at the top of his list. :joke:To do so we must find an inescapable, or deniable only on pain of self-contradiction, position from which to proceed; if so, then I propose the Principle of Non-Contradiction (PNC) with which to begin and regulate (my own) speculative droppings ... — 180 Proof
While more than one map depicts the territory, fact-free, or merely conceptual / imaginary maps, such as "metaphysics" do not. The map of "Middle-Earth", for instance, is useless for navigating around North America (or any other actual continent) because it does not correspond to any actual truth-makers (i.e. empirical facts). Likewise, as distinct from physics, "metaphysics" has no "explanatory power" – is not theoretical (re: "ToE" :roll:) as pointed out – and, at best, provides only categorical or methological criteria for critically interpreting, even creating, theoretical (formal or physical) models.The value of agood ToE (metaphysics)is in the scope and accuracy of its explanatory power (utility) and not in its truth. More than one set of first principles may fit reality. — TheMadFool
While more than one map depicts the territory, fact-free, or merely conceptual / imaginary maps, such as "metaphysics" do not. The map of "Middle-Earth", for instance, is useless for navigating around North America (or any other actual continent) because it does not correspond to any actual truth-makers (i.e. empirical facts). Likewise, as distinct from physics, "metaphysics" has no "explanatory power" – is not theoretical (re: "ToE" :roll:) as pointed out ↪180 Proof – and, at best, provides only conceptual-paradigmatic or methological criteria for critically interpreting, even creating, theoretical (formal or physical) models. — 180 Proof
I started posting on this forum to discuss the big issues of Metaphysics, not the mundane details of Physics. But, in all too many threads, a stalled discussion turns to challenges of "what can you prove?", instead of "what is reasonable?" Metaphysics, in my opinion, is supposed to be focused on ideas that literally transcend the scope of empirical scientific methods, such as "what caused the Big Bang?" There is no way for us to know for sure about the time before Time, or a place outside of Space. As philosophers, all we can do is to make educated guesses, and then test them against the critical faculties of other educated guessers. The result will not be absolute Truth, but it may get us closer to truth.I'm not sure you and I are using "theory" the same way. I don't see a scientific theory, e.g. general relativity, as a metaphysical entity. Theories have truth value. For me, the scientific method is a metaphysical entity. Perhaps that includes the methods by which theories are developed and verified. I'll have to think about that. — T Clark
That's a good summary. If you don't mind, I may add it to my blog post on Meta-Physics. :smile:Metaphysics then is the study of the models we create of reality, it doesn't seek empirical verification for it makes no empirical claims. — TheMadFool
In other words, the Absurd (re: Zapffe, Camus, Rosset).Metaphysics arises from the mismatch between what we can experience given the creatures that we are, and the craving that we have for knowledge which we cannot fully attain. — Manuel
:up:Metaphysics then is the study of the models we create of reality, it doesn't seek empirical verification for it makes no empirical claims. — TheMadFool
Not necessarily. When practiced by scientists and philosophers, Metaphysics is merely the extension of Reason into un-mapped territory, beyond current understanding, or beyond the scope of empirical evidence : e.g. essences. :nerd:In other words, the Absurd (re: Zapffe, Camus, Rosset). — 180 Proof
This 'Platonist conception of metaphysics' proposes nothing but idle speculation aka "pure reason" (i.e. pseudo-science, woo-of-the-gaps). Caveat: Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent, no? :zip:When practiced by scientists and philosophers, Metaphysics is merely the extension of Reason into un-mapped territory, beyond current understanding, or beyond the scope of empirical evidence : e.g.essences— Gnomon
The Absurd, which I've alluded to above, is not synonymous with merely being "absurd", sir.Absurd: wildly unreasonable, illogical, or inappropriate.
That may be true. But I am discussing the meaning of "metaphysics" from the perspective of my personal worldview, not that of Aristotle. I refer to the Greek Philosopher simply because he literally wrote the book on this topic. My interpretation includes scientific and philosophical knowledge that Ari did not have access to. "Representations of Reality" falls under the heading of Generic Information Theory, as defined in the Enformationism Thesis. :smile:↪Gnomon
I admire your openness and the friendliness of your posts. But I'm afraid the idea of 'representations of reality' is much more associated with the British empiricists than with Aristotle. — Wayfarer
Since you seem to know or care nothing of "pure reason", you should take your own advice. :joke:This proposes nothing but idle speculation aka "pure reason" (i.e. pseudo-science, woo-of-the-gaps). Caveat: Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent, no? — 180 Proof
Metaphysics is merely the extension of Reason into un-mapped territory, beyond current understanding, or beyond the scope of empirical evidence — Gnomon
Exactly. But some un-named posters on The Philosophy Forum try to limit our discussions to "empirical investigation", which is Physics, not Metaphysics. They don't like to go beyond the edge of the conventional "Map of Reality" into the uncharted territory . :brow:That's part of it, until it becomes part of empirical investigation, then it's stops being called metaphysics. — Manuel
Read Kant, Peirce-Dewey, Popper, Zapffe-Camus, et al ...Since you seem to know or care nothing of "pure reason" — Gnomon
That's OK with me. So why are you "saying" whereof you know nothing? Why are you posting on a Philosophy Forum instead of a Science Forum? Do you feel a "calling" to cleanse errant philosophers from the error of the Metaphysical way, or the Way of the Buddha, or the Way of the TAO? You must find it frustrating that the freshly-washed pig returns to wallow in the mud. :joke:I've nothing to say about the content of any woo-of-the-gaps — 180 Proof
Metaphysics, in my opinion, is supposed to be focused on ideas that literally transcend the scope of empirical scientific methods, such as "what caused the Big Bang?" — Gnomon
Those educated guesses are what we call "Hypotheses", and when some guesses survive the scrutiny of peers, or lead to some replicable evidence, we may even call them "Theories". But even the best of our Theories, such as Thermodynamics and Evolution, are based on incomplete evidence. Hence, they are subject to falsification or revision in the future*1. Consequently, understanding the difference between Theory and Practice is essential to my understanding of Meta-Physics. — Gnomon
General concepts and Universal Properties are Meta-Physical — Gnomon
But that's not what I mean when I use the hyphenated term "Meta-Physics". By that I simply refer to the same difference that Descartes formalized between a physical Brain and a metaphysical Mind. — Gnomon
In my theory of Philosophy, Meta-Physics is about models and theories that are not currently verifiable. — 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.