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. There's a difference between the two statements:

1. A metaphysical claim is useful and is neither true nor false.
2. A metaphysical claim is useful and it doesn't matter whether it's true or false.

You also need to,

3. Consider how truth and utility are related in terms of necessary and sufficient conditions.

4. Look into how truth and assumption of truth impact your argument.

You're not out of the woods yet, T Clark!

You need to go over what you said above carefully, specifically the parts underlined. — TheMadFool

I think I've gone through this enough for now.

I think I've gone through this enough for now. — T Clark

Fine.

A statement/proposition is a sentence that's either true or false. — TheMadFool

I told you yesterday that this is not true, but I was wrong, at least according to Collingwood. Yes - a proposition has to be true or false. An absolute supposition has no truth value.

“What do you mean when you say ‘metaphysics’” — T Clark

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:

FWIW, I have added a new post to my BothAnd Blog, as an attempt to explain, in more detail than possible in a forum post, my personal meaning of "Meta-Physics", as it applies to my personal philosophical and scientific worldview. :smile:

Meta-Physics : The Purview of Philosophy
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page22.html

PS__ the popup at the bottom of the second page is addressed to the Transcendent implications of the first principles of philosophy.

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. It was they that posited that the mind forms impressions based on sensible (sensory) images, and that these impressions are the basis of ideas. I don't think that this can be found in Aristotle's Metaphysics, which is first and foremost an examination of the various ways a thing can be said 'to be' (hence called the study of being qua being, or an enquiry into the meaning of being, or the statement 'it is'.)

My (admittedly sophomoric) understanding of that is that it really begins with Parmenides, then proceeds through the dialogues of Plato (including the dialogue of that name), which then culminates in Aristotle. And the substance of all of those dialogues concerns the nature of the forms or Ideas. Aristotle criticizes his master, Plato's, conception of the Forms but nonetheless still maintains the idea in his hylomorphic (form-matter) dualism. Unless we understand at least the outline of what the forms are, then I don't think we will have any grasp of metaphysics in the specific sense the word is used in European discourse.

I notice that the OP in this thread introduces R G Collingwood, who was at least a scholar of metaphysics, insofar as he was not part of the general movement against metaphysics which characterised many others of his day (including his successor in that chair, I think.)

How do we know Aristotle wasn't suffering from episodic psychosis and that metaphysics was what happened in one of his fits of madness. Are we attempting to understand a "work" of insanity? This is a serious question for there have been documented cases in other fields: the tortured artist. In fact the idea of a tortured artist traces its origins back to Aristotle's teacher Plato and we all know Plato had a low opinion of art and artists while Aristotle's views were more favorable. That's a big clue in solving the mystery of metaphysics. It seems possible that Aristotle was himself a tortured artist flip-flopping back and forth between sanity and insanity and metaphysics had its genesis in the mind of a troubled genius. :chin:

In the same vein, I wonder if philosophy has a higher proportion of contributors who were borderline or full-blown psychos.

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.

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

I dunno. Aristotle's love of art is, for me, the smoking gun in re the possibility that he was himself a mad artist. Plato had warned us against the artistic types and ironically, it was his beloved pupil, Aristotle, who was the first to philosophize on the "merits" of art. Et tu Brute!

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

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 ...

:yawn:

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

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

Are there legitimate Metaphysical Questions?

Cataphatic 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

"Certum est, quia impossibile" ~Tertullian

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

Necessarily, 'necessary facts' are impossible; therefore, [...] — 180 Proof

What's your ontology?
Metaphysics - what is it?

I'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

Complete vs incomplete reality

Prolegomena for the Fourfold Root of Insufficient Reason — 180 Proof

:scream:

postscript:

... metaphysical paradox ... — 180 Proof

compostscript:
@Wayfarer

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

@T Clark

Metaphysics as Utilitarian

I suppose I see your point.

Metaphysics is about first principles which, from a scientific standpoint, are theoretical frameworks or theories in short.

Your approach is, in philosophy of science, decidedly antirealist in that scientific theories (metaphysical first principles) aren't about truth, to the contrary they're about how useful they are in making sense of, comprehending, reality as it presents itself to us. That is to say we have some first principles (metaphysics) that explains everything there is to explain much like a ToE is meant to. The value of a good 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.

That's how I understand it.

Metaphysics is about first principles which, from a scientific standpoint, are theoretical frameworks or theories in short. — 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. 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.

↪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

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:



PS__Did you choose "Mad Fool" as your screen name, based on personal experience? I have dialoged with several forum posters who have admitted their drug-dampered insanity. :smile:

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

:ok:

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

Asoka (King, Mauryan Empire): I'm going to abdicate my throne, give away all my wealth, shave my head, wear a simple robe, and beg for alms.

Asoka's wife: You must be mad!

Asoka: No, I'm buddhist.

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

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:

Ditto! :up:

The value of a good 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 – and, at best, provides only categorical or methological criteria for critically interpreting, even creating, theoretical (formal or physical) models.

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

Yep, metaphysics - goes beyond the empirical/verifiable/falsifiable, the domain of science. A map's accuracy vis-à-vis the territory is assessable (science) and metaphysics includes, inter alia, the analysis of such maps. Metaphysics then is the study of the models we create of reality, it doesn't seek empirical verification for it makes no empirical claims.

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

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.

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. A theory may-or-may-not have truth value, but only when it is put into practice will we know which. For example, Darwin's Theory of the Origin of Species has been tested and proven accurate regarding adaptation to a changing environment. But after two centuries, evidence for divergent speciation has been iffy. *2 Likewise, Quantum Theory violates many of our reasonable intuitions, yet some of the mathematical models can be proven in practice.*3 So, we are sometimes forced to accept facts that defy common sense. And we have to adapt our incomplete theories over time.*4

My point is that a Theory is a "metaphysical entity" --- a meme in a mind, not a thing in the real world. A bird is a physical thing, but a species of birds is a mental category. General concepts and Universal Properties are Meta-Physical, according to the same categorical distinction between a Mental Meme and a Physical Gene. A theory is a model or map, not the physical thing or terrain. That's why I think it's important to differentiate between meta-physical theories and physical testing, between metaphysical "methods" (Philosophy) and physical methods (Science). Unscientific conjectures, such as Multiverses & Many Worlds, cannot be verified empirically, because they go beyond the physical limits of the Real World, into the Ideal Realm of Meta-Physics. *5

To many posters on this forum though, the distinction between Physics and Metaphysics is like the post-enlightenment political division between rational methodical Science and irrational mythical Religion. 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. A material Brain can be studied empirically, while the immaterial Mind can only be studied metaphorically. That's why the Behaviorism trend in Psychology was so brief. They soon realized that documenting physical actions was not the same as verifying mental intentions. Their hypothetical inferences often depended on the personal subjective biases of the observer. So, their "verifications" consisted mainly of confirming bias. That's why both Scientific and Philosophical models are subject to Peer Review. Only by comparing the "theories" of several observers can the errors be canceled out.

In my theory of Philosophy, Meta-Physics is about models and theories that are not currently verifiable. They can only be determined to be reasonable or not, based on Logic and incomplete evidence. And that requires Wisdom. Yet, we can't even define that term objectively, even though we may know it subjectively when we see it*6. So, let's not play the "show me the evidence" card, when the game is non-linear and open-ended. :nerd:


*1 Superseded theories in science :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_theories_in_science
.
*2 Adaptation vs Speciation :
A new bird species that is only slightly different from others of the Finch family. So, it's more like evidence of adaptation, than of something entirely novel.
https://www.sciencealert.com/darwin-s-finches-evolve-into-new-species-in-real-time-two-generations-galapagos

*3 "The verbal interpretation, on the other hand, i.e. the metaphysics of quantum physics, is on far less solid ground. In fact, in more than forty years physicists have not been able to provide a clear metaphysical model. "
___Erwin Schrodinger

*4 “It is impossible that there should be demonstration of absolutely everything; [for then] there would be an infinite regress, so that there would still be no demonstration.”
― Aristotle, Metaphysics

*5 "Nature is under no obligation to conform to our mathematical ideas—even the most brilliant ones"
___Avi Loeb, Astronomer

*6 "The phrase "I know it when I see it" is a colloquial expression by which a speaker attempts to categorize an observable fact or event, although the category is subjective or lacks clearly defined parameters".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it

“The devotee of myth is in a way a philosopher, for myth is made up of things that cause wonder."
― Aristotle , Metaphysics

"He, however, who begins with Metaphysics, will not only become confused in matters of religion, but will fall into complete infidelity."
___ Maimonides

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.

Schopenhauer's will a sound idea. Also Cudworth and Kant's "things in themselves", which are quite legitimate problems, which are very hard to clear 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

That's a good summary. If you don't mind, I may add it to my blog post on Meta-Physics. :smile:

Post done :
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page22.html

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

In other words, the Absurd (re: Zapffe, Camus, Rosset).

"Metaphysics isn't theoretical." ~180 Proof

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

:up:

"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."

In other words, the Absurd (re: Zapffe, Camus, Rosset). — 180 Proof

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:

Absurd : wildly unreasonable, illogical, or inappropriate.

Metaphysics and logic are both concerned with all being (common material object), but under different aspects (proper formal object). The object of metaphysics is real being considered formally in its real quiddity, invested with real attributes. ... Logic is the science of the science of the real.
https://maritain.nd.edu/jmc/etext/logic-06.htm

Quiddity : the inherent nature or essence of someone or something.

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

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:

Absurd: wildly unreasonable, illogical, or inappropriate.

The Absurd, which I've alluded to above, is not synonymous with merely being "absurd", sir.

↪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

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:

What is Information? :

Information is Generic in the sense of generating all forms from a formless pool of possibility : e.g. the Platonic Forms.

Reality is not what you see :
In other words, what we think we see, is not absolute reality but our own ideas about reality. Donald Hoffman calls those mental models “Icons”, serving as symbols that merely represent the unseen information processes within the computer system.

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

Since you seem to know or care nothing of "pure reason", you should take your own advice. :joke:

PS__Pure Reason is Philosophy. Practical Reason is Science. Since this is a philosophical forum, it is not limited to Practical Pragmatic reasoning. That's why we do a lot of "speaking" about a variety of non-woo "whereofs". :cool:

Critique of Pure Reason :
Kant explains that by a "critique of pure reason" he means a critique "of the faculty of reason in general, in respect of all knowledge after which it may strive independently of all experience" and that he aims to reach a decision about "the possibility or impossibility of metaphysics."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critique_of_Pure_Reason

In a certain sense, yes.

Metaphysics is merely the extension of Reason into un-mapped territory, beyond current understanding, or beyond the scope of empirical evidence — Gnomon

That's part of it, until it becomes part of empirical investigation, then it's stops being called metaphysics.

That's part of it, until it becomes part of empirical investigation, then it's stops being called metaphysics. — Manuel

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:

PS__Pure Reason is Philosophy. Practical Reason is Science. Since this is a philosophical forum, it is not limited to Practical Pragmatic reasoning. That's why we do a lot of "speaking" about a variety if "whereofs". :cool:

Since you seem to know or care nothing of "pure reason" — Gnomon

Read Kant, Peirce-Dewey, Popper, Zapffe-Camus, et al ...

I've nothing to say about the content of any woo-of-the-gaps (i.e. 'making up shit without grounds to do so' instead of simply saying we just don't know yet) except to point out that it cannot explain anything and only begs questions (i.e. attempts to account for an unknown with an inexplicable). :roll:

I've nothing to say about the content of any woo-of-the-gaps — 180 Proof

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:

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

Your use of the word "metaphysics" is not consistent with how I use the word or how anyone else I've heard of uses the word. Adding a hyphen doesn't change things. Of course, you can define it any way you like. At least you try to be clear about what that definition is.

Your idea of "meta-physics" may have value in philosophical discussions, but it isn't "metaphysics" as we normally use the word. We've been through all this before. I don't think we'll get anywhere going through it again.