First of all your answer doesn't really address any points made in my first paragraph. We don't have a way to be sure whether our feedback of an invisible underlying reality is accurate or not. What we can verify is that in different scales of reality we observe different characteristics that are quantifiable and verifiable.
What Kant or any philosopher says about metaphysical aspects of ontology is IRRELEVANT and an argument from false authority since there aren't any experts or authorities in metaphysical claims! — Nickolasgaspar
Of course they have. If you talk about mind properties non contingent to natural processes or "post modern Theology" or accept unfalsifiable metaphysical statements as foundations for your philosophical views then both of my labels are justified in this conversation!
Those terms just point out that the promoted ideas do not carry epistemic foundations sot they can not be used as tools for the understanding of the world (not that they are wrong). — Nickolasgaspar
- Is it? Are they? Maybe you are right.
Two problems.
1. What do you mean by reading philosophy? Chronicling? Finding out who (philosopher) said what?
Do you really think that Chronicling is Philosophy or that it will help you to promote a metaphysical statement to an epistemic degree of value, by knowing about it?
The fact that those conclusions have never being evaluated or used to produce abbitional knowledge or wise claims that we can act upon..... doesn't raise any flags for you?
Sure some great names made some metaphysical claims that you agree with...this is all you have!
The question is What makes you think that they are philosophical or at least meaningful?
2.People in science are generally philosophically clueless....meaning that they are really bad in Chronicling. THis is because they ignore ideas that are not proven Wise and with zero epistemic potential.
They are only familiar with Philosophical ideas that are epistemically and instrumentally valuable. (Naturalism, Objectivism, Humanism, Situational ethics etc etc etc ).
So at least in my case I don't give much attention to philosophical claims that do not achieve the goal set by Philosophy itself....to provide Wise claims about our world on solid epistemic grounds.
Sorry If I sound condescending...that was not my intention. — Nickolasgaspar
Philosophical exploration in science is known as Scientific hypotheses. Those hypotheses need to be testable in order to be scientific. — Nickolasgaspar
-Nothing really except his critique. I only pointed out that no matter how great the name of philosopher, a metaphysical speculation is just that.I have no idea what this is about. What makes you think Kant talks about metaphysics?? — Constance
Do you have objective evidence of mind properties rising independent of a functioning biological brain (natural process).Mind properties not contingent to natural processes? But of course they are. All I ask you is, what are natural processes? — Constance
-You are tap dancing. You are forcing a position I never expressed. Again I am only pointing out that your supernatural beliefs are not philosophical.I suspect you're heard of Thomas Kuhn? What do you think he would say about this? — Constance
-Irrelevant to our discussion thoughThis has to be explained, and you don't turn away because it is difficult. You engage it because it is difficult, but it is not the job of a scientist. It is the philosopher's job. It is NOT a metaphysical question. It simply accepts that the objects before us cannot be conceived apart from the experience in which they are found — Constance
Quoting what people said even if what they said have no actual philosophical value.Chronicling? You would have to say what you mean. Are you talking about recording history? — Constance
That is only an approach in philosophy. The main goal is defined in the etymology of the word...to use knowledge as a way to produce wise claims.There is only one goal set for philosophy--only one: to examine the world at the level of the most basic assumptions. Period. — Constance
Well you insist in using supernatural and idealistic principles in your interpretations ...So I can agree with your realization. People don't understand what philosophy is and how it works.Sometimes I fail to realize that people simply do not know what philosophy is. The presumption of knowing without, well, knowing, is common — Constance
By virtue of them being labeled scientific hypotheses they are testable. Philosophical exploration might be any sort of babble. Quantum mysticism, etc. — jgill
-Nothing really except his critique. I only pointed out that no matter how great the name of philosopher, a metaphysical speculation is just that. — Nickolasgaspar
Do you have objective evidence of mind properties rising independent of a functioning biological brain (natural process).
If you do have you then you should make some space on your shelves for a Nobel Prize...
That is a pseudo philosophy. — Nickolasgaspar
And intellectually unevolved. What's particularly dangerous isn't Rand herself, but the cult-like following of her. She's only somewhat responsible for that, but not entirely. I think she herself would mostly be against the dogmatism and zealotry of her followers. Having once given her due attention, I've since moved beyond her -- although there are still aspects I like. I like that she echoes Aristotelian virtue ethics, for example. But her views on ontology, epistemology, and politics is very limited indeed. — Xtrix
Philosophical exploration in science is known as Scientific hypotheses — Nickolasgaspar
Details, Nickolasgaspar, details. What, exactly in his Critique is metaphysical speculation? — Constance
-And.....? its the same way. We observe people's brains like we observe all environmental phenomena. We gather systematic information for every aspect of that organ and its factions. That is a text book example of special pleading and an argument from ignorance fallacy.What makes the case of the brain so unique is that while exterior events are forthcoming for observation, the brain itself is problematic, because the only way to confirm its existence is through its own operations, thus, one would have to establish how the brain can be its own source of verification, and this can only be done through the very brain processes in question. — Constance
-That is not true. Scientists use objective methodologies and criteria to study other people's brains and establish strong correlations between brain functions and specific properties of mind.How is it that one can stand apart from the brain and observe it apart from the very phenomena that are posited as brain generated? — Constance
This is why we don't use "witnesses" in science but we make Observations in order to verify objectively the ontology of a phenomenon.This, of course, problematizes all witnessed events, for how does one ever witness what is NOT a phenomenon? You need that perspective from another position that is not phenomenological. — Constance
-Numerous Nobel prizes have being awarded to scientists that have provided objective observations of Necessary and Sufficient mechanisms responsible for a phenomenon.Good luck with this. If you can respond in a way that shows the phenomenon can be bypassed, and an observer can jump into the "real" world that is not conditioned and constructed by thought and experience, not only will you win the Nobel Prize, but you will have discovered God's omniscient providence. — Constance
People are pretty clueless about this sort of thing. Back in the 40's, The Fountainhead was made into a movie starring Patricia Neal and Gary Cooper, a kind of celebration of the capitalist ubermensch, the guy whose talent placed him far above the pettiness of normal people's affairs. Everyone else was a parasite on his genius. Rand thought herself like this.
American Christians were so full of themselves and worshiped the corporate gods of capitalism, and so afraid of communism, they never understood that she was telling them all they were just a bunch parasites to the rich and famous, to whom they should all bow low. And Rand was a professed atheist! They bowed anyway. — Constance
ITs irrelevant to this topic but you can always google it. Well here is the first link I got.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-metaphysics/ — Nickolasgaspar
-And.....? its the same way. We observe people's brains like we observe all environmental phenomena. We gather systematic information for every aspect of that organ and its factions. That is a text book example of special pleading and an argument from ignorance fallacy.
Our ignorance of specialized knowledge on how the brain works doesn't justify to assume supernatural explanations. — Nickolasgaspar
-Again chronicling is irrelevant. What Rand believed or not is irrelevant. Objectivity stands on its own merits. Objectivity has been an established criterion way longer than Rand's takes on its importance. — Nickolasgaspar
Why do you think Kant is just metaphysical speculation? — Constance
Write in one paragraph a concise statement on why Kant's CPR is speculative metaphysics. — Constance
But is a reflection of ones conciousness necessarily philosophy? I could be young and never question anything with my deepest thoughts — Outlander
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.