As Collingwood says, metaphysical positions are not true or false. They have no truth value.
— Clarky
:up: — 180 Proof
A bit simplistic. That belongs more to Carnap than Collingwood, of whom SEP says: — Wayfarer
We see the detritus of this tendency in the many "physicists" who kindly drop in here to "fix" philosophy. — Banno
Joshs :100:
[W]e never leave the starting point or beginning, only repeat it different. i[n] this way, they are radically temporal, and radically historical. When I think this beginning, I am not capturing any discrete content but thinking from out of the midst of becoming. I am not pointing to anything that I stand outside of but enacting it, always differently, and I can speak from this ‘always different’ beginning in a self-reflexive way.
— Joshs — 180 Proof
You are as much a philosopher as 95% of us here. You certainly are more well-read than I am, in spite of your aw shucks, I'm just a jumbuck playing my didgeridoo next to the billabong in the outback way of talking about yourself. — Clarky
That is different from saying that 'metaphysical positions have no truth value'. That is very much the line of the 'vienna circle positivists' for whom metaphysics are nonsense. Collingwood's concern is more with interpretation: how are we to interpret metaphysical statements, so as to better understand those who made them? It's not dismissive of metaphysics in the way the positivists were. — Wayfarer
Why is your culturally relative evaluation of reality relevant here? Are you presenting an argument based on that? — Hanover
That quoted passage means something different from saying that 'metaphysical positions have no truth value'. That is very much the line of the 'vienna circle positivists' for whom metaphysics are nonsense — Wayfarer
I wonder how we would we describe the position of mysterianism in relation to the venerable mind body question? It maintians the issue can't be resolved (perhaps even in principle) which may be an overreach, but does it imply that the question or any proposed answers are nonsense too? — Tom Storm
He says that 'consciousness is a mystery that human intelligence will never unravel'. — Wayfarer
Phenomenology became aware of the objectively-unknowable nature of mind and the unstatable presence of the subject, for example. Husserl said 'Consciousness is not a thing among things, it is the horizon that contains everything.' — Wayfarer
what is 'really there' is assumed to be the objects amenable to scientific analysis (because if they're not amenable to that, then how can we know them? — Wayfarer
Which is basically 'the hard problem' again, and it's not a pseudo-problem! — Wayfarer
But it is precisely the 'objective stance' which has been called into question by the discovery of the 'observer problem' or 'measurement problem' in early 20th C physics, hence opening the door to contemplation of the role of the subject. — Wayfarer
And also generally by 'the rediscovery of the subject' which has also happened in more recent philosophy. And that is a momentous change in perspective, and also a cultural change, that we're actually living through, albeit in fits and starts, in today's culture. — Wayfarer
↪Tobias While one might be hopeful, my suspicion is that there is a tendency for much of what is considered nowadays as "metaphysics", to be little more than physics without the maths - that is, not physics. If one were generous one might call it speculative physics, but more often it is nonsense physics.
We see the detritus of this tendency in the many "physicists" who kindly drop in here to "fix" philosophy. — Banno
As I said before, for me, reality is puppies and chocolate chip cookies, not essences and properties. That isn't to say I don't believe what physicists say about what happens at subatomic scale, just that it isn't sensible to think that's all there is to reality. — Clarky
But intentionality, aboutness, embodiment, what-is-it-like, qualia; is completely different than the language I use when I talk about my own or other people's experience gained through introspection or empathy. — Clarky
I'm with Collingwood - metaphysics has no and makes no truth claims. — Clarky
I agree, but neither is puppies and chocolate chip cookies. — Tobias
When you eat the chocolate chip cookie for instance one might ask when the chocolate chip cookie ceased to be, or whether there is something of the cookie remaining even after eating it, — Tobias
whether there is something that chocolate chip cookies and puppies have in common. — Tobias
I am lost when it comes to qualia. — Tobias
Jargon is just a tool, right a short hand. — Tobias
We are very much on the same page I think. — Tobias
I am more familiar with Rupert Sheldrake's idea of morphic resonance than Paul Davies's idea of memes — Jack Cummins
So, both physics and metaphysics involve going beyond. Some who hold a position of realism may see this as being where flights of fantasy may occur. This is true, and it may be where mythic truth steps in. — Jack Cummins
Why do we need the supernatural when the natural can be so super? — universeness
It's not clear to me what "two inseparable poles" means in this context. Metaphysics is the context of seeing, knowing, experiencing; not what is seen, known, or experienced. — Clarky
Depends what one means by nature. For science, it is only the movement of particles — Jackson
Even the term 'particle' is very much in dispute against 'field excitation.' — universeness
Well, I think that suggests that science has a rather shallow view of nature. — universeness
But, the mixture of being exposed to different and opposing ideas can give rise to a lot of conflicting ideas. Certainly, that is where I come from and I know a lot of people who are confused about how to think about reality amidst exposure to various systems of ideas, especially the metaphysical aspects, because they are central to understanding life and existence. — Jack Cummins
Agree. Science is shallow, but useful — Jackson
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.