People with mystical leanings, of which I am one, have as much right to use the English language as anyone else. The way they use it is as legitimate as any other. I certainly don't want to leave language about spirituality in the sole hands of science. On the other hand, yes, we should be clear about what we mean by the words we use — Clarky
Hmmm, I always learned it that way and accepted it as a given it seems. I must have gotten it from somewhere because I was quite certain, but well pssible you are right. I thought they were the two branches of metaphysics. Maybe it is Collingwood actually. It does not make much of a difference to me though. Let's treat them as separate then... — Tobias
I don't advocate for restricting how others choose to use language but based on the OP, I do want to assess the 'shakiness' of the ground I will be on if I choose to challenge anyone who tries to connect the term metaphysics with the term supernatural and its related nomenclature. — universeness
Cool, there's a controversy — ZzzoneiroCosm
I'm with universeness. The scientific method isn't science, it's metaphysics. — Clarky
Your post for instance contains hidden assumptions, for instance you equate knowledge with the physical world. However when I want to enlarge my legal knowledge, physics does not bring me much. — Tobias
Metaphysics is commonly used as a synonym for supernatural or religious. I don't really like that, so I try to avoid the discussion because I don't think it is easily resolvabl — Clarky
Metaphysics is a very important word in philosophy and in science.
Its use has to be robust and clear imo. — universeness
I will not accept something as true until I see the evidence that it's true.
I will take 'a leap of faith,' in life, or if a loved one asks me to or needs me to and the circumstances prevent me from taking the time to model, test and evaluate before I act but I am a lot more uncomfortable with a leap of faith, than I am with actions based on studied empirical evidence. — universeness
I am a lot more uncomfortable with a leap of faith, than I am with actions based on studied empirical evidence. — universeness
I don't much like it either but I feel more and more compulsion to combat the use of metaphysical and supernatural synonymously, whenever people try to do so. — universeness
Legal knowledge is a product of human endeavours. It what way is legal knowledge not part of the physical world? All human thoughts are products of physical brains! — universeness
To be fair, it is part of the common meaning of "metaphysics." It goes back to what you said about the word being overburdened. — Clarky
I generally agree. Personally I would never use the word faith to describe reasonable actions taken in the world. When I catch a plane or go travelling I don't base the decision on faith but a 'reasonable confidence' that the plans will work out and the plane won't crash. This is a rational position based on the fact that travel and planes generally work safely. Faith, on the other hand, is an excuse for believing something when there is no good reason — Tom Storm
It follows then that a word like faith should not be left solely in the hands of theism.I certainly don't want to leave language about spirituality in the sole hands of science. — Clarky
Very little of what we know is based on "studied empirical evidence." — Clarky
Well yes, but knowing that brain activity is neurons firing and all kinds of cellular activity simply does not tell me whether I should rule that Mrs S needs to compensate Mr P for the damages she has caused by leaving a tab running. — Tobias
It follows then that a word like faith should not be left solely in the hands of theism. — universeness
We differ. I disagree with each point, but let's not let a little thing like faith come between us — Tom Storm
(COMMENT)...
I am thinking how many see these writers, especially Kant, as being outdated philosophers of the past. In the volume, ' Existentialists and Mystics', Murdoch describes the way in which the understanding of language paved the way for the logical positivist approach, including Ayer's criticism of metaphysics.
...
I am not suggesting that such an approach is mistaken, but, on the other hand, it may be that the ideas of the system building of Plato, Kant, Schopenhauer and Spinoza are still important. On this forum, many do refer to them and value their writings. Therefore, I do question the idea of the gradual elimination of metaphysics. Empirical knowledge through science is extremely important, but the metaphysical imagination and art of reason may be essential in understanding the larger picture. What do you think? — Jack Cummins
Not individually no but as a collective, yes. The full detailed neuroactivity that happens in your brain when you make a decision/ruling based on earlier information/evidence is not fully understood but it certainly does involve neurons firing and accessing information previously stored in your brain and 'processing' it using your previously developed reasoning techniques.
Computers are mimicries of the human brain and computers contain operating system software as well as application software. In computing science, we call the equivalent software contained in the human brain, 'wetware.' — universeness
Why do you think this is so? Each human gathers empirical evidence from birth. — universeness
The scientific method can be applied by anyone seeking new knowledge of any kind.
It has been honed since the moment a human first started to try to make sense of its own existence, so It's not exclusive to scientists or only when a person is doing science.
Any idea, suggestion or belief should be challenged, modeled, tested, evaluated etc.
I will not accept something as true until I see the evidence that it's true. — universeness
I think even human instincts, are based on empirical evidence gained by our earliest ancestors. — universeness
In Carl Sagan's book 'The Dragons of Eden.' He talks about the human sounds 'shhhhhhhhhhh' and 'pssssssssssst.' Scientists suggest that human babies recognise these two sounds from birth, instinctively. They are signals for a human to become quieter and come from our days in the wild, living in caves at night. They are both sounds that reptiles make. Reptiles were the biggest nighttime threat to humans sleeping in caves and they could find you if you made a sound. — universeness
. Personally I would never use the word faith to describe reasonable actions taken in the world. When I catch a plane or go travelling I don't base the decision on faith but a 'reasonable confidence' that the plans will work out and the plane won't crash. This is a rational position based on the fact that travel and planes generally work safely. Faith, on the other hand, is an excuse for believing something when there is no good reason. — Tom Storm
My answer is that this reasonableness is mostly a trick of language. We say the plane will stay up in the air and the train will arrive regardless of the shifting grounds of the sciences that makes these devices possible. — Joshs
Faith, on the other hand, is an excuse for believing something when there is no good reason. — Tom Storm
"Personally I would never use the word faith to describe reasonable actions taken in the world." — universeness
At one extreme you put the knowledge that the plane won’t fall out of the air, which you associate with reason and rationality. — Joshs
how can matters be so dependably rational at the lower applied level of our everyday dealings with machines, but have the ground be so unstable at the highest meta-theoretical level? After all, the former is just a subordinate component of the latter. — Joshs
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.