I still say that it's mistaken to present the Tao Te Ching as an exemplar of metaphysics, — Wayfarer

Not, as a whole, an "exemplar," if you like. But it's defensible to hold that the Tao Te Ching has ontological, and therefore metaphysical, content.

But it's defensible to hold that the Tao Te Ching has ontological, and therefore metaphysical, content. — ZzzoneiroCosm

I agree - I said earlier that in the vernacular sense, Taoism is part of metaphysics. But the more you drill down into those different cultural forms, the greater the differences between different metaphysical schemas appears. If you disregard that you end up with a kind of 'one-size-fits-all' syncretism, which is what most people mean by 'metaphysics'.

(My entry point into metaphysics was the conviction (or realisation) of the reality of numbers and other such intelligible objects.)

Not, as a whole, an "exemplar," if you like. But it's defensible to hold that the Tao Te Ching has ontological, and therefore metaphysical, content. — ZzzoneiroCosm

For me, the Tao Te Ching is primarily, not incidentally, a metaphysical document. It is fundamentally about the nature of reality. Ontology. Metaphysics. Yes, I know I said I was done, but, like Popeye, that's all I can stands and I can't stands no more. Now I'm going to sleep.

Science is the isolation of observed variables. Philosophy is a special study of language. Metaphysics is a misunderstanding of language.

Pragmatism (Peirce) already eliminated metaphysics, quite a long time ago I might add, by asking a simple question "does a metaphysical propositions's truth/falsity matter to us in any real, tangible way?" The answer was "no, it doesn't!"

You might expound on why, then, 'in Peirce’s opinion, “nominalism” does not take the category of thirdness to be real'. It sounds a thoroughly metaphysical argument. I think the thrust is, Pierce dismisses 'a priori' metaphysics, not metaphysics altogether. But then, that's probably a metaphysical distinction. :wink:

I think it could be a useful term in science if it was strictly defined as information about and the implications of current physics knowledge.
I think there is no harm in ‘imaginative projections,’ of what current physics might imply. I agree that we should reserve the ‘nonsense’ categorical trash bin for terms like ectoplasm but I think we could use the term metaphysics to describe some of the current projections of physics.

Well one thing is for sure, the very interesting exchange here between @Clarky, @Wayfarer, @ZzzoneiroCosm et al has exemplified my claim (perhaps quite an obvious observation/claim really) that the term ‘metaphysics,’ is indeed currently way way overburdened. We should start a petition to get it redefined into a more useful term.

Well I for one was trying to unburden it of what I thought were questionable associations with Chinese philosophy, to return it to its Platonist-Aristotelian roots.

I looked up the terms metalogic and metalogos, to compare with metaphysics. Metalogos offered little. Metalogic, offered:
Metalogic is the study of the metatheory of logic. Whereas logic studies how logical systems can be used to construct valid and sound arguments, metalogic studies the properties of logical systems. Logic concerns the truths that may be derived using a logical system; metalogic concerns the truths that may be derived about the languages and systems that are used to express truths.

:chin:

:smile: you created a flash image in my head of a heavily laden man, making a loud appreciative ‘phew’ sound as you lifted some weight from his burden. He then uttered the words ‘aw for f*** sake,’ as @Clarky threw the weight straight back on him. :rofl:
I know, I need some therapy! :halo:

We should start a petition to get it redefined into a more useful term. — universeness

The US congress, doing emphatically not shit, I'm thinking could squeeze it in between summer and fall, or Thanksgiving and Christmas, hiati.

I looked up the terms metalogic and metalogos, — universeness

Try 'metanoia'. That is a word with an interesting heritage, and it ain't a modern innovation.

For me, the Tao Te Ching is primarily, not incidentally, a metaphysical document. I — Clarky

I get that. Doing my best here to ferret out a locus of concurrence. Next we'll pick pistols for the partially-primarily gage. I call it progress. :smile:

√RE: To What Extent Can Metaphysics Be Eliminated From Philosophy?
SUBTOPIC: Application and Distinction
⁜→ Agent Smith, Wayfarer, universeness, et al,

Pragmatism (Peirce) already eliminated metaphysics, quite a long time ago I might add, by asking a simple question "does a metaphysical propositions's truth/falsity matter to us in any real, tangible way?" The answer was "no, it doesn't!"[/reply]
(COMMENT)

Pragmatism, as it applies to "metaphysics" is not valid (yet!)... We do NOT know what works and what does not work. But, the Shroud of Turin (already discussed) is tangible evidence, just as the Miracle of Lanciano - as examined and verified through experimentation (over a year) by the World Health Organization. And again, the Body (St Bernadette) is still visited today (from over a hundred years ago) that the clergy called "incorruptible" has not fallen into decay. These are all physical examples that still exist today and defy scientific explanations.

So the spectrum of Metaphysics not yet defined.

I think the thrust is, Pierce dismisses 'a priori' metaphysics, not metaphysics altogether.[/reply]
(COMMENT)

Can we actually say that NO approach (out of the many) to "Metaphysics" includes a theoretical deduction?

Clearly, for some, tangible or actual evidence of an event, occurrence, event, or happening is a prerequisite to acceptance. Like e^{x} where some value approached a point beyond which it can never reach, the scope of Metaphysics has no defined limit beyond the natural world (reality) which it cannot expand. Metaphysics is an inquiry of an unlimited extent of time, space, energy, or quantity: boundlessness.

I think it could be a useful term in science if it was strictly defined as information about and the implications of current physics knowledge.[/reply]
(COMMENT)

Agreed! At the very least, the examination should include the specific question under investigation, a hypothesis, methods, and limitations before the results of the study are released.

Most Respectfully,
R

You might expound on why, then, 'in Peirce’s opinion, “nominalism” does not take the category of thirdness to be real'. It sounds a thoroughly metaphysical argument. I think the thrust is, Pierce dismisses 'a priori' metaphysics, not metaphysics altogether. But then, that's probably a metaphysical distinction. :wink: — Wayfarer

Crumbs! I would've loved to be Peirce-pragmatic and be done with metaphysical mumbo jumbo with one fell swoop of a question (does it matter, in practical terms, whether metaphysical claims are true/false?) I wonder if we could find the middle ground, you know. pare down metaphysics into something more manageable?

Pragmatism, as it applies to "metaphysics" is not valid (yet!)... We do NOT know what works and what does not work. But, the Shroud of Turin (already discussed) is tangible evidence, just as the Miracle of Lanciano - as examined and verified through experimentation (over a year) by the World Health Organization. And again, the Body (St Bernadette) is still visited today (from over a hundred years ago) that the clergy called "incorruptible" has not fallen into decay. These are all physical examples that still exist today and defy scientific explanations. — Rocco Rosano

Once the message is received, neither the sender (God) nor the medium (the messenger/prophet) are no longer of any significance, oui? In other words Peirce's pragmatism works, oui?

I wonder if we could find the middle ground, you know, pare down metaphysics into something more manageable? — Agent Smith

You have to begin with some kind of handle on what it means. As I've said, I feel as though I have gotten a sense of it, through an intuitive understanding of some elements of Platonism but what I think seems intuitively clear seems completely baffling to a lot of people, for reasons I can't really understand.



Thanks for your comments. Here's a tip - when you want to quote what another poster has said, select the text in question, and you'll see a floating quote button appear. Click (or tap) on that, and the selected text will appear with the correct attribution. If you want to reply to a post without quoting it, click (or tap) at the bottom of that post, a curved arrow will appear, click (or tap) on that.

I am not sure about your idea of seeing 'metaphysics as the understanding of language'. All thinking is done in language, as the basis of forming concepts. Metaphysics is the process of this historically. Certainly, as time has gone on more knowledge is verified empirically, through science. Nevertheless, the grasping of concepts is still essential for understanding theories and thinking about empirical knowledge, so metaphysics is still important as the underlying foundation linked to language. Perhaps, both language and metaphysics can be juxtaposed effectively.

It seems that your post was your first on this forum. So, I welcome you to the forum. I hope that you find plenty of worthwhile discussion of ideas and I look forward to further interaction with you.

"does a metaphysical propositions's truth/falsity matter to us in any real, tangible way?" The answer was "no, it doesn't!" — Rocco Rosano

Could we not rid ourselves of the bulk of philosophy in this way?

You have to begin with some kind of handle on what it means. As I've said, I feel as though I have gotten a sense of it, through an intuitive understanding of some elements of Platonism but what I think seems intuitively clear seems completely baffling to a lot of people, for reasons I can't really understand. — Wayfarer

I'm glad to know you're ahead of the pack; maybe metaphysics isn't meant for everybody, just like skydiving isn't.

I just happened to come across a Wikipedia page (forgot the title; trust me to remember things! :smile: ) which makes a passing mention of what (Buddhist) meditation is all about - the contemplation of existence (being/ontology) [with respect to identity and change] {i.e. metaphysics proper}.

In metaphysics qua ontology, we have the primal instinct of (conscious) beings fixated on being, employing both the faculties of reason & imagination. The objective? Temet nosce (existence trying to figure what existence is all about).

We need to appeal to something with more global reach that the US congress. We could post it as a yes/no suggestion on the biggest discussion forum in the world?
Is that TPF yet?

I am not sure about your idea of seeing 'metaphysics as the understanding of language'. — Jack Cummins

Perhaps, both language and metaphysics can be juxtaposed effectively — Jack Cummins

You should look up ‘metalogic,’ it may provide a good link with metaphysics.

I like what I think you are saying. I have always thought like this since infancy. So many people around me tried to crush this. Metaphors are rather like fractals.

To Shannon, Wheeler and Halliday existence is an expression of meaning. Popper in later years mused upon propensity fields. Husserl (whose writings the fake tolerant William James suppressed, to Bertrand Russell's horror) regarded ontology as a branch of logic.

In my view, there is something rather than nothing, because we are on an existence wave. I don't know what the other waves "look" like. But that's why the other verses in the "multi verse" aren't up to so much.

Metaphysics may be the logic in Nature. We find it enjoyable and interesting to discuss science and knowledge in a sense that is an approximation to the non-anthropic. To claim to make something cast iron actually makes it less firm.

Doesn't the entire problematic of this thread revolve around differing definitions of the word "metaphysics"? In which case, we are not really asking, can metaphysics be eliminated so much as, what is metaphysics? The book I am reading now oscillates between incompatible subjectivist and objectivist views in the context of neo-Kantianism. Is it epistemology? Is it metaphysics?

Some people for some reason have a dire fear, distrust, or dislike for the term metaphysics (which probably stems from the particular focus of their historical-philosophical background knowledge). Given the ubiquity/centrality of the debate, it seems unlikely that metaphysics will be eliminated from philosophical discourse any time soon. More likely it will continue to be a topic of deep contention.

And isn't that the hallmark of something of philosophically interesting?

Try 'metanoia'. That is a word with an interesting heritage, and it ain't a modern innovation. — Wayfarer

Nah! Seems like another ‘compromised,’ word with all sorts of religious bs connotations. It started off ok and then fell away.
I got:

Metanoia, an Ancient Greek word (μετάνοια) meaning "changing one's mind",

may refer to:
Metanoia (psychology), the process of experiencing a psychotic "breakdown" and subsequent, positive psychological re-building or "healing"
Metanoia (rhetoric), correction, a rhetorical device
Metanoia (theology), "conversion" and "reformation" or repentance
Metanoia Films, a film production company
Metanoia, a word for the act of prostration in Christianity
Metanoia, a direct climbing route opened in 1991 by Jeff Lowe on the Eiger's north face

rid ourselves of the bulk of philosophy — ZzzoneiroCosm

truth/falsity — Rocco Rosano

The dumbed down so called "truth" / "falsity" tables were at best a "blind alley" in Susan Haack's opinion. That is all the cynical sophistry and pharisaism of the nihilists and resurgents is. Children should trust their own observation, contemplation and insight, and good hearts, more strongly. My own life was devastated because this got wrenched out of me.

Alfred Whitehead is an eye opener

The easy way to get an ought form an is is to respect what and who is. (Respect = ought.) This is why deep down true morals have got to do with morale, as Julian Baggini points out.

Yes, and it is manageable, if we manage it. Peirce didn't think anything remotely what Rocco says. And neither does he dismiss sender and medium. Peirce's trick is to take everything into account - same as Husserl does - for the health of science, personality, civilisation etc.

Reductionism is to always insist everything be made less than less. The essence of the real is to grow into growth.

Pragmatism (Peirce) already eliminated metaphysics, quite a long time ago I might add, by asking a simple question "does a metaphysical propositions's truth/falsity matter to us in any real, tangible way?" The answer was "no, it doesn't!"[ — Rocco Rosano

As R.G. Collingwood wrote long after Peirce, and as I quoted earlier in this thread:

Metaphysics is the attempt to find out what absolute presuppositions have been made by this or that person or group of persons, on this or that occasion or group of occasions, in the course of this or that piece of thinking.

Prop. 5. Absolute presuppositions are not propositions.

This is because they are never answers to questions; whereas a proposition is that which is stated, and whatever is stated is stated in answer to a question. The point I am trying to make clear goes beyond what I have just been saying, viz. that the logical efficacy of an absolute presupposition is independent of its being true: it is that the distinction between truth and falsehood does not apply to absolute presuppositions at all, that distinction being peculiar to propositions...

...Hence any question involving the presupposition that an absolute presupposition is a proposition, such as the questions ‘Is it true?’ ‘What evidence is there for it?’ ‘How can it be demonstrated?’ ‘What right have we to presuppose it if it can’t?’, is a nonsense question. — Clarky

Doing my best here to ferret out a locus of concurrence. — ZzzoneiroCosm

[irony]No need for concurrence. Just knowing I'm right is enough.[/irony]