Yes, but when I accuse them of holding a belief in authoritative Scientism, they don't seem to see what's wrong with that. Instead, they appear to think that Philosophy should be subservient to the final authority of infallible Empirical Science. But, when I ask for book, chapter & verse from their "unquestionable" Science Bible, I get no answer.As a common enough example, for such people proclaiming “science says so” is to proclaim the unquestionable truth of that which is stipulated. . . . .
Any position held on all of these many issues then being entirely metaphysical claims. — javra
Are these aggressive anti-philosophy beliefs being promulgated in universities these days? — Gnomon
We all consciously or unconsciously cling to some form of what Mircea Eliade termed an axis mundi when more abstractly appraised—some core conviction regarding the nature of the world via which we assimilate all novel information, without which we would loose our bearings, around which all of what we interpret to be the world pivots, and which, because of all this, we either implicitly or explicitly consider to be sacred (at the very least in relation to ourselves). — javra
I think this is an egregious generalization—all I can think of to say in response is "speak for yourself". — Janus
As you've expressed in a post elsewhere last time we chatted, you don't care what I think. All the same:
1) I am speaking for myself: it's my established worldview. (Right up there with you not being a p-zombie.)
2) On what rational or empirical grounds do you affirm that what I previous expressed is "an egregious generalization"? (Hint: that "I don't like it" is not such a justification.) — javra
No empirical or logical grounds can be adduced to support or deny the contention. It comes down to how you see people and whether in this particular connection you see uniformity or diversity. — Janus
comes down to an opinion that you can provide no meaningful justification for, outside of “it doesn’t sit well with my own intuitions”. — javra
Read more carefully what I actually wrote and you might find I never once mentioned that we cling to “metaphysical worldviews” but to “some core conviction regarding the nature of the world — javra
Can you provide for your contention that people cling to “some core conviction regarding the nature of the world via which we assimilate all novel information"some "meaningful justification" for "outside of “it doesn’t sit well with my own intuitions”"? — Janus
Can you explain the difference? — Janus
Are the examples I just provided to this very effect rationally or empirically in any way contradictory to - or else do they in any way not cohere to - reality as we all know it? — javra
For one thing, a metaphysical worldview is a strictly conscious construct which is itself pivoted upon - and hence not equivalent to - some core conviction (or core set of convictions to be more precise) regarding the causal, spatial, temporal, etc. nature of the world, the later often enough not being consciously analyzable in fully explicit manners the way that the metaphysical worldview is. — javra
I don't know, I don't know what examples you are referring to — Janus
For just one example, were one to witness billiard balls randomly fall through solid table tops or else hover in midair, one would hold a confirmation bias in line with one’s core ontological understanding as to what is in fact possible. Most would assume it to either be stage magic or tricks of the eye precisely due to this confirmation bias. Whether or not miracles can occur is again determined by one’s core ontology’s confirmation bias. — javra
It seems to me that the terms 'worldview' and metaphysics' are too often used interchangeably and this is confusing. I think, by reflective reasoning, the latter attempts to globally make sense of (i.e. translate into conceptual categories) the local 'presuppositions and implications' (i.e. parochial biases ~ e.g. mythological, theological and/or ideological blindspots) of the former; in other words, 'worldview' is to (native) grammar plus (naive) vocabulary/idioms as 'metaphysics' is to theoretical linguistics – or object-discursive & meta-discursive, respectively — 180 Proof
I am thinking that it is only in the philosophies that came after Hegel and were strongly influenced by him that we get an articulation of metaphysics as comparable to worldview. That is, as an overarching framework of intelligibility that orients us to the world and ties all its aspects together in a global unity, but that in most cases is held naively, unconsciously. — Joshs
Because of examples such as these, I don’t then necessarily equate a being’s often unconsciously occurring Umwelt (for lack of a better word) to - in the case of humans - the self-professed worldview which is consciously upheld and maintained. — javra
". To be clearer, do you find that hypocrisy in what is maintained in praxis and what is professed via propositions cannot occur and, if so, due to what reason(s)? — javra
I’ve met self-proclaimed non-spiritual atheists that uphold this metaphysical worldview but are in practice superstitious and affirm things like “your car was broken into today because you weren’t cordial to person A last week” or, as an example of the flipside, self-proclaimed Christians that adhere to all ritual aspects of their faith and uphold this metaphysical worldview while at the same time in practice being in many a way atheistic (e.g., they fear - and hence innately believe - death to be a cessation of being; or else don’t believe in the occurrence of spiritual realities in the here and now, as contrasted to occurring for biblical figures (e.g., “burning bushes” are OK biblically but not in reality that is lived); etc.) - this to not address the grave hypocrisies in ethical principles relative to Jesus Christ’s teaching that often enough occur (the ontology of values being in many a way metaphysical). — javra
For just one example, were one to witness billiard balls randomly fall through solid table tops or else hover in midair, one would hold a confirmation bias in line with one’s core ontological understanding as to what is in fact possible. Most would assume it to either be stage magic or tricks of the eye precisely due to this confirmation bias. Whether or not miracles can occur is again determined by one’s core ontology’s confirmation bias. — javra
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.