Comments

  • What’s your description of Metaphysics?
    Does your negative ontology "eliminate the impossible," or does it simply eliminate "what is impossible given certain unquestioned and taken-for-granted presuppositions?" — Count Timothy von Icarus
    I think of it this way: Any world that contains, or is constituted by, either contradictions or objects with inconsistent properties is, in terms of modal logic, impossible; therefore, such constituent entities (i.e. versions of the world) are necessary fictions.

    Can it only ever say what is impossible from within a given framework and are all frameworks equally valid?
    Yes and no. I use terms of modal logic (e.g. actual, contingent, possible, necessary, impossible) since it is the clearest, most precise "framework" I've found. Specifically, actualism rather than possibilism.

    Is it a problem for "impossible" or contradictory claims to be considered equally valid?
    No. They are equally fictional.

    ... total relativism. And the problems related to relativism seem particularly acute when claims about "how the world is," "how experience is," etc. are brought in ...
    I agree. "Total relativism" (like global skepticism; existential/semantic/epistemological/ontological nihilism) is self-refuting. I think (aspect, property & valence) pluralism is a more reasonable principle – and very strongly correlated with actualism (as well as N. Goodman's irrealism) – for which variations, or counterparts, are neither equivalent (i.e. "equally valid" in every circumstance) nor always, or even mostly, commensurable. Yes, like the heights and depths of a landscape, most(?) valid paths / positions are patently better or worse – more adequate or less adequate – than others.
  • What’s your description of Metaphysics?
    ↪Count Timothy von Icarus
    IME, the reliance on dictionary definitions for key terms (or distinctions) muddles more than it clarifies in philosophical discussions, especially where there are precise terms of art in standard usage. I stand by my answer: negative ontology, like any other speculative supposition (i.e. philosophical proposal) or formal expression (e.g. logic, mathematics), is definitely not falsifiable – it is a criteriological method and not a hypothetical explanation of phenomena.
  • What’s your description of Metaphysics?
    ↪Count Timothy von Icarus
    Falsification (Popper) isn't a term used to indicate the mere negative truth-value of a proposition but precisely that to be falsifiable means 'experimental tests of an explanatory model's predictions can fail'. Don't confuse the issue, Count: IMO, metaphysics is not theoretical (Witty).
  • Absential Materialism
    ↪ucarr
    Glad to be helpful. :up:

    ... cartoon of Gnomon, as a New Age nut, touting Quantum Mysticism [ ... ] the observing mind plays a role in the results of sub-atomic experiments ... — Gnomon
    :clap: :rofl: That's all folks!

    It is with sadness that every so often I spend a few hours on the internet, reading or listening to the mountain of stupidities dressed up with the word 'quantum'. Quantum medicine; holistic quantum theories of every kind, mental quantum spiritualism – and so on, and on, in an almost unbelievable parade of quantum nonsense. — Carlo Rovelli, Hegoland, pp. 159-60
    :fire:
  • What’s your description of Metaphysics?
    Is the "elimination of the impossible," or discovery of "ways the world necessarily could not have been or cannot be described," not, broadly speaking, a form of falsification? — Count Timothy von Icarus
    No. It's a logical expression, not a scientific claim.
  • What’s your description of Metaphysics?
    Much of metaphysics consists in playing dialectically with language—what if such and such (such and such that is the dialectical opposite of what we actually encounter) is really the case. — Janus
    :up: :up: Thus, in the main 'kataphatic metaphysics' – the Classical / Aristotlean tradition – is ad hoc (e.g. "this is the Really Real"-of-the-gaps), mostly derived from invalid arguments, which usually amounts to dogma like "only Euclidean geometry is Really Real because non-Euclidean geometries are mere appearances" or as you suggest "what if this / my set of axioms is Absolute ..."

    A typically incorrigible example:
    I prefer to think of Metaphysics [ ... ] attempting to gain an omniscient worldview. — Gnomon
    :mask:
  • What’s your description of Metaphysics?
    ↪Count Timothy von Icarus
    I don't understand your response to my post (re: negative ontology). Plesse clarify.
  • Analysis of Goodness
    ↪Tom Storm
    :up:
  • TPF Quote Cabinet
    ↪Mikie
    :cool:
  • Absential Materialism
    Metaphysics is little more than the logical grammar undergirding the conceptual dimensions of science. It's neither beyond nor above science. It's something akin to an emergent property of science. — ucarr
    :up: :up:

    Thus, in the first century BCE Andronicus of Rhodes who had edited Aristotle's corpus had titled the philosophia prima The Book Following The Book On Nature aka "metà tà physikà tá" (as in following from re: categorical generalizations / essential conditions of explaining nature aka "physics"). Woo-of-the-gaps sophists like @Gnomon and other idealists / antirealist / supernaturalists naively(?) invert the Classical order – ahistorically make sh*t up – and incorrigibly misconstrue physics (i.e. science) as the product of – following from – "Meta-physics" (e.g. nous, the one, pure reason, geist, beyng ... "Enformer"). :sparkle: :roll:
  • What’s your description of Metaphysics?
    :roll:

    Metaphysics is the opposite of Materialism — Gnomon
    :rofl: And yet "materialism" is a form of "metaphysics."

    PHYSICS vs METAPHYSICS = PART vs WHOLE — Gnomon
    :lol: So a 'whole atom' exceeds the grasp of physics?

    ↪javra
    :up:
  • Analysis of Goodness
    ↪Bob Ross
    Well if my meaning isn't clear enough for you in my previous post, then I can't help you, Bob.
  • Argument against Post-Modernism in Gender History
    :ok: :rofl:
  • How to do nothing with Words.
    ↪Banno
    :smirk: :up:
  • Is perfection subjective ?
    ↪Tom Storm
    :up:
  • Argument against Post-Modernism in Gender History
    ↪AmadeusD
    :rofl: Typical.
  • Argument against Post-Modernism in Gender History
    ↪AmadeusD
    :ok: Gotcha. So you cannot cite a single reputable scientific source to warrant acceptance of 'biological determinism of patriarchical hierarchies'.
  • Analysis of Goodness
    ↪Bob Ross
    Your objections do not make sense to me. I've not made any "assertions", Bob, you have in your OP, and I find them based on arbitrary (i.e. context-free yet non-formal) definitions which you fail to provide any discursive reasons, or justification, for me/us to accept rather than some other definitions. For instance "goodness" – but I'm not a Platonist (i.e. essentialist). This is why I recommended some disparate readings in modern moral philosophy.
  • Argument against Post-Modernism in Gender History
    Biological determinism?
    — 180 Proof

    Is a fact of life.     — AmadeusD
    Evidence (i.e. a reputable scientific source)?
  • Argument against Post-Modernism in Gender History
    How is young Jordan, I wonder?
    — Banno

    I expect he is still making profitable use of the vacuum in many people's lives, like L Ron Hubbard, Ayn Rand and many others before him.     — Tom Storm
    :up:

    Like tRump, charlatanry never sleeps because gullibility and stupidity never sleep.

    ... the biology of males [ ... ] Simply put, the necessity for governors, administrators, military, and more for a society to function calls upon the male biology of a hierarchical structure. The female biology of gathering and caring for children [ ... ] gender roles arise naturally ... and women are meant to be the homemakers and child caretakers, while men are meant to be the organizers [ ... ] Most women are simply not capable, by biology ... — ButyDude
    For fuck's sake – Biological determinism? Teleological reductionism? Pre-(ahistorical)-historicism? etc :zip:

    Yes of course I have religious views, does not everybody have a view on religion and God? — ButyDude
    Not "Eeerybody has a view on religion and God" that is evidence-free – faith-based – and thereby supports an ideology (e.g. patriarchy-misogyny-caste) rationalized with logical fallacies and sophistry.

    ... get over my religious beliefs
    In this dialectical context, "religious beliefs" are problematic only when they're relied upon in lieu of reasonable assumptions or valid arguments. No one here cares what you "believe", BDude; instead what matters is how good (or poorly) you reason despite (or because of) your unstated, so-caalled "religious beliefs". :mask:

    I highly recommend The Dawn of Everything by anthropologist David Graeber and archeologist David Wingrow. — Joshs
    :clap: Excellent!

    ↪unenlightened
    :100: :up:
  • How May Esoteric Thinking and Traditions be Understood and Evaluated Philosophically?
    :sparkle:
    :roll:
  • Time travel to the past hypothetically possible?
    The only possible way is if the multiverse is true, if all probabilities has their own branch, but then there's no point in going back in time to do anything as you cannot change the future you came from. It would be closer to traveling to other universes rather than specifically traveling back in time. And any change would only just fraction into new branches ... — Christoffer
    :up: :up:


    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/690858 :nerd:
  • Analysis of Goodness
    I think it's more reasonable to assume that the meanings of discursive terms like "perfection" "in itself" "good" "moral" "pragmatic" "harmony" "absolute" ... are context-dependent rather than 'Platonic universals' as assumed apparently by the statements in the OP.

    some varied (modern) readings:

    • On the Genealogy of Morals, F. Nietzsche
    • Human Nature and Conduct, J. Dewey
    • The Sovereignty of Good, I. Murdoch
    • Reasons and Persons, D. Parfit
    • Natural Goodness, P. Foot
    • Creating Capabilities, M. Nussbaum
  • How May Esoteric Thinking and Traditions be Understood and Evaluated Philosophically?
    Difficult physics and math subjects are not esoteric in my book, they are just difficult. — Janus
  • Do you believe in aliens?
    ↪Vera Mont
    :up: :up:
  • What’s your description of Metaphysics?
    ↪Janus
    :up:
  • What’s your description of Metaphysics?
    I hold that our metaphysical beliefs underpin the way we actually live our lives. — Pantagruel
    Well, the circularity of your "metaphysical belief", sir, begs the question. Besides, Christians mostly do not "actually live" Christ-like or miraculous "lives" even though 'Christ & miracles' are explicit "metaphysical beliefs" (e.g. Thomism, Calvinism) just as atheist materialists mostly do not "actually live" purposeless "lives" even though 'the purposelessness of material existence' is an explicit "metaphysical belief (e.g. nihilism, absurdism). Under existential-pragmatic scrutiny, sir, your espousal of Collingwood's absolute idealism does not hold up.

    ↪Janus
    :up: :up:
  • How May Esoteric Thinking and Traditions be Understood and Evaluated Philosophically?
    ↪bert1
    :up: As your "misconcepttion" ... seems to demonstrate.
  • What’s your description of Metaphysics?
    science makes metaphysical presuppositions. — Pantagruel
    Scientists "make" working or methodological assumptions which themselves presuppose "metaphysical" commitments; changing such assumptions can also change what those assumptions presuppose (e.g. Newtonian absolute space & absolute time vs Einsteinian relativistic spacetime vs (background-dependent) string theory vs (background-independent) loop quantum gravity ...)
  • How May Esoteric Thinking and Traditions be Understood and Evaluated Philosophically?
    I do really enjoy philosophy and the exploration of new ways of seeing and framing 'reality'. The mysteries themselves are part of the adventure. — Jack Cummins
    I suspect one person's "mysteries" (pace G. Marcel) are another person's misconceptions ... or false positives (D. Dennett) or nostalgias (A. Camus).
  • Do you believe in aliens?
    ↪an-salad
    Yes – a very high probability wherever there is liquid water, etc. :up:
  • Ten Questions About Time-Travel trips
    :nerd: What I picked-up from conversation with some backtravelers at a local hash bar...

    1. Only passengers. Trip duration varies. One way backtravel (to the past) only, no return.

    2. Before leaving consult a date-stamped map of destination for areas without buildings at that time.

    3. Yes, you will still be you.

    4. Wherewhenever you arrive it'll be a 'quantum-fidelity simulation' just like your present.

    5. On Earth up to about 2 million years ago – yes there will be living "humans".

    6. SOL ...

    7. See no. 1: no return. Backtravelers are there for the duration (unless they can build another time machine out of local materials and travel further back in time).

    8. See no. 7.

    9. Check with time machine operator ...

    10. n/a

    If you could go, would you go? — BC
    Nope.

    update:

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/880112
  • Do you believe in aliens?
    ↪an-salad
    What precisely do you mean by "aliens"?
  • How May Esoteric Thinking and Traditions be Understood and Evaluated Philosophically?
    The worst possibility is to become so burdened by the nature of philosophical problems as to be incapacitated or dysfunctional. At an an extreme point, it would be possible to become so overwhelmed as if one needed answers in order to live. — Jack Cummins
    Do you fear becoming "overwhelmed" by particular questions or inquiry as such?
  • What’s your description of Metaphysics?
    ↪Janus
    :up:

    ↪Rob J Kennedy
    Like Collingwood, are you an 'absolute idealist' (& historicist)?
  • How May Esoteric Thinking and Traditions be Understood and Evaluated Philosophically?
    [T]he limits of our knowledge and as such is not a problem, but a demarcation or delimitation. The absolute nature of things is an intractable mystery in one sense, but in another it can simply be seen as a matter of definition: that is that we cannot by mere definition see beyond our perceptions, experience and the judgements that evolve out of those. Anything that we project into that space must be confabulation. — Janus
    :100: :up: :up:

    ... esoteric thought as a way of going beyond literalism. Esotericism was also a way of going beyond the fundamentalism of many other religious ideas [ ... ] focusing on the idea of God, life after death and free will. Such ideas are answered so subjectively because there is no proof.  — Jack Cummins
    Have you ever considered the 'left-handed' school, or counter-tradition, of freethinking in philosophy (a wiki link is below)? Once the insight had struck me that "answers" were mosty just questions' way of generating more questions, I finally gave up the "religious" pursuit of "answers" (and stopped titling at windmills!) for philosophizing – reasoning to the best, or most probative, questions – only about what natural beings (encompassed by nature and with limited natural capacities) can learn about nature – and therefore about how to flourish. :fire:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freethought

    NB: Also consider both the Buddhist Parable of the Poisoned Arrow and Epicurean Tetrapharmakon as ancient examplars, East and West respectively, of questions of flourishing (i.e. eudaimonia) in spite of a perennial lack of "answers to mysteries" ...

    :death: :flower:
  • How May Esoteric Thinking and Traditions be Understood and Evaluated Philosophically?
    ... unreasonable expectations ... As if by asking a question there must then be an answer. — Fooloso4
    :up: :up:
  • How May Esoteric Thinking and Traditions be Understood and Evaluated Philosophically?
    ↪Count Timothy von Icarus
    My take away from your reply to my question, Count, is that @Jack Cummins' (& @Wayfarer's) "esoterica" do not make any non-trivial differences in contemporary philosophy (i.e. reflectively reasoning about the enabling-constraints, or limits, of reasoning (to the best, or most probative, questions which we (still) do not know how to answer (re: aporias))). So far on this thread I've not found a convincing or even interestingly intelligible case made to the contrary.

    IME, philosophizing is like playing Chess (or Go) in which critical paths (i.e truths) are only "hidden" in plain sight by the dialectics of complementary & oppositional moves; thus, IMO, there aren't any "mysteries", just intractable uncertainties (i.e. ineffable / unanswerable questions) for us to play out (or reason together about). For me, Count, talk of "hidden knowledge" "spirituality" "poetry" "the whole at a glance" "mystical" etc with respect to philosophy (as per the OP) confuses and mystifies rather than clarifies, or makes explicit (i.e. problematizes), what we are actually doing when we philosophize (as per e.g. freethought ... Spinoza, Hume ... Witty, Dewey ... Q. Meillassoux), that is, I think, dialectically proposing 'rational-critical suppositions' which are, as much as possible, free of dogmatic cant, pseudo-science sophistry & occulting mystagoguery. :sparkle: :eyes: :mask:
  • What’s your description of Metaphysics?
    Metaphysics [ ... ] the question shifts somewhat from what is the nature of the world to: "what is it that can we say, given the creatures we are, about the nature of the world." — Manuel
    :up:
  • What’s your description of Metaphysics?
    ↪Count Timothy von Icarus
    So what about my very brief sketch of "negative ontology" gave you reason to remind me that "metaphysics" ... "must be dialectical"?
Home » 180 Proof