I'm not sure human nature is a useful frame. — Tom Storm

A difference of opinion then, or at least perspective.

No. The human condition is what we deal with on this earth. You may say that all of those centrisms are part of the human condition, but that is not the point that I am going for. Arendt, in her book, discusses the different phases of man's progress and industry and artifice as part of the human condition, but I want to discover the human condition of successful autochthonous humans on this earth. We have tech that is able to solve more problems than we are. Why aren't we? I think the failure is due to (in the past ethnocentricity has hurt people and benefited a few) technocentricity. If we discover the method of success for the several hundred thousand years before civilization, we may be able to deal with climate change, tectonic plate shift, vulcanism, etc. — isomorph

I don't know if you've seen it, but there is another discussion now on the forum that addresses some of these issues -

The ethical issue: Does it scale? — apokrisis

Meanwhile other more ecologically-savvy agricultural practices – permaculture and regenerative farming – haven't scaled as they too directly challenge the Big Business status quo. — apokrisis

Could they scale economically and technologically without that resistance? Could they close those gaps in food production factors you identified previously?

And then this. The US choose to continue growth at all costs. It had only propped up world trade and Middle East oil deliveries to get the world out of its cycles of European and Asian wars. US was its own well-resourced and well-populated continental market. It did not need world trade itself. It is uniquely blessed in its geostrategic position. — apokrisis

There's a lot of talk these days about the gap between the very rich and the rest of us. Worker's pay hasn't really risen since the 1970s while the richest gather a larger and larger percentage of the wealth. How much of that has to do with globalization? To what extent does globalization lead to improvement in the standard of living for people in Asia, Africa, and South American at the expense of those in North America and Europe? If the only path to a new golden age is the dilution of the western way of life by spreading it around to the rest of the world, what realistic political strategy will lead us in that direction? As you note, the US has a viable alternative - fuck em all.

A really big game is being played by the US that no-one ever seems to talk about openly. Under Trump, Biden and whoever is allowed to follow them. The idea is that is scaling is it is time to bunker down as a nation. Canada comes along for its resources, Mexico for its cheap labour. Japan, Taiwan and Korea get to pay to stay in the club. The UK and Australia are useful to a point. — apokrisis

We'll save Australia, wouldn't want to hurt no kangaroos.

Upon making "doing good" advantageous, the people seeking advantage will start doing good.

But then when "doing good" changes, because the world always changes, they'll insist that the old "doing good" is the new "doing good" — Moliere

I guess that's where politics and ethics comes in. We need everyone, or at least enough of us, to agree on what doing good means in this context. And then we're back where we started.

There are many examples of anarchist organizations, — Moliere

Are there examples of large scale, politically effective anarchist organizations. It seems almost like a contradiction in terms.

It's not different. I am saying that humans have confused what their human nature is. Some philosophers have talked about 'authentic personhood', etc., which seems to be an ideal, while autochthonous humanity is what humans are along the whole continuum of human capabilities, i.e., both good and bad, altruism, prejudice, and so on. — isomorph

Beyond my interest in human nature, I have a strong interest in the works of Taoist philosophers Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu. They both are seen as philosophical opponents of Confucius. Taoism has the concept of "Te," translated as virtue or intrinsic virtuosity which I connect with my idea of human nature.

Are you saying that what you call our human condition keeps us from seeing our autochthonous humanity, our human nature?
— T Clark

No. The human condition is simply our circumstance on this earth. I do say that humans are under a cloud, ethnocentricity, anthropocentricity, technocentricity, etc., that covers our nature which made humans successful for several hundred thousand years before civilization came about, — isomorph

I'm not sure I see the difference between what you call the human condition and what you call the cloud. Aren't ethnocentricity, anthropocentricity, technocentricity, etc. part of the human condition? I'm not sure it makes sense to harken back to a past golden age, although, to be fair, Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu tend to do the same thing. I guess everyone does.

What some consider to be human nature seems to me to be a product of social and linguistic constructs rather than a set of inherent traits. — Tom Storm

Careful. Don't make me bark.

I don't disagree that much of what we are is the product of our interactions with the world outside. On the other hand, I think it's important to recognize that much is also built in to us physically, biologically, neurologically. To oversimplify, we humans are creatures of instinct as much, more, than we are of learning and socialization. We are born with the capacity and drive for language. Our minds are structured by evolution to perceive, learn, and act in the world in a way that keeps us alive. I'm reading an interesting book right now - Konrad Lorenz's "Behind the Mirror." In Lorenz's view, it makes sense to look at ourselves as a chain of genetically connected organisms rather than individual creatures or even species. In that sense, the action of evolution over billions of years is us learning to be in the world as much as us sitting in a classroom studying math. I'm trying to decide if I like that way of thinking, but either way, it has forced me to reexamine how I look at all this.

I have a strong belief in the existence and importance of human nature. I tend to growl when I think someone might be questioning that belief. After reading your post, I don't know whether to bark or wag my tail. By which I mean, I'm not sure exactly what your trying to say.

Confucius only emphasized that we have made ourselves different from our autochthonous humanity. Talk of our ‘good nature’ or ‘bad nature’ is a digression and a shallow interpretation of Confucius’ analysis of human nature, and I think leads to dogmatic social and civil policies. — isomorph

The only thing you've told us about Confucius's thoughts about human nature are "By nature men are alike. Through practice they have become far apart.” I'm not sure I know what that means, but I don't see anything about human nature being intrinsically good or bad. How is what you call our "autochthonous humanity" different from human nature?

So, the human condition is how we are in the earth and particularly our world, i.e., the artifacts around us that have been created and that we create. Our world , more than anything else, is the lens through which we judge all else (ethnocentricity). It also blinds us to some things as do cataracts to our vision. — isomorph

Western industrialized culture has produced analytical humanity and that is the cultural cloud covering autochthonous humanity. However, humanity remains as it has in the past. — isomorph

I maintain that humans originate a mistake covered by the cloud of civilization, and that mistake is that we are something other than autochthonous humans. — isomorph

Are you saying that what you call our human condition keeps us from seeing our autochthonous humanity, our human nature? I guess I'm lost.

I don't think you've clearly stated exactly what it is you're trying to say in simple words. The quotations you've provided seem to cloud your meaning instead of making it clearer.

After graduating with my chemistry degree something that dawned on me was how we already have every scientific bit of technology we need to address climate change. The problem isn't a matter of scientific knowledge, but political ability: At present the social organizations we have to deal with collective problems are unable to come to a global solution to a global problem. — Moliere

I've been shocked over the past 20 years or so how much progress has been made in doing what everyone said was impossible - increasing renewable energy production and distribution. Elon Musk and a relatively few entrepreneurs have changed everything. They took a bet on finding a way to make good environmental sense also make good economic sense. Of course technology had to improve in order for it to work, but no one had even really tried before.

I'd say all we have the power to do here is share ideas. Creativity is what's needed, and creative thought is fostered by collective trust and friendship. — Moliere

I don't see how this would work. It's not trust and friendship, it's making doing good economically advantageous. That's the only way I can see.

The problem with coming up with different scenarios is that it doesn't matter which we choose since the powers that be will do what they do regardless of our reasonings. — Moliere

Is this true? The current US administration, Biden, have had a dramatic effect on the direction of technological growth and change by just throwing a few billon, or is it trillion, dollars at it.

And what I like about pairing these ideas is it gives both a critical problem -- the Marxism -- and a different solution than Marxism-Leninism -- organizing along anarchist lines. Further the "anarchy" makes it to where it's not something I'm going to cook up all on my own: I'm going to explore and share and hope we can come up with something that works, because that's all that's ever worked to address collective problems before anyways. — Moliere

Doesn't @apokrisis's scaling require central planning? How can it possibly grow from the anarchist bottom up?

From there, in good times the bacteria can grow exponentially to fill their Petrie dish, or find that they are born into bad times where the dish is full to its brim and drastic degrowth follows. — apokrisis

As Murphy points out, now it's us in the Petrie dish. It's we.

Tribes who live by foraging learn restraint so as to coexist with their environments. — apokrisis

That requires lots of land to move around. I can only forage in my yard to a limited extent. My neighbors squawk if I try to use their property. That leads to agriculture, civilization. I guess we could all be subsistence farmers.

A world where technology fixes all problems. A world where we share and share alike. Or whatever. — apokrisis

I'm not sure that's possible in a world with population density as great as ours. The possibility, fantasy that technology will be able to solve all our problems is about to get really tested for the first time. No more smokestacks in Missouri sending their acid rain to Massachusetts. This is reinforced by how bad scientists have been in the past predicting the environmental/demographic future. In the 1970s, we were told that over-population would destroy the world. Now we're told that one of the biggest problems will be not enough workers. And we're going to run out of fossil fuels while we keep on finding and developing more. Of course, they've also been predicting that nuclear fusion will be producing power within 20 years at least since I was in school in 1970. This doesn't mean I'm a climate denier, but it is part of the argument deniers use.

And to work, any new political/ethical philosophy will have to scale. — apokrisis

When the wealthy venture capitalist sits down with the bright young tech entrepreneur, the only question is "does it scale?". Is this product or service going to go viral. Can my tiny investment reap exponential rewards?

This is an extreme mindset – one very much of today. It could be opposed to its alternative. Not exponential growth but just an expectation of maintaining the world as it has always existed. A venture only needs to be able to cover its own costs and stay in some steady state equilibrium "forever". A no growth society where profit or surplus is limited to that which maintains the existing fabric of life. — apokrisis

Doesn't the first quote contradict the second? What does "scaling" even mean in this context? Scaling requires room to move. Are we talking about some sort of inward growth rather than outward? Is that what technology does? Aren't we skeptical that technology can solve our problems?

Just curiosity, on the graph shown at about 8:30, it shows a dramatic drop in food per capita in the coming years. What would cause that and what does it mean? Mass starvation?
— T Clark

Murphy is using the latest Limits to Growth data. — apokrisis

The chart I referenced in the video shows a dramatic reduction in per capita food production starting in about 2050. If that means mass starvation, doesn't that significantly change the future population predictions. The ones in the graph assume that current trends roughly follow current conditions.

The US is in a happyish position geostrategically. It has the demographics, the geography, the resource wealth, to begin closing in on its own corner of the world and letting the rest of the planet crash as it likes. This retreat from being the sponsor of the current global trade world order had already begun under Trump and Biden only made it quieter and more organised. — apokrisis

This seems odd to me, given how much of the world sees the US as an unwelcome influence. Do we still think that US lead globalization is the solution we're looking for, or even a good thing in and of itself? Is globalization the scalable solution? I guess in some sense it has to be. One-world government? Continuing the de-Balkanization of the past 150 years. 500 years. 2,500 years.

Truly the Boomers slogan, the first. — apokrisis

I resemble that remark.

But I have three children. I have an interest in what happens in the world after I'm gone. It's looking like I might never have any grand-children and it's also looking like that might not be a bad thing.

Philosophical inventiveness and understanding of rapid morality scaling will be a critical community resource. — apokrisis

I don't really understand what this means, which I guess is the point.

I'll say it again, I'm not arguing against anything you or Murphy are saying. I'm just trying to figure out the scope of the issue.

This is an extreme mindset – one very much of today. It could be opposed to its alternative. Not exponential growth but just an expectation of maintaining the world as it has always existed. — apokrisis

Thanks for this thread. Reading in through, I thought of my work history, the companies I have worked for. During those 50 years, I worked for a number of employers, including two wonderful companies - a bookseller and an environmental engineering company. They both started out small with charismatic founders and a close-knit group of his co-founders and then grew to medium-sized companies with about 10 branches and maybe 500 employees each. For both, that was around the point where I jointed the company. Skipping ahead - the bookseller expanded it's number of stores rapidly based on it's strong success. It did not manage the change to a larger company well and then crashed and went out of business. The engineering company grew more slowly and carefully. It opened new offices with managers already working for the company or carefully chosen outsiders. The company treated it's employees well and made sure different offices cooperated with each other rather than competed. But the company was built on the understanding that those there from the beginning who contributed to the start-up would be able to cash out at some point. Eventually that lead to involvement of venture capitalists and finally sale to a large, nation-wide engineering firm.

What's my point? I guess it's that somebody (everybody?) believes that you have to grow to survive.

The answer is obvious. Party will be over by 2040. — apokrisis

Great video. If Murphy is right, growth will be over by around 2040 no matter what we do. We'll have to figure out a way to reach a non-exponential equilibrium, which I guess is the point of your OP. So I'm not really sure if it's an ethical issue at all, rather a logistical one. The ethics comes in when we try to decide how to spread the pain around.

I did have a few questions about his presentation. He didn't really talk about possible changes in energy use per capita. Did he make his calculations based on the assumption that use per capita will not change? Also, did he take issues of capacity into account? Did he assume there would be no capacity issues? As Murphy makes clear, his projections are based on no major changes in the most significant demographic and technological factors. That means it doesn't consider possible changes associated with global warming. None of this is intended as criticism.

Just curiosity, on the graph shown at about 8:30, it shows a dramatic drop in food per capita in the coming years. What would cause that and what does it mean? Mass starvation?

that is the win-win trajectory of growth, which itself is about a choice of some rate between a no-growth maintenance state and an unbridled exponential and pointed to infinity rate.

So that is the challenge. If you agree that the world is into its new era needing a new ethics, a new politics, then what is the algorithm that scales? — apokrisis

As you note, if Murphy and the demographers are right, that isn't a real choice at all. No growth is coming whether we like it or not. How will we handle it? I think the political situation here in the US gives us a good idea how at least one large country will handle it - badly.

We have come out of a certain post-WW2 period of US policed "world peace and prosperity". A mindset built around humanism, democracy, safe seas, free trade and globalised political institutions. But a US dollar sovereignty and light constraints on environmental degradation. — apokrisis

Given that the US isn't likely to handle this all that well, isn't continued US hegemony an obstacle to solving the problem rather than a help?

Then there is the Model B question. It does all does go quite quickly to shit by 2040. What is the meme to be spreading to prepare for a planet that is crashing and burning? How do we brand that as a suitably universalising social response that can be bought across the entire globe as it by then entropically exists? — apokrisis

I can't imagine an answer to this question. Has any human group with more than 1,000 people ever done something like that before, especially without new land to expand into. I'm really afraid for my children.

Possible slogans:

• Thank god I'll be dead by 2050
• Let's all build an underground bunker in Hawaii with Zuckerberg.

That's all I got.

I'm sorry, but none of the replies so far seem to evidence any familiarity with number theory or basic set theory... — alan1000

@flannel jesus gave a clear and obviously correct answer using simple arithmetic operations on real numbers. What does number theory have to do with it?

I did not participate in the previous thread, so I don't know if this was discussed. 0.99999... is equal to the summation from n = 1 to infinity of 9/(10^n). Sorry, I don't know how to write that here in math symbols. It's been a long time since I did that kind of math, so we'll have to trust Chat GPT. It says it equals 1.

Born from an egg on a mountaintop. — Jamal

Born on a mountain top in Tennessee
Greenest state in the land of the free
Raised in the woods so he knew ev'ry tree
Kilt him a b'ar when he was only three

I vow to recommend you some of them frequently. — javi2541997

Your recommendations are always welcome.

Clarky (@T Clark) is another fan of Japanese films — javi2541997

I wouldn't call myself a fan in particular. I got a subscription to The Criterion Channel and there are a lot of them there. They really love Godzilla and all the various Japanese sequals. My favorite movie so far has been "Tampopo," and I have enjoyed the Zatoichi series. I tend to get lost with the slice of life comedies and dramas.

↪T Clark If you have the time and the inclination I recommend reading this: — I like sushi

I downloaded it. I’ll promise to read the first 10 pages. After that, we’ll see.

Another thought. As I see it, what Sartre calls "bad faith" is a spiritual failure, not a moral one.

It is self-deception. One cannot always be aware they are acting in 'bad faith'. This misunderstanding might highlight the problem — I like sushi

Agreed. I don't need any philosopher to tell me about this. I can just look at my own life and see it everywhere.

Someone can deceive themselves into thinking they are acting in good faith when they are not - as is commonly done by everyone. We can be 'oppressing' other individuals under the staunch belief that we are acting in good faith rather than 'bad faith'. — I like sushi

So to act in bad faith is to speak dishonesty. — JuanZu

I really hate the phrase "bad faith." Yes, I know that's Sartre's language, not yours. People can live decent, honorable lives and still be out of touch with what Chuang Tzu, one of the founders of Taoism, calls one's "Te," "virtue," "intrinsic virtuosities."

Martin Palmer and Elizabeth Breuilly translation. Penguin Classics version — Maw

I hadn't heard of them. I took a quick look. Let me know how you liked it. I see it includes all 33 chapters, which is good. I actually liked the so-called outer and miscellaneous chapters better than the first seven. Maybe I'll start a thread about it if anyone is interested.

Will explain later. Time to go to work now — I like sushi

The paradox here is that if someone has 'bad faith' how can we tell? — I like sushi

The question remains how/if the paradoxical position Sartre gives can be overcome? If not that then merely fortified in some way that is productive? — I like sushi

I don't really see a paradox. It seems to me that living in good faith is a standard we apply to ourselves, not others, although it might something we take into account. You have a right to expect appropriate behavior from me, but I'm not responsible to you for my inner life. On the other hand, I have known some profoundly false people. That's something to pay attention to when trying to figure out whom to trust.

Furthermore, although it is impossible to find in each and every man a universal essence that can be called human nature, there is nevertheless a human universality of condition. — I like sushi

I disagree with this. The idea of human nature is a central one to my way of thinking about people. Based on reading philosophy, psychology, and cognitive science plus my own experience in life, I see that we are deeply human at a biological, genetic, and neurological level. I say that so you know why I am resistant to any denial of its existence.

It also strikes me as arrogant. We are who we are, but we are also what we are. Sartre's radical freedom feels like Nietzsche's ubermensch. You can take that with a grain of salt, since I have read very little of either man's work.

Babies are not blank slates.
— T Clark

We do not have to agree with his propositions to explore the contradictions. He is basically appealing to a form of self-determination (termed as Radical Freedom). He admits that people are born in certain circumstances and situations that make avoiding bad faith more or less as of a struggle. — I like sushi

Sure. As I noted, if we don't take his words literally, his philosophy is a lot like many others, including ones I value like Lao Tzu and Emerson.

To live in 'bad faith' for Sartre is to live as if you have a predefined human 'essence'/'nature'. — I like sushi

As a metaphor, this is just a fancy way of saying what many others have said. "To thine own self be true." "God will not have his work made manifest by cowards." If taken literally, it's clearly not true. There is a human nature. People are born with instincts, capacities, characteristics, and mental structures. Babies are not blank slates.

I'll throw this into the mix. It's from Emerson's essay "Compensation." I'd like to believe it's true, but I'm not sure it is. Or rather, I'm sure it's true for me, but I don't know about others. Emerson was familiar with Hinduism and sources on the web indicate that what he called the laws of compensation is the same thing as Karma. I don't know if Emerson himself made that connection explicitly. Karma and Hinduism are not specifically discussed in the essay.

Thus is the universe alive. All things are moral. That soul, which within us is a sentiment, outside of us is a law. We feel its inspiration; out there in history we can see its fatal strength. "It is in the world, and the world was made by it." Justice is not postponed. A perfect equity adjusts its balance in all parts of life. {Oi chusoi Dios aei enpiptousi}, — The dice of God are always loaded. The world looks like a multiplication-table, or a mathematical equation, which, turn it how you will, balances itself. Take what figure you will, its exact value, nor more nor less, still returns to you. Every secret is told, every crime is punished, every virtue rewarded, every wrong redressed, in silence and certainty. What we call retribution is the universal necessity by which the whole appears wherever a part appears. If you see smoke, there must be fire. If you see a hand or a limb, you know that the trunk to which it belongs is there behind...

...All infractions of love and equity in our social relations are speedily punished. They are punished by fear. Whilst I stand in simple relations to my fellow-man, I have no displeasure in meeting him. We meet as water meets water, or as two currents of air mix, with perfect diffusion and interpenetration of nature. But as soon as there is any departure from simplicity, and attempt at halfness, or good for me that is not good for him, my neighbour feels the wrong; he shrinks from me as far as I have shrunk from him; his eyes no longer seek mine; there is war between us; there is hate in him and fear in me.

All the old abuses in society, universal and particular, all unjust accumulations of property and power, are avenged in the same manner. Fear is an instructer of great sagacity, and the herald of all revolutions. One thing he teaches, that there is rottenness where he appears. He is a carrion crow, and though you see not well what he hovers for, there is death somewhere... — Emerson - Compensation

I'm so proud.

Just finished Konrad Lorenz's "Kant's Doctrine of the A Priori in the Light of Contemporary Biology." It knocked my socks off. I've been looking for something like this for a long time - a discussion of how our human nervous system and mind have evolved as a "negotiation" between Kant's things-as-they-are, the noumena, and our animal need to survive. I feel as if I've been given a Rosetta Stone. Here's a link.

https://archive.org/details/KantsDoctrineOfTheAPrioriInTheLightOfContemporaryBiologyKonradLorenz

I need to read it a couple more times. Then, maybe I'll start a thread.

I will leave it up to you when you want to stop the conversation. — Bob Ross

I've made my case, you've made yours. Neither of us has been convinced. I think we're down to un-hunhs and nuh-unhs.

I guess I am more of a Hegelian than you are... — Bob Ross

If I knew what that meant, perhaps I would feel insulted.

What you are forgetting or misunderstanding is that action is the manifestation of ideas; and I think you may be thinking of an "idea" as something sans action. — Bob Ross

I don't agree, but we've probably taken this as far as we can.

maybe a better decision will be using this approach against the CCP instead of Putin. — Linkey

All your ideas likely would lead immediately to an all-out war with a good chance of proceeding to nuclear. Your naivety, if echoed by people with power, will lead to the death of my children.

Anyway….to each his own? — Mww

Sure. This has been a good conversation.

Started The Book of Chuang Tzu last week — Maw

It has had a big impact on my understanding of the Tao Te Ching. Whose translation are you using?

Reading the novel has prompted me to spend hours exploring the region in Google Maps. — Jamal

One of the reasons I like Kindle so much is that I can link directly to Wikipedia and GoogleEarth. It's become almost automatic. I often find myself going off on tangents. I love it.

Choptank — Jamal

The Choptank and the Susquehanna are my two favorite rivers. We crossed the Choptank on the way from my childhood home in southern Delaware to my grandfather's farm. The house I grew up in is a couple of hundred feet from the Nanticoke River, which is still tidewater there, 30 miles from the bay. It was not unusual for me to lose my shoes or boots in the mudflats and there was always danger when we used our sleds because our favorite hill, the only thing even close to a hill in flat southern Delaware, there was always danger of missing the turn and ending up in the water.

The Sot-Weed Factor by John Barth. — Jamal

I was born in Easton, Maryland and grew up on the Eastern Shore and in nearby Delaware. My grandfather's farm was on the Chesapeake Bay about six miles north of the mouth of the Choptank River near Cambridge. Looking south from the shore, I could see land in the location where Cooke's farm was located, although I didn't know it at the time.

All that being said, I've never been able to get through more than a few chapters of the book. Maybe I should try again.

Another thought - I wasn't trying to sell either of the metaphysical positions I described, although I think they make sense. I was only using them as examples of what it might mean for a position to be useful, which is the question you asked.

Ok, I can live with that, as long as the world (as it is) and the world (as we know it), are taken as two very different things. — Mww

I guess the world as it is would be the Tao and the world as we know it would be the 10,000 things in your formulation, similar to Kant's noumena and phenomena.

Agreed, in principle, but with two distinct and separate paradigmatic conditions, re:
…..first, whether or not the senses are involved on the one hand, and “way of seeing things” is a mere euphemism for “understanding”, on the other. Understanding a material thing is possible without that which is objectively real, but for knowledge of that which is material, the objective reality of it is a necessary condition; — Mww

I probably don't agree with this. When I wrote "way of seeing things" here, I'm talking about metaphysics. Also, I don't understand what you mean by putting "knowledge" in opposition to "understanding."

…..from which follows the second, insofar as for humans generally, materialism, being a monistic ontology, is necessarily conjoined with some form of epistemological foundational procedure, in order for the intellect, as such, to function. — Mww

I don't understand this.

Does your Taoist metaphysical theory satisfy these conditions? And if not, how does it get around them and still maintain its usefulness? — Mww

I have three possible responses 1) No, 2) I don't know, and 3) I don't understand.

A great deal of confusion arises over this issue. It is not difficult to prove that most presuppositions are rejected by analysis, but when we say an extreme view is false we usually mean that the opposite view is true, (eg theism vs atheism). This is the A/not-A logic of the dialectic. — PeterJones

But if neither is true and either false, there is no problem.

It is therefore better to say they are wrong or unrigorous rather than strictly true or false in a dialectical sense. But if we presuppose that the Middle Way doctrine is true no problems arise. — PeterJones

Again, I favor the neither true nor false position. Again, no problems arise.

This issue deserves a thread of its own. — PeterJones

I have started three or four discussions on this and similar subjects over the years and I mention Collingwood in almost every thread I don't mention Lao Tzu.

I see what Collingwood is saying, but the reason metaphysical problems arise is that we can, in fact, decide that most presuppositions do not make sense and don't work. — PeterJones

As I wrote in a recent post to Mww, metaphysical positions don't have to be true or false and they don't have to "work," they only have to be useful.

I'd say Collingwood 's view (as stated) is roughly correct but rather misleading . . . — PeterJones

It strikes me, ironically enough, that Collingwood's view is neither correct nor misleading, it's metaphysics.

I feel that one reason metaphysicians struggle with metaphysics is that they don't pay enough attention to the rules for the dialectic and often violate them. . — PeterJones

Now that would be a good subject for a new discussion - I've never understood the value of the dialectic or what it even means. I'm all for moderation in all things, but it feels pretty namby-pamby. It seems more complicated than Collingwood's formula.

Ok, but how would you recognize usefulness? What does a metaphysical theory do, such that it is useful for that thing? — Mww

As I understand metaphysics, it consists of the underlying assumptions, what Collingwood calls "absolute presuppositions," that provide the foundation for our understanding of the world, reality. As a possible example - Science, at least as it is commonly understood, operates in a material universe. One of the absolute presuppositions of science and materialism is that the world is lawful and that those laws apply everywhere and at all times. That's impossible to verify, it has no truth value, but without it, science can't work.

Another - Taoism works on the assumption that the fundamental ground of reality is unnamable - it can't be conceptualized or understood. This formless entity is known as the "Tao." Lao Tzu fully recognizes the irony of giving a name to the unnamable.This from Stephen Mitchell's translation of Verse 1 of the Tao Te Ching.

The tao that can be told
is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named
is not the eternal Name.

The unnamable is the eternally real.
Naming is the origin
of all particular things. — Lao Tzu - Tao Te Ching

Particular things, which Lao Tzu sometimes calls the 10,000 things, represent the objects, ideas, things, that exist in our world, including horses, wavefunctions, love, 1040 forms, Immanuel Kant, i.e. all of reality. This is from Verse 40.

Return is the movement of the Tao.
Yielding is the way of the Tao.

All things are born of being.
Being is born of non-being. — Lao Tzu - Tao Te Ching

Being is the world of the 10,000 things. Non-being is the Tao. I am oversimplifying. In a sense, the world we know doesn't exist until it is named. This way of seeing things was revolutionary for me. It brings together ideas that I had been thinking about for a long time. What we learn empirically, what we can know and understand, includes factors that we, human beings, provide as we name, conceptualize, things in the world. That means that materialism's objective reality is not the only way of seeing things.

These two perspectives seem to contradict each other and to a certain extent they do. But they also can work together to temper each other. Materialism is useful for methodological purposes. Taoism is useful for showing us that we need to take human understanding in to account too.

none of them should be judged absurd, merely from disregard of that relative attribute, but from each one’s internal logical consistency and each one’s non-self-contradictory construction. — Mww

I would judge them based on usefulness.

This is impossible: society is based off of social constructs, which are ideas people have had—ideas through action (at a minimum). Human beings develop their living structures on ideas, even if they are not entirely able to explicate it to people through language what those ideas are, and so the idea which is embodied in the society must come first. — Bob Ross

Again, I don't agree. We can leave it at that. I don't think we'll get any further here. Maybe in a separate thread sometime.

According to your logic, rights came before the idea of rights; which makes no sense. — Bob Ross

Sure it does.
Feudal lords - "Hey, king!! Stop overtaxing us and throwing us in jail!!
Fighting takes place.
King - "Oh... ok then. We'll lay off on the tariffs and dungeons. We'll write that down if you insist."
Feudal lord #1 (whispering to the other lords) - "Hey, this is great. The king has promised us... what has he promised us? What do we call them?"
Feudal lord #2 - "We can call them "rights." All in favor..."
Feudal lords - "Aye"