Metaphysics and the modern world

[FightingFat]

This is a theology/ Philosophy thread:

How would you answer someone who claimed that in the modern world metaphysics is an outmoded philosophical notion?

 

[Strider]

I would reply with a question: “How can the study of the knowledge of all things be outmoded?”

 

[john_doran]

This is a theology/ Philosophy thread:

How would you answer someone who claimed that in the modern world metaphysics is an outmoded philosophical notion?

i would say that they’re making a metaphysical claim…

but seriously, though, without more, there’s really nothing to say except “no, it isn’t”.

 

[mosher]

I am just wondering if in the modern world things have ceased to have being?

 

[batteddy]

Ask them if their computer exists when they leave the room.

Ask them what would be if there were only 1 particle in the universe (ie, that particle was the entire universe).

Ask them “what” is conserved when matter converts to energy and vice versa.

 

[JimG]

Hmmm… I was listening to a talk by Richard Dawkins on C-Span the other day.

In response to a question about why one should not posit God as the cause of the universe, he mentioned that evolution results in increasingly complex organisms as the universe evolves.

Now God, if he were to exist (paraphrasing Dawkins), he would have to be the most complex being of all, and yet we are placing him at the very beginning of things–at the beginning of evolution, where, more properly, he should be its endpoint. It was, he considered, completely counterintuitive, and unlikely.

What struck me most about this response was Dawkins’ view of God as a highly complex being (presumeing he existed, which Dawkins does not accept.)

In fact, according to both metaphysics and theology, God is an utterly simple being, having no parts, no structure, and not being composed of matter.

I thought that while he might chafe a bit at the prospect, Dawkins could use an introductory course in metaphysics, to supplement all that science.

 

[FightingFat]

OK. Some of the criticism aimed at Metaphysics in modernity would be stuff like there is no valid set of empirical observations nor a valid set of logical arguments, which could definitively prove metaphysical statements to be true or false. Hence, a metaphysical statement usually implies a belief about the world or about the universe, which may seem reasonable but is ultimately not empirically verifiable. That belief could be changed in a non-arbitrary way, based on experience or argument, yet there exists no evidence or argument so compelling that it could rationally force a change in that belief, in the sense of definitely proving it false.

 

[JimG]

But even science implicitly uses a set of metaphysical first principles in conducting its observations and conclusions.

Most scientists would accept the propositions: “I am.” and “I can know.” as prerequesites to proceeding further.

 

[steveandersen]

Ask them if their computer exists when they leave the room.

yes.

Ask them what would be if there were only 1 particle in the universe (ie, that particle was the entire universe).

1 particle.

Ask them “what” is conserved when matter converts to energy and vice versa.

The sum of matter and energy.

Are those supposed stump somebody?

Maybe I’m too modern

but to me those questions don’t make sense.

 

[But_for_Grace]

Metaphysics, as Aristotle defined it is the philosophy of philosophy, that is to say that without metaphysics we could not understand even the most basic of concepts. It underlies our conceptions of good, evil, happyness, everything. It even underlies logic (though this sounds strange metaphysics is the basis that allows us to make logical comparisions).

I believe what batteddy is getting at is that without a metaphysical understanding, we can draw no conclusions about the world we live in, not even the permanance of what we see.

 

[steveandersen]

I will confess that I am ignorant on the subject

and I won’t pretend to understand what you’re trying to say

maybe I’m using metaphysics without know it (is that allowed )

I never really felt a need to question what I see.

 

[buffalo]

I guess they would be saying that science has made it irrelevant.

I would respond by saying: Science by its own definition is limited in what it can say about the universe. It can only address the natural, not the supernatural.

Should we discontinue the study of the supernatural?

 

[Pondero]

I would simply say, read F.C. Copleston’s book Aquinas and then learn something about Thomas Aquinas from EWTN’s radio shows on that topic. Finally, read ( if you can get hold of it) Summa Theologicae, by St. Thomas. But first of course you need an introductory course, - back to Copleston, as I mentioned.

 

[mosher]

yes.

Good answer. Can you believe that there are some people who deny this or at lest the ability to know for certain that the computer still exists?

1 particle.

Right but take it one step further. Does that one partical exist? If yes then we say it has existence which means it has being which in turn screams metaphysics.

The sum of matter and energy.

But what is at the root or the base of matter and energy?

Are those supposed stump somebody?

Maybe I’m too modern

but to me those questions don’t make sense.

I will confess that I am ignorant on the subject

and I won’t pretend to understand what you’re trying to say

maybe I’m using metaphysics without know it (is that allowed )

I never really felt a need to question what I see.

You prove in what you are saying that there is a basic intuitiveness to reality. Things are what they are. Metaphysics formally defined is “the study of being” or you could say that it is the study of existence or that which exists. We use it all the time because we think. When we think we use metaphysics. It is an inescapable reality that cannot be separated from reality.

Some people try to deny reality or deny that we can know anything about being and so this is what causes a lot of problems in human development and thought and is in fact one of the major problems today. Generally most people who have been taught in the modern educational systems (1960 - present) do not know how to think. They know how to generate ideas but this is very different than thinking. They do not know have to think objectively or in an ordered way. People have lost the ability to make a cohesive logical argument for or against a position. This is why subjectivism and relativism rule the day and this is why things are so morally bad. The rejection of metaphysics is the root cause of the degradation of society. For this reason it is important to help establish a understanding of being once again in our times or else it will just keep getting worse.

 

[steveandersen]

Good answer. Can you believe that there are some people who deny this or at lest the ability to know for certain that the computer still exists?..

while yes I have heard of such people, no I do not believe that they are serious.

it just boggles the mind :whacky:
(well my rather narrow and concrete engineers mind at least )

 

[batteddy]

1 particle.

But does a particle have an existence in-and-of-itself?

Because many scientists would now claim that a “particle” has merely a relative existence. That the idea is simply our reification of mere properties (what we would call accidents)…and that all of these are only relative to other things.

You say it has a negative charge…but a “negative charge” is meaningless in a world where there is no positive charge to oppose it.

You can say it is a certain size, but if the universe is only One Particle big…what are you basing size off of?

You can say it has a certain mass, but if there is no other particles or objects…what is this mass compared to?

You can say it has a certain spin, but movement doesn’t exist unless you are moving relative to something. Distance between you and something can’t increase unless there is something besides you, in fact, to move “farther” or “closer” to…

How can time or age exist if those are measured by change and movement, which a one particle universe couldn’t have?

In short, in a one-particle universe…no “accidents” could really exist, because they are all relative to other things. There is no color if there are no photons to bounce off of it. There is no position or spatial orientation if there is nothing else to compare it to, no frame of reference.

And so, if there was one particle in the universe…it could not simply be “the sum of all relations to other things in the universe”…it would have to have an existence and reality in itself, apart from any “properties” or “accidents”. If a one particle universe existed, it would be in many ways pure Substance…only being able to be “what” it was, and not “how” it was…

 

[FightingFat]

Metaphysics, as Aristotle defined it is the philosophy of philosophy,

I’m not sure that I agree with you there. Metaphysics, means meta (beyond) physics (nature) it is, therefore, the study of being or reality.

 

[Pondero]

Mosher wrote:

Some people try to deny reality or deny that we can know anything about being and so this is what causes a lot of problems in human development and thought and is in fact one of the major problems today. Generally most people who have been taught in the modern educational systems (1960 - present) do not know how to think. They know how to generate ideas but this is very different than thinking. They do not know have to think objectively or in an ordered way. People have lost the ability to make a cohesive logical argument for or against a position. This is why subjectivism and relativism rule the day and this is why things are so morally bad. The rejection of metaphysics is the root cause of the degradation of society. For this reason it is important to help establish a understanding of being once again in our times or else it will just keep getting worse.

And I think this is very true Mosher. It used to be that when one wrote an essay, that one had to propose a viewpoint, give contrary arguments against it, and then develop a conclusion based on what you had written. Today, when you read a serious article in a magazine, it is all one sided, no contrary arguments are put forth, and only the partial truth is told. No wonder we are in such a mess today.

 

[RyanL]

It might help simply to walk them through the implications of their argument.

First, you might point out that materialism is a self-defeating argument. Let’s be logical about it:

1. Materialism sole claim is that the only things which can be believed are things which can be empirically verified.
2. This statement cannot be empirically verified.
3. Therefore, this statement cannot be believed.

There you go. Simply put, materialism is illogical.

But let’s say that this doesn’t dissuade them. What are the implications of materialist reductionism?

Well…if matter is all there is, we (as living beings) are nothing more than a complex biochemical process. Free will is non-existent. After all, can you choose not to chemically react? Of course not. The brain is the locus of our thought (or rather, what appears to be thought), and the brain is simply biological tissue. Synapses and neurons, protons and electrons, motion and rest. There’s nothing more to it. There’s no room for free will in a biochemical process.

What are the implications of this reductionism? For starters, there’s no good reason to prefer life to death. Life, as I’ve stated, is simply a biochemical process. Is a reacting compound better than a non-reacting compound? Of course not – that’s nonsensical.

If they don’t believe this, ask them to justify why life has any value. They can’t answer this. Life is simply protons and electrons, motion and rest, and there’s nothing special about something observing the laws of physics. Existence is no better than non-existence, as the primacy of existence is a metaphysical concept (see: Aquinas).

So with this rejection of metaphysics, leading to a reductionist materialism, your opponent denies (1) free will, (2) the value of life, (3) the value of understanding/knowledge, and (4) the value of any existence whatsoever. Death is as good as life, there is no morality, reason is artificial and there’s no harm in killing/raping/torturing/stealing/hypocrisy. We should cease “education”, as one cannot educate a biological process - but speaking of shoulds is also nonsensical, as we don’t have the free will to do a should. Make sure they strike that word from their vocabulary, as well as the words ‘good’, ‘bad’, ‘better’, ‘worse’, ‘right’, ‘wrong’ and anything having to do with value.

At that point you may ask them if that’s what they were really trying to do.

Hopefully, they’ll say no.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[steveandersen]

But does a particle have an existence in-and-of-itself?

yes

Because many scientists would now claim that a “particle” has merely a relative existence. That the idea is simply our reification of mere properties (what we would call accidents)…and that all of these are only relative to other things.

I’ve never heard any scintist say that. there is uncertainty and you can never have complete knowledge of a particle but you can describe the probabilites associated with it