What is Metaphysics & Why Is It A Valid Means Of Describing Reality?

[Leela]

I think it would be interesting to discuss your contention about Truth and what use it has, but I wonder if it might be helpful if you dropped the label pragmatism and adopted the label atheism or at least atheistic pragmatism. When theists use the term Truth they use it to refer to God and have perfectly good reasons for doing so - they are justified in doing so, given their context, even if it turns out that their belief that Truth is, is not true. There is no reason, then, for pragmatists to not believe in Truth, just because they are pragmatists.

Hi Dave,

Pragmatism is anti-essentialism with regard to such notions as Truth, Knowledge, Reason, and Human Nature. If you say that God is Truth, I suppose that means that the essence of truth is the same thing as the essence of God, but pragmatists have no use for essences so will neither agree nor disagree. The God is Truth thing does, however, sound to me like a way of trying to beg the question of God’s existence. If God is Truth and we all agree that truth exists, then God must exist, right? Well, only if you think truth has an essence, which is a question that pragmatists have lost interest in asking.

B.t.w.: are you suggesting that what are commonly referred to as ‘deflationary (or minimalist) theories of truth’ are not theories of truth? You certainly seem to be!

You can call it a theory, but I see it more like a suggestion that we stop worrying about whether our ideas correspond to Reality (since two thousand years of philosophical history hasn’t produced a way of making our ideas do that or even saying what that correspondence should be like) and instead concern ourselves with the question of whether we can come up with interesting alternatives to our current beliefs.

Best,
Leela

 

[Leela]

Well obviously (I think) you’re offering a metaphysical thesis here, are you not? You don’t think that metaphysics is the assertion that “we must get past appearances to the-way-things-really-are,” do you? And that any other general reflection on the nature of being is not metaphysics?

I’m just describing what the practice of doing metaphysics has been like. If you define metaphysics broadly enough, then the practice of describing practices is also doing metaphysics. But if we make the definition as broad as you seem to be suggesting, I can’t see a difference between doing metaphysics and doing philosophy.

 

[jkiernan56]

How could someone know that something is true without believing that it is true?

I think you and I have a different understanding of belief Lets use Gravity as an example to explore our differences of understanding of belief. Leela, do you “believe” Gravity exists? For me, I do not “believe” in Gravity. It is a truth I have direct empirical experience. Therefore it is NOT a belief.

Knowledge that is accepted to be true that cannot be proven is only gained by BELIEF. I can not directly prove to you that Jesus Christ rose physically from the grave. But I absolutely believe that is a historical event that really did happen. In other words, that the physical resurrection of Christ really is true (independent of whether you and I believe it).

Do you still think that you “BELIEVE” in knowledge that can be proven is true? Do you believe in the sun? Do you believe in air? Do you believe in electricity? Do you believe that the universe is expanding? Do you BELIEVE in facts? You have a misunderstanding of the word belief in my opinion. No, we DO NOT believe in facts. We accept facts. We acknowledge facts. I do not believe that 1+1=2. I do not believe that TRUE is TRUE. What is real is not “BELIEVED” in. What is truth is not believed in. You do not believe that your name is Leela. You know it is. Knowledge that is gained by not being able to prove it is when you start to delve into the realm of belief.

 

[jkiernan56]

I agree that you can know that a sentence is not true.

You said in an earlier post that a person cannot know when something is not true. I responded that when you know what is true, you can use that as a basis to know what is not true. It is nice to see you acknowledgeit is possible to “know something that is not true”. Only when you know what is true are you able to determine what is not true. What is not true only has relevance in the context of what is true - just as disease only has meaning in the context of health, or evil has meaning in the context of good.

 

[jkiernan56]

I don’t follow you at all. Truth is something we say about sentences. It has a function in language. It isn’t anything that applies to odors or sounds or other sensations. We would never say “that rose is true” but we would say that the sentence ‘that rose smells sweet’ is true (if and only if that rose actually smells sweet).

Truth is something we say about sentences? I hope that is not all that you think truth is. Truth is that which actually exists and is real - independent of you and me. It is much more than just something that we say in sentences. Remember your earlier statement that the “wheel spins” independant of you and me. What is this wheel that spins (whether or not you or I know that it spins or are able to acknowledge it)? Truth. Truth isn’t what you and I subjectively think it is according to our own perception.

When you and I acknowledge something that is real in a sentence, then we are acknowledging Truth - Reality that is and will always be and will never change.

 

[jkiernan56]

You’ve gone on quite a bit about humility, but I don’t see the point. Pragmatists like myself believe that there are things that we don’t know and things that we will never know just like everyone else. In fact we pragmatists don’t even know what we don’t know, and by definition we can never know the things that we can’t know. Is that enough humility for you?

It would seem nonsensical to me to think that not knowing something is evidence for the existence of that thing. Is that what you are arguing?

It isn’t humility to acknowledge you can’t know what you don’t know - thats sanity … lol

Is not knowing something evidence for the existence of that thing? No - actually extrapolating from what we “DO KNOW” … we use as evidence of what is unseen - ultimate truth and reality the human mind will never fully comprehend. This jump from what is seen and know to that which is unseen is not a blind leap into the darkness, intellectual assassination, or mind control as some seem to suggest.

One person here on this thread has done an injustice to the use of the word “DOGMA”. Just as if someone had said something about my own Mother, I feel personally insulted for how this person has tried to portray Dogma as a bad thing, detrimental to your health. That is because this person does not live in the real world in my opinion. The teaching of the Catholic Church when it comes to DOGMA is the life blood of the Church - it is the authentic teaching of what is REALLY REAL … as revealed and experienced and lived in the Life of the Church. Anyone who rejects Church Dogma or vehemently strikes out against it as if it were something negative - you can take it from me that this person’s train has come off the tracks - or their train was never on the tracks to begin with … they do not have the correct prescription of glasses - the glasses they are currently wearing are not in clear focus - but are out of focus … their cheese has slid off the cracker … to quote the famous line from the movie “The Green Mile” … Sanity is being in touch with reality … Dogma is the teaching of the Church on how it views reality … and thus since I wholeheartedly agree that what the Church teaches about God is true, it is Sanity based on Reality that one adheres to Church Dogma … and anyone who does not adhere to it or misaligns it in any way … they are the one is has lost a bit of their sanity … how far is known only to God.

By the way Greylorn, my new love is Saint Augustine. I love him more than St. Thomas Aquinas. Have you ever read St. Augustine’s book “Confessions”? Now this was a man in touch with reality … I hope some of his experience of reality brushes off on me … which hopefully will bring me closer to the fire of God’s love … which I hope and pray will consume me … if not now, when? and why wait if this is where God leads each person … the fire of His love … to purify us from all sin … all that is not holy or beautiful … all that is not rooted in love … that we may Love what is Love - God (Father, Son, Holy Spirit in a Community of Love … and that my friends I know with all my heart is what we have been created for - Love … Love is the fire of God’s Holiness

 

[MindOverMatter]

By the way Greylorn, my new love is Saint Augustine. I love him more than St. Thomas Aquinas.

What! I’m afraid me and you are going to have words.

 

[MindOverMatter]

How could someone know that something is true without believing that it is true?

You know that you exist. Surely this isn’t something that you believe to be true! There are at least somethings that we know for certain.

 

[Leela]

You know that you exist. Surely this isn’t something that you believe to be true! There are at least somethings that we know for certain.

I know I exist because I am justified in believing that I exist, and because it is true that I exist. My point is that knowledge implies belief. Knowledge is a species of belief. Knowledge is generally understood philosophically as “justified true belief.” This is really basic stuff that we are struggling with here, and I’ve lost sight of what the point of all this is. It seems that we are not speaking in the same language. I’m not sure we can have any fruitful discussion here if we can’t agree agree that we are justified in believing that we exist and that this fact is a criteria for knowledge that we exist rather than a statement of faith. It’s as if you and jkiernan are deliberately trying to misunderstand me. Jkiernan, you are still conflating “believe in” assertions of faith with “belief that” assertions of fact.

 

[MindOverMatter]

I know I exist because I am justified in believing that I exist, and because it is true that I exist.

Knowledge of ones being is not something that needs to be justified or proved. You know that you exist because you are immanently aware of it. It is something that is true of your thinking or perceiving anything. The fact that you think presupposes your existence. Your knowledge of self is immanent to your act of self. To question your existence is contradictory. Its not a matter of belief; its a matter immanent knowledge; you know through the fact that you act for knowledge. This is certain and irrefutable.

 

[Leela]

Knowledge of ones being is not something that needs to be justified or proved. You know that you exist because you are immanently aware of it. It is something that is true of your thinking or perceiving anything. The fact that you think presupposes your existence. Your knowledge of self is immanent to your act of self. To question your existence is contradictory. Its not a matter of belief; its a matter immanent knowledge; you know through the fact that you act for knowledge. This is certain and irrefutable.

You say that knowledge of one’s being doesn’t need to be justified and then go on to provide justification for your belief that you exist. You must belief that you exist to know that you exist. Belief is a criteria of knowledge.

You want to say things like “I don’t believe slavery is wrong, I know slavery is wrong” which makes perfect sense so long as what you are saying amounts to “I don’t merely believe that slavery is wrong. I believe it, I am justified in believing it, and it is true, so I can even say that Iknow that slavery is wrong.” This how the traditional formulation of knowledge as “justified true belief” works anyway. If you still don’t understand I don’t think I can help you.

 

[MindOverMatter]

You say that knowledge of one’s being doesn’t need to be justified and then go on to provide justification.

I provided a justification for knowledge in respect of your question or position. The answer itself is self evident to you and me.

You must belief that you exist to know that you exist. Belief is a criteria of knowledge.

I see no basis for this assertion. You must exist first, and it is in that existing that you know, for existence is an experience. Its not a belief for crying out loud!!! You are immanently aware that you have being, that you are real as apposed to nothing.

You want to say things like “I don’t believe slavery is wrong, I know slavery is wrong” which makes perfect sense so long as what you are saying amounts to “I don’t merely believe that slavery is wrong. I believe it, I am justified in believing it, and it is true, so I can even say that Iknow that slavery is wrong.” This how the traditional formulation of knowledge as “justified true belief” works anyway. If you still don’t understand I don’t think I can help you.

Well, strawmen have never been much use to me in respect of acquiring true knowledge, so i guess you can’t help me. But what i know to be true is that i know that i exist, and it is that knowing which enables me to form beliefs about the nature of existence.

 

[Betterave]

Hi Dave,

Pragmatism is anti-essentialism with regard to such notions as Truth, Knowledge, Reason, and Human Nature. If you say that God is Truth, I suppose that means that the essence of truth is the same thing as the essence of God, but pragmatists have no use for essences so will neither agree nor disagree. The God is Truth thing does, however, sound to me like a way of trying to beg the question of God’s existence. If God is Truth and we all agree that truth exists, then God must exist, right? Well, only if you think truth has an essence, which is a question that pragmatists have lost interest in asking.

Okay, but pragmatism is not anti-theistic, correct?

As for trying to beg questions, it’s one thing if the ‘God is Truth thing’ sounds like trying to beg the question to you, but why does it to you? (To me it sounds like you’re trying to feed me a red herring.)

Also, if pragmatists have lost interest in asking certain questions, this is obviously not because pragmatism dictates that they should do so - other pragmatists have disagreed with these pragmatists about which questions are worth asking, and we have to examine their respective positions to know which pragmatists are in the right, do we not?

 

[Betterave]

You can call it a theory, but I see it more like a suggestion that we stop worrying about whether our ideas correspond to Reality (since two thousand years of philosophical history hasn’t produced a way of making our ideas do that or even saying what that correspondence should be like) and instead concern ourselves with the question of whether we can come up with interesting alternatives to our current beliefs.

You’re missing the point: it’s not me calling it a theory, that’s what it’s generally called. Fight the man if you want, just don’t pretend it’s me you’re fighting. Anyway, a “suggested” theory is still a theory to my mind! Of course when you say ‘it’s a suggestion,’ maybe you mean something specific by this? What your ‘suggestion’ formulation ‘suggests’ to me is that your sweeping thesis about the history of philosophy, especially since you claim to be not much of a student of philosophy, is probably ill-founded and even if it happened to be true, would not be a justified claim for someone in your position to be making; you recognize this and so it is offered as only a suggestion? (Justification would require a first-hand familiarity with the history of philosophy which, with all due respect, perhaps you lack?)

Hegel makes this general point: people tend to approach philosophy (including ‘first philosophy,’ that’s what metaphysics is, Aristotle’s name for it - his editors called his collection of works on first philosophy * ta meta ta physika* because it came ‘after’ Aristotle’s physics) as if no initiation, no period of apprenticeship, were necessary. This is puzzling because no one would presume to take this attitude towards shoemaking, for example. His comment is that philosophy is different from shoemaking because everyone immediately knows how to philosophize and how to pass judgment on philosophy, because they possess the criterion for doing so, their natural reason - as if they didn’t likewise possess the measure for a shoe in their own feet!

Anyway, I am very interested to hear what you what you take yourself to be doing when you make suggestions rather than offering theories (what’s the cash value of such a distinction-without-any-apparent-difference?)? What kind of practice is this - reflective, speculative, dogmatic/stipulative, dogmatically anti-dogmatic, impressionistic…? Is it supposed to be more ‘philosophical’ than what you call metaphysics, seeing that you apparently think it is important to distinguish the two?

Best,
Dave

 

[Betterave]

I’m just describing what the practice of doing metaphysics has been like. If you define metaphysics broadly enough, then the practice of describing practices is also doing metaphysics. But if we make the definition as broad as you seem to be suggesting, I can’t see a difference between doing metaphysics and doing philosophy.

Hi Leela,

Let’s try this:
What if someone said to you, “No Leela, you believe you’re just describing what the practice of doing metaphysics has been like, but in fact you are not. You are out of touch with reality - at the very least, the reality of the historical practice of doing metaphysics. (You have mistaken a simplistic formulation of a general thesis that has appeared perennially in the history of metaphysics for a description of the practice of metaphysics - the two are most certainly not the same.) And if you are not out of touch with reality, then I am - in any case, one of us is certainly out of touch with reality.” What do make of this ‘metaphysical’ dilemma?

Best,
Dave

 

[Betterave]

Oh, and what the heck, why don’t I throw in my two cents on ‘belief.’ (I think I hear some booming gongs and clashing cymbals in the foregoing.) To ‘believe X’ is simply to formulate the proposition X to oneself (to be conscious of it) and assent to it as being true. This is a matter of general philosophical parlance. If other people want to use the term differently, such that they don’t ‘believe’ that they exist, they may of course do so. But it would be silly to try to emphatically impose this view on others, as if this could be done by the sheer weight of its self-evidence. There’s nothing wrong with talking about other kinds of knowing, but for Leela’s purposes (and just about everybody else who talks about knowledge), knowledge is propositional knowledge, so reference to non-propositional knowledge that necessarily accompanies existence would need to be very carefully explained.

 

[jkiernan56]

You say that knowledge of one’s being doesn’t need to be justified and then go on to provide justification for your belief that you exist. You must belief that you exist to know that you exist. Belief is a criteria of knowledge.

Belief IS NOT a criteria of all forms of knowledge.

What has become very clear to me is that Leela does not understand the word BELIEF in the context of FACTS and the many forms of KNOWLEDGE. FACTS are not believed in. Gravity is not something a person knows is true because they “believe” it exists. It exists independant of you and me and therefore to acknowledge the existence and reality of Gravity is NOT AN ACT OF BELIEF. The existence of Gravity is a form of knowledge that belief is not required. Now if Leela continues to persist in the idea that FACTS are something that require belief, then it is a waste of time trying to communicate with him/her. Belief cannot mean just whatever someone wants it to mean to suit their own purpose. The meaning of words is extremely important and critical in the ability to communicate with others. Leela has a very incorrect understanding of the word BELIEF when it comes to FACTUAL KNOWLEDGE. Now if that is true of factual knowledge, how much more is this person’s inability to communicate about BELIEF when it comes to knowledge that cannot be scientifically proven (ie - things of the Spirit) - knowledge and reality that existed long before the universe ever came into being. That requires BELIEF Leela. If you would like to understand the word properly, please refer to the link on Belief, Knowledge and Epistemology

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief

 

[Leela]

Belief IS NOT a criteria of all forms of knowledge.

What has become very clear to me is that Leela does not understand the word BELIEF in the context of FACTS and the many forms of KNOWLEDGE. FACTS are not believed in.

Here you go again conflating “believe in” assertions of faith with “believe that” assertions of fact. You are absolutely correct that facts are not believed in. We believe facts, we don’t believe in facts.

Gravity is not something a person knows is true because they “believe” it exists. It exists independant of you and me and therefore to acknowledge the existence and reality of Gravity is NOT AN ACT OF BELIEF. The existence of Gravity is a form of knowledge that belief is not required. Now if Leela continues to persist in the idea that FACTS are something that require belief, then it is a waste of time trying to communicate with him/her. Belief cannot mean just whatever someone wants it to mean to suit their own purpose. The meaning of words is extremely important and critical in the ability to communicate with others. Leela has a very incorrect understanding of the word BELIEF when it comes to FACTUAL KNOWLEDGE. Now if that is true of factual knowledge, how much more is this person’s inability to communicate about BELIEF when it comes to knowledge that cannot be scientifically proven (ie - things of the Spirit) - knowledge and reality that existed long before the universe ever came into being. That requires BELIEF Leela. If you would like to understand the word properly, please refer to the link on Belief, Knowledge and Epistemology

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief

I don’t know what you expected me to find there. Did you read it? It says exactly what I’ve been trying to explain to you:

“In a notion derived from Plato’s dialogue Theaetetus, philosophy has traditionally defined knowledge as justified true belief. The relationship between belief and knowledge is that a belief is knowledge if the belief is true, and if the believer has a justification (reasonable and necessarily plausible assertions/evidence/guidance) for believing it is true.”

Basically some beliefs qualify as knowledge and some don’t but to know that an assertion is true presupposes that you believe it is true.

Best,
Leela

 

[jkiernan56]

Here you go again conflating “believe in” assertions of faith with “believe that” assertions of fact. You are absolutely correct that facts are not believed in. We believe facts, we don’t believe in facts.

I don’t know what you expected me to find there. Did you read it? It says exactly what I’ve been trying to explain to you:

Did you read all of Wikipedia, or just the part about Plato and classical definition of knowledge?

Previously you and I had a discussion about the “wheel that spins” independent of you and me. We both acknowledged a reality called Objective Truth. In the context of objective truth, hopefully you able to recognize objective truth (reality) regardless of whether one “believes” in it or not. You are correct that the Wikipedia link does say exactly what you’ve been trying to say all along. But it also says many other things as well.

The definition of knowledge is an on-going debate among philosophers in the field of epistemology. Some Epistemologists have questioned the “justified true belief” definition, and some philosophers[who?] have questioned whether “belief” is a useful notion at all. Beliefs are the assumptions we make about ourselves, about others in the world and about how we expect things to be. Beliefs are also how we think things really are.

The classical definition of knowledge states that in order for there to be knowledge, at least 3 criteria must be met:

A statement must be:

1. Justified
2. True
3. Believed

I would like to focus on criteria 2 and 3 for the purpose of this discussion. I think you and I can agree that belief is not what makes something true. Something must be true BEFORE you get to criteria 3. Believing in something doesn’t make that something true. That means there must be something called Objective Truth – a wheel that spins independent of you and me – something that is true and cannot be otherwise – something that is true regardless of whether you and I “believe” in it.

Now in order for something that is true to be knowledge for me, I must accept the validity of a truth. Personally, I do not like the use of the word “belief” in this context. It is not “belief” that makes something true. Something that is independently true has to be acknowledged and accepted by me for what is already true - to be true FOR me. My believing it does not make it true in general. My not believing it does not change what is true as well.

This is a Catholic website. The meaning of the word BELIEF is extremely important in one’s ability to communicate on this site. Just because someone believes in something does not necessarily make it true – nor does NOT believing in it make it NOT TRUE. You seem to take the former position when it suits your need. I will let you know NOT believing in certain truths often discussed on this website, does not automatically mean they are FALSE.

Taken from Wikipedia -

Epistemology is the philosophical study of knowledge and belief. Philosophy has traditionally defined knowledge as justified true belief. The relationship between belief and knowledge is that a belief is knowledge if the belief is true, and if the believer has a justification (reasonable and necessarily plausible assertions/evidence/guidance) for believing it is true.

The definition of knowledge is a matter of on-going debate among philosophers in the field of epistemology. The classical definition, described but not ultimately endorsed by Plato[1], has it that in order for there to be knowledge at least three criteria must be fulfilled; that in order to count as knowledge, a statement must be justified, true, and believed.
The terms belief and knowledge are used differently by philosophers. It is a telling point concerning the nature of belief that most people distinguish between what they know and what they believe, even though they consider both kinds of statements to be true.

A false belief is not considered to be knowledge, even if it is sincere. A sincere believer in the flat earth theory does not know that the Earth is flat. Similarly, a truth that nobody believes is not knowledge, because in order to be knowledge, there must be some person who knows it.

 

[Betterave]

Belief IS NOT a criteria of all forms of knowledge.

What has become very clear to me is that Leela does not understand the word BELIEF in the context of FACTS and the many forms of KNOWLEDGE. FACTS are not believed in. Gravity is not something a person knows is true because they “believe” it exists. It exists independant of you and me and therefore to acknowledge the existence and reality of Gravity is NOT AN ACT OF BELIEF. The existence of Gravity is a form of knowledge that belief is not required. Now if Leela continues to persist in the idea that FACTS are something that require belief, then it is a waste of time trying to communicate with him/her. Belief cannot mean just whatever someone wants it to mean to suit their own purpose. The meaning of words is extremely important and critical in the ability to communicate with others. Leela has a very incorrect understanding of the word BELIEF when it comes to FACTUAL KNOWLEDGE. Now if that is true of factual knowledge, how much more is this person’s inability to communicate about BELIEF when it comes to knowledge that cannot be scientifically proven (ie - things of the Spirit) - knowledge and reality that existed long before the universe ever came into being. That requires BELIEF Leela. If you would like to understand the word properly, please refer to the link on Belief, Knowledge and Epistemology

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief

This is really too strange. What sense does it make to say we don’t believe in facts? You must have some strange technical definition of ‘fact’ for that to be at all plausible, but you haven’t shared this definition. Or maybe as a ‘believer’ you believe that all ‘belief’ implies ‘faith,’ in some yet-to-be-defined sense of the word? These certainly aren’t ‘Catholic’ viewpoints. I’m a Catholic, anyway, and I believe in facts. Some people believe that gravity exists, others don’t, other don’t know whether to believe it exists or not, or what exactly it means when someone says, “gravity exists” (Augustine and Aquinas would probably have been in this latter category - they were never confronted with the Newtonian concept of gravity). Anyway, “I exist” is a fact, I believe it is a fact and that there are others like it, therefore I believe in facts (I think that there are facts, that facts exist) and I believe that facts are, by definition (qua ‘facts’), true. Where’s the problem with that? And what does it have to do with the question about metaphysics?

From Tuesday’s gospel: “blind guides, you strain out gnats and swallow camels!” - I don’t want to point fingers, but that is a warning that Catholics are supposed to take to heart.