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

[Prodigal_Son]

So you say, but saying so doesn’t make it true.

“Saying so doesn’t make it true” is also an assumption. It may be that, for jkiernan56, saying so *does *make it true.

 

[Just_Lurking]

OK. With all of the precision about mathematics that you have explained, mathematics should be able to tell us - with absolute precision, beyond any shadow of a doubt - whether infinity, the number that is, is odd or even.

jd

Odd and even aren’t really all that useful properties when infinities are concerned, but since you asked. A number is even if it can be expressed as 2n for some number n. A number is odd if it can be expressed as 2n+1 for some number n. Cardinal infinity (the one denoted Aleph null) is both even and odd, as can be seen by taking n to be Aleph null. Ordinal infinity (the one denoted omega or omega zero) is neither even nor odd. The proof of this is harder.

 

[Leela]

Metaphysics does not attempt to get past appearances it succeeds! Whether we like it or not we make metaphysical assumptions.

It is only in starting with the assumption that you are not in touch with reality that you need metaphysics to help you get in touch with reality. I don’t know why you would think that you can get more in touch with reality by coming up with descriptions of reality when sentences can only relate things to other things and no particular one of these such relations gets you any closer to the essence of a thing than any other.

Logical positivism was abandoned because the verification principle cannot be verified empirically. It implies that only physical reality is the only reality - without being able to justify that assumption. All theories of knowledge are based on preconceived ideas about reality, i.e. metaphysical assumptions. They must be because otherwise they would exist in a vacuum!

I agree that all metaphysics has this bootstrapping problem.

Pragmatism is based on metaphysical assumptions such as:

1. The physical universe exists.
2. The physical universe is the only form of reality.
3. The physical universe is orderly.
4. The physical universe is intelligible.
5. We exist as distinct individuals.
6. We are aware of ourselves and physical objects.
7. We can understand to some extent the mechanisms of nature.
8. We can and do control our activity and the mechanisms of nature.
9. We can choose to initiate different actions.
10. Some actions are more useful than others.

Some one these ae assumptions that I don’t make at all. Others are beliefs I hold which are verifiable by anyone at any time and do not need to be assumed.

Pragmatism is superficial because it restricts its attention to **appearances **without considering the origin, nature and significance of underlying reality. It is strictly utilitarian and neglects the beauty of the night sky and the moral law within… Its aims and values are restricted to a closed system and it evades the most important questions about the purpose and destiny of the human race.

This is question-begging. From your perspective I am only concerned with appearances, but from my perspective there is nothing meaningful to get out of an appearance-reality distinction other than what Dewey called “the nest and brood of dualism” that has plagued the history of philosophy.

I haven’t set up a closed system. My point has been to say that we can reject the idea of philosophical system (metaphyics) all together. Let me assure you that I in no way “neglect the beauty of the night sky.” But I do see no moral law intrinsic to reality that is anything other than the ways in which human beings seek a better future. “The purpose and destiny” of the human race is a continuing project that I think will proceed better without putting undue limitations on what the future of humanity can be. It is like asking a dinosaur to imagine what would make a good mammal. With luck, the future may be unimaginably better than the present.

Best,
Leela

 

[Leela]

“Saying so doesn’t make it true” is also an assumption. It may be that, for jkiernan56, saying so *does *make it true.

All I mean by “saying so doesn’t make it true” is that you will need to do a lot more than say so to convince anyone. I don’t assume that this is true. I assert it as a contingent belief that will either prove to be a good habit of action or not.

 

[Leela]

The project of metaphysics, which is to get past appearances to reality as it really is, is one that we don’t need to engage in. We don’t have to think of inquiry as trying to find the one true account of reality but rather we can use whatever descriptions are useful for whatever purposes they are useful for.

Let me add that pragmatists who oppose doing metaphysics suggest that we substitute for the question “do our ideas about reality correctly hook up with reality?” with the question “have we been creative enough to come up with better alternatives to our current beliefs?”

 

[Prodigal_Son]

All I mean by “saying so doesn’t make it true” is that you will need to do a lot more than say so to convince anyone. I don’t assume that this is true. I assert it as a contingent belief that will either prove to be a good habit of action or not.

I was just making a joke. I believe that assertions like “God is the ground of all reality” ought to be backed up, too, if they are posted in the Philosophy forum.

 

[Betterave]

The problem with metaphysics is not whether the various philosophers and theologians have developed good reasoning in their various systems. In general they have. If you talk to a materialist, she can give you a good account of reality based on her materialist assumptions of a reality based on substance. Same thing if you talk to an idealist who bases reality on the subjective self, or if you talk to Robert M. Pirsig of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance fame who based his metaphysics on Quality, or Heidegger on Being, etc. You could have the same sorts of conversations with Taoists or Buddhists or Christians and others who all have very different fundamental assumptions about the nature of reality. You will find that all these systems demonstrate valid chains of reasoning within the frameworks that they have set up. The truth is that self-consistent rationally sound metaphysical systems are a dime a dozen, so we shouldn’t be too impressed that the fact that they are self-consistent and rationally sound. Aquinas’s dictum “when you reach a contradiction, make a distinction” tells us exactly how easy it is to ensure that your system is self-consistent.

In short, whether a metaphysical chain of reasoning is valid is the wrong question. What we would need to adopt any of these systems and what no one has ever invented is a method that stands outside of metaphysics that tells us how to choose between such systems. Pragmatists like myself say that even this is not an issue because we are in no way forced to choose among these systems or create a new one.

The project of metaphysics, which is to get past appearances to reality as it really is, is one that we don’t need to engage in. We don’t have to think of inquiry as trying to find the one true account of reality but rather we can use whatever descriptions are useful for whatever purposes they are useful for.

Best,
Leela

Very interesting post!
“you can have the same sorts of conversations with…”: reeeally? Anyone making this kind of claim (i.e., blanket assertions about all of metaphysics - there have been a good number in this thread) might consider the possibility that the alleged ‘sameness’ (whatever this alleged ‘sameness’ is alleged to consist in) of all of these metaphysical conversations is more a function of a ‘pragmatic’ (if for nothing else, perhaps it’s ‘useful’ (pragmatic) for avoiding a real encounter with metaphysical problems) insensitivity to difference, arising, perhaps, out of impatience, obtuseness, prejudice, ignorance, inexperience, etc. (i.e., traits, the pragmatic value of which should probably at least be called into question). I have a lot of sympathy for pragmatism, but pragmatists, I suspect, have the tendency of over-simplification (a suspicion which tempers my sympathy for pragmatism). Of course it wouldn’t be ‘over-simplification’ if such pragmatists are right about ‘reality,’ but a pragmatist apparently can’t claim to be right about ‘reality,’ at least not if pragmatism is taken to be inherently anti-metaphysical - but what does a pragmatist’s distaste for metaphysics amount to??

I could say, in full earnest, “I’m a pragmatist but I think that descriptions of ‘reality’ that go beyond ‘appearances’ might well be ‘useful’ (i.e., have ‘pragmatic’ value, and of course a discussion of the meaning of these terms and their relations to one another might be eminently useful too, certainly for our purposes here). Further an attempt to distinguish between alternate accounts of ‘reality’ is probably also useful.” Any reason why not?

 

[Just_Lurking]

Actually, it is pretty much the same for metaphysics as for mathematics. You say that, “The terms used have no precise definition and the axioms used seem completely arbitrary.” Please give an example or two.

Okay, take free will. Metaphysical reasoning about free will is “not even wrong” as those in the hard sciences sometimes say. Physics has a more precisely defined concept, that of contra-factual definiteness (CFD). All physical theories make predictions about experiments that you make. A physical theory provides for CFD if it also makes predictions about experiments that didn’t make, but could have decided to make given your free will.

CFD was taken for granted until quantum theory came along, and said that you can’t measure both position and momentum at the same time, so it isn’t a problem that quantum theory cannot tell you what the momentum was of a particle whose position was measured. This problem is much worse for the EPR paradox, where it would seem that the theory has to determine the result before the experimenter decides on the selection of experiment. So as a result there are several categories of physics theories:

• Those providing for full CFD.
• Those providing for CFD for future experiments, but not for past experiements.
• Those providing for some form of CFD that violates general relativity, but you can’t tell because you didn’t perform the experiments that would detect such a violation.
• Those that don’t provide for CFD for future experiments.

So my question is, does any of metaphysical analysis of free will provide insight as to what level of support for CFD is required for a correct physical theory? Do any physicists accept and acknowledge that metaphysical reasoning in their work?

 

[Leela]

Very interesting post!
“you can have the same sorts of conversations with…”: reeeally? Anyone making this kind of claim (i.e., blanket assertions about all of metaphysics - there have been a good number in this thread) might consider the possibility that the alleged ‘sameness’ (whatever this alleged ‘sameness’ is alleged to consist in) of all of these metaphysical conversations is more a function of a ‘pragmatic’ (if for nothing else, perhaps it’s ‘useful’ (pragmatic) for avoiding a real encounter with metaphysical problems) insensitivity to difference, arising, perhaps, out of impatience, obtuseness, prejudice, ignorance, inexperience, etc. (i.e., character traits, the pragmatic value of which should probably at least be called into question). I have a lot of sympathy for pragmatism, but pragmatists, I suspect, have the tendency of over-simplification (a suspicion which tempers my sympathy for pragmatism). Of course it wouldn’t be ‘over-simplification’ if such pragmatists are right about ‘reality,’ but a pragmatist apparently can’t claim to be right about ‘reality,’ at least not if pragmatism is taken to be inherently anti-metaphysical - but what does a pragmatist’s distaste for metaphysics amount to??

I could say, in full earnest, “I’m a pragmatist but I think that descriptions of ‘reality’ that go beyond ‘appearances’ might well be ‘useful’ (i.e., have ‘pragmatic’ value, and of course a discussion of the meaning of these terms and there relations to one another might be eminently useful for our purposes here). Further an attempt to distinguish between alternate accounts of ‘reality’ is probably also useful.” Any reason why not?

No reason at all. In fact, Richard Rorty coined the term “ironist” to describe such a person who:

  " 1. She has radical and continuing doubts about the final vocabulary she currently uses, because she has been impressed by other vocabularies, vocabularies taken as final by people or books she has encountered;
   2. She realizes that argument phrased in her present vocabulary can neither underwrite nor dissolve these doubts;
   3. Insofar as she philosophizes about her situation, she does not think that her vocabulary is closer to reality than others, that it is in touch with a power not herself."

– Richard Rorty, Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989, p.73

So you may be correct to think of pragmatists not as anti-metaphysicians but ironists about metaphysics. Or you may think of them as the same thing.

Do you think someone could be an ironist and a Catholic?

Best,
Leela

 

[Betterave]

No reason at all. In fact, Richard Rorty coined the term “ironist” to describe such a person who:

  " 1. She has radical and continuing doubts about the final vocabulary she currently uses, because she has been impressed by other vocabularies, vocabularies taken as final by people or books she has encountered;
   2. She realizes that argument phrased in her present vocabulary can neither underwrite nor dissolve these doubts;
   3. Insofar as she philosophizes about her situation, she does not think that her vocabulary is closer to reality than others, that it is in touch with a power not herself."

– Richard Rorty, Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989, p.73

So you may be correct to think of pragmatists not as anti-metaphysicians but ironists about metaphysics. Or you may think of them as the same thing.

Do you think someone could be an ironist and a Catholic?

Best,
Leela

Maybe! There’s no problem on points 1 and 2, but on 3, insofar as she philosophizes (and insofar as she is a true pragmatist, I’d say!), a Catholic would have to think “that her vocabulary is closer to reality than others [which is not to say “all others”], that it is [indeed!] in touch with a power not herself [who but a solipsist would refuse to grant this point? - mind you, I’m not real clear on what ‘power’ is supposed to mean here].” (Thus I say “Maybe!” because I’m not sure how to interpret some of the criteria.)

That said, my question would be: Do you think anyone could be an ironist?

 

[Betterave]

Okay, take free will. Metaphysical reasoning about free will is “not even wrong” as those in the hard sciences sometimes say. Physics has a more precisely defined concept, that of contra-factual definiteness (CFD). All physical theories make predictions about experiments that you make. A physical theory provides for CFD if it also makes predictions about experiments that didn’t make, but could have decided to make given your free will.

CFD was taken for granted until quantum theory came along, and said that you can’t measure both position and momentum at the same time, so it isn’t a problem that quantum theory cannot tell you what the momentum was of a particle whose position was measured. This problem is much worse for the EPR paradox, where it would seem that the theory has to determine the result before the experimenter decides on the selection of experiment. So as a result there are several categories of physics theories:

• Those providing for full CFD.
• Those providing for CFD for future experiments, but not for past experiements.
• Those providing for some form of CFD that violates general relativity, but you can’t tell because you didn’t perform the experiments that would detect such a violation.
• Those that don’t provide for CFD for future experiments.

So my question is, does any of metaphysical analysis of free will provide insight as to what level of support for CFD is required for a correct physical theory? Do any physicists accept and acknowledge that metaphysical reasoning in their work?

Well how 'bout that! Back to the topic at hand though, what is metaphysics?

If you don’t know that’s fine (if you want to know an open mind will be required), and don’t worry, I’m sure no metaphysician wants to prevent you from doing math. You seem to want to prevent metaphysicians from doing metaphysics though - why is this? Do you really think that the study of reality is exhausted by mathematics (and related sciences)? That would be a bold claim!

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Whoops, Prodigal, you must have posted while I was writing my post. Sorry .

Just a quick question: could you expand a little on the distinction between ‘fixed’ rules of logic and ‘contentious’ ones?

This may help: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic#Controversies_in_logic

I’m not an expert on the subject, and it seems to me that some of these controversies (challenging the law of noncontradiction, for example) are just silly.

 

[tonyrey]

It is only in starting with the assumption that you are not in touch with reality that you need metaphysics to help you get in touch with reality.

If you don’t start with the assumption that you are not in touch with reality you must start with the assumption that you are in touch with reality. How would you justify that assumption? Or do you take it for granted you are in touch with reality?
If you do, it proves you exist within a closed system - that which can be perceived by the senses and nothing more.

I don’t know why you would think that you can get more in touch with reality by coming up with descriptions of reality when sentences can only relate things to other things and no particular one of these such relations gets you any closer to the essence of a thing than any other.

Exactly the same objection could be made to science which comes up with descriptions which can only relate things to other things. Language is an essential tool for any form of investigation. Metaphysics is not committed to belief in essences…

I agree that all metaphysics has this bootstrapping problem.

Pragmatism also has this problem because its restriction to empirical evidence presupposes physicalism.

Some one these are assumptions that I don’t make at all.

Which of these assumptions are the ones that you don’t make?
Which are the beliefs verifiable by anyone at any time which do not need to be assumed?

This is question-begging. From your perspective I am only concerned with appearances, but from my perspective there is nothing meaningful to get out of an appearance-reality distinction other than what Dewey called “the nest and brood of dualism” that has plagued the history of philosophy.

In other words you are equating appearances with reality. Once again you are assuming physical reality is the only reality. Yet we do not have direct knowledge of the physical world. We infer the existence of objects from the evidence of our senses. The only reality we know directly is within our mind.

I haven’t set up a closed system.
My point has been to say that we can reject the idea of philosophical system (metaphysics) all together.

We can but then we are being illogical. The success of science is due to the fact that it regards the universe as a system and not a collection of unrelated items of which it gives piecemeal descriptions. It regards the entire universe as orderly and intelligible but these are both metaphysical assumptions.

Let me assure you that I in no way “neglect the beauty of the night sky.”

you may appreciate its beauty but how do you explain it pragmatically?

But I do see no moral law intrinsic to reality that is anything other than the ways in which human beings seek a better future.

What are the criteria of a better future?

“The purpose and destiny” of the human race is a continuing project that I think will proceed better without putting undue on what the future of humanity can be.

Why do you think a metaphysical explanation necessarily puts limitations on the future of humanity? Physicalism certainly does but theism regards human beings as having unlimited life.

With luck, the future may be unimaginably better than the present.

Theists believe the future will be unimaginably better than the present - but not with luck!

 

[GratefulFred]

Yes. The snow would “be” red then. Your saying that it is white depends on a certain type of light striking it. My saying that it’s red depends on a different type of light. Colors are perceptual experiences. You’re talking about something else, some scientific phenomena – hue, perhaps.

I admit I do not yet have a handle on “metaphysics,” so my comment can be way off base.

I think I see a weakness in the above. Something IS what is IS. Period. How we perceive it, white, red, whatever, depends on our education and whether or not there are any filters between us and the thing. But, snow’s natural color does not change. Truth does not change. God does not change.

How we perceive the three depends on our education and whatever filters are between us and the three.

God has given us the filter of His Son, Jesus Christ. And Christ established His Church. Alas, our education about God through His Son Jesus and His Church is woefully short. Thus, many find God and Christ hard to accept, so we build our own filters and perceive Him differently in so many ways. But, there can only be ONE truth. So, while well intentioned or not, the many ways God is perceived, by those who set up their own filters, are lacking to one degree or another. The most reliable way is through the Church God’s Son, Jesus Christ, established.

I do not imply that the Church’s teaching is woefully short, rather I imply that we do not know that teaching as well as we should.

The word ‘education’ comes from the Latin, “e ducre” (sic) which means to lead out. To be led out is to be free in the best way. Free to make the better choices in life. One’s education is seen in how one behaves.

IF we understood God, as HE wants us to through Christ and His Church (God’s chosen filters for us, not our personal filters that restrict our education), as well as we should, we would behave much better than we do.

Life is our effort, or not, to that better, freely chosen, behavior for the love of God.

 

[Betterave]

We infer the existence of objects from the evidence of our senses. The only reality we know directly is within our mind.

Ahh, some classic metaphysical claims! (boldly and dogmatically stated no less!) How about instead of accusing others of making unwarranted assumptions, we just ask, “how do you justify this claim?”

(Well, tonyrey… how do you? It’s certainly not the kind of thing a metaphysician can take for granted and to flatly assert this kind of claim to someone who appears to admire Richard Rorty? - unconscionable!)

(On the other hand, I think much of the rest of the post referred to was quite reasonable.)

 

[Betterave]

I admit I do not yet have a handle on “metaphysics,” so my comment can be way off base.

I think I see a weakness in the above. Something IS what is IS. Period. How we perceive it, white, red, whatever, depends on our education and whether or not there are any filters between us and the thing. But, snow’s natural color does not change. Truth does not change. God does not change.

How we perceive the three depends on our education and whatever filters are between us and the three.

God has given us the filter of His Son, Jesus Christ. And Christ established His Church. Alas, our education about God through His Son Jesus and His Church is woefully short. Thus, many find God and Christ hard to accept, so we build our own filters and perceive Him differently in so many ways. But, there can only be ONE truth. So, while well intentioned or not, the many ways God is perceived, by those who set up their own filters, are lacking to one degree or another. The most reliable way is through the Church God’s Son, Jesus Christ, established.

I do not imply that the Church’s teaching is woefully short, rather I imply that we do not know that teaching as well as we should.

The word ‘education’ comes from the Latin, “e ducre” (sic) which means to lead out. To be led out is to be free in the best way. Free to make the better choices in life. One’s education is seen in how one behaves.

IF we understood God, as HE wants us to through Christ and His Church (God’s chosen filters for us, not our personal filters that restrict our education), as well as we should, we would behave much better than we do.

Life is our effort, or not, to that better, freely chosen, behavior for the love of God.

I think this is not an accurate assessment of the Church’s stance towards intellectual development (education) and freedom. It sounds more like a transposition of a naive fundamentalist view of sola scriptura into a Catholic context (sola church teaching). The church holds scientific investigation and metaphysical inquiry in high esteem and the ultimate law of the church is love, that is an erotic (so says B XVI, in Deus Caritas Est!) and agapic movement out of ourselves towards the other and towards God and vice versa. This movement cannot be achieved simply by knowing unchanging church doctrine better (not to say that such knowledge is dispensable). Remember that the Catholic Church holds that there is such a thing as doctrinal development (famously expounded by John Henry Newman). Formulations of the essence of education or truth that smack of parochiality should be avoided.

 

[Leela]

If you don’t start with the assumption that you are not in touch with reality you must start with the assumption that you are in touch with reality. How would you justify that assumption? Or do you take it for granted you are in touch with reality?

I don’t start with any such assumption. I don’t think the question of whether or not our ideas get us more or less in touch with reality is one we need to ask. Are you suggesting that it is somehow part of intrinsic Human Nature to start with such questions? I would think that issues such as being hungry, cold, or tired would come first. Then if we think of knowledge as a way of using reality rather than a way of representing reality, we never need to ask whether we have found the one true description of The Way Things Really Are.

In other words you are equating appearances with reality. Once again you are assuming physical reality is the only reality. Yet we do not have direct knowledge of the physical world. We infer the existence of objects from the evidence of our senses. The only reality we know directly is within our mind.

Not at all. Pragmatists responses to questions like this often take the form “instead of asking X, try asking question Y, since someone who is concerned with Y never bothers to ask X.” You are trying to force me into taking some side on the appearance-reality bugbear, but if you aren’t thinking of knowledge as an attempt to represent reality and are rather thinking of knowledge as concerned with using reality, such a question does not get asked.

What are the criteria of a better future?
Why do you think a metaphysical explanation necessarily puts limitations on the future of humanity? Physicalism certainly does but theism regards human beings as having unlimited life.
Theists believe the future will be unimaginably better than the present - but not with luck!

If the future will be unimaginably better than the present, how could I possibly be in a position to set up criteria for judging it? Like I said earlier, it is like asking a dinosaur what would make a good mammal.

The important difference between secularists like myself and you in regard to hope is that we would like to replace hope for something interesting to happen after we die with the hope that life in the future can be made better than it is today.

best,
Leela

 

[PJM]

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

I have never seen a thread devoted entirely to Metaphysics. I am going to take a back seat on this, as i want to see a debate rather then get involved at the moment. But i realize that there are allot of people who seem to think that Metaphysics is hocus pocus; and thats people who are both theist and atheist.

Is there anybody who cares to defend Metaphysics?

***METAPHYSICS
The science of being, as being; or of the absolutely first principles of being. Also called ontology, first philosophy, the philosophy of being, the philosophy of first causes, wisdom. (Etym. Greek meta, after, beyond + physika, physics.)

---

In defence of this principle I put forth that Mans ability to LOVE, which involves all of humanities Spiritual Gifts, mind, intellect and freewill is the greatest evidence that God exist and that God is good!

Love and prayers,

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I admit I do not yet have a handle on “metaphysics,” so my comment can be way off base.

Your post was wonderfully compelling, I thought.

I think I see a weakness in the above. Something IS what is IS. Period. How we perceive it, white, red, whatever, depends on our education and whether or not there are any filters between us and the thing. But, snow’s natural color does not change. Truth does not change. God does not change.

It is absolutely true that something is what it is. But *we *do not *know *what it is. The perfect example is God: God is what He is, regardless of how we do or do not perceive Him.

But, in regard to the snow example, we only “know” that snow is white because of the nature of our eyes. But our eyes could be at fault, and see something that isn’t there (consider color-blindness). It is possible that snow is not white, but rather some other color that we interpret as white – say, protowhite. (Although what would this mean? Would it simply mean that someone else interprets it as protowhite, in which case there is no way to judge who is correct? Or is there a standard that is not relative? The mind of God, perhaps?)

Considerations like this led Kant to say that we have no knowledge of the external world (“things in themselves”). This is to say, we *may *have knowledge of the external world, but we have no way to know that our “knowledge” refers to anything but human perspective.

About snow’s natural color, though: where is it located? If all actual snow were suddenly to have red light cast on it, would its natural color still continue to be white? These are the questions that make metaphysics necessary.

God has given us the filter of His Son, Jesus Christ.

Amen! Through Him, perhaps, we can know the thing-in-itself. Actually, we should take off the term “filter” at this point, and say that rather Christ strips the filters of sin off our eyes, thus giving us truly *immediate *experiences.

But this is very much like Platonism, of course, because THE thing-in-itself, as mediated through Christ, may have little in common with the various things-in-themselves that we have experience of. This is the so-called “problem of universals”. When I fathom the essence of what a birch tree is, does looking at any particular birch tree tell me anything? Or is each particular birch tree indispensable – does every particular birch tree have particular value, viewed through the immediacy of Christ?

The word ‘education’ comes from the Latin, “e ducre” (sic) which means to lead out. To be led out is to be free in the best way. Free to make the better choices in life. One’s education is seen in how one behaves.

Now you really sound like Plato!

IF we understood God, as HE wants us to through Christ and His Church (God’s chosen filters for us, not our personal filters that restrict our education), as well as we should, we would behave much better than we do.

This is another classic statement: that virtue follows understanding. I completely agree, although I do not think virtue follows from knowledge, as such. Knowledge is two-edged sword, as the story of Eden indicates. But understanding is a relationship between oneself and the truth. It is precisely that relationship which metaphysics, ideally, would place us in contact with.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Ahh, some classic metaphysical claims! (boldly and dogmatically stated no less!) How about instead of accusing others of making unwarranted assumptions, we just ask, “how do you justify this claim?”

“We infer the existence of objects from the evidence of our senses. The only reality we know directly is within our mind.” - Tony

Where is the problem? Could an omnipotent being, theoretically, manipulate a consciousness in ways so as to “simulate” everything that we experience daily, although really no external objects or people existed? Yes, of course. Could we ever discover this was the case? No.

This is entirely consistent with our current experience. I’m not saying it’s true eek, but it does prove that “the only reality we know directly is within our mind”.