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

[Detales]

Metaphysics is the trainig of the mind to an absolute Standpoint so that it becomes transparent to Divinity. Metaphysical principles are used to stabalize the mind in the midst of the storms of suggestions of error, so that the mind may become a scaffolding for the structure of Soul When that is correctly built, the sacffolding may be removed, or seen to be always unnecessary, as the structure of Soul stands on the ground of Being.

 

[JDaniel]

I don’t know what the rest of your post is about, but it certainly isn’t mathematics. Cantor proved in 1891 using diagonalisation that the infinity of real numbers is larger than the infinity of natural numbers. Ordinal numbers have infinite numbers that are one more than other infinite numbers. However, ordinal addition is not commutative.

It’s very apparent that you have not been forced to read Whitehead and Russell’s Principia Mathematica, or Quine’s New Foundations for Mathematical Logic, which do exactly what you claim cannot be done.

Now, you’re being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative. I must ignore you now, not because you have “won” anything, but, because you will not allow yourself to be reasoned with.

You ought to change your Profile to more accurately reflect who you are. Everyone herein now knows who you are and what you’re up to.

Buenas noches.

jd

 

[Just_Lurking]

You ought to change your Profile to more accurately reflect who you are. Everyone herein now knows who you are and what you’re up to.

Done.

 

[Leela]

Now, you’re being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative. I must ignore you now, not because you have “won” anything, but, because you will not allow yourself to be reasoned with.

You ought to change your Profile to more accurately reflect who you are. Everyone herein now knows who you are and what you’re up to.

Buenas noches.

jd

I’m not sure I know. What is he, and what is he up to other than winning debates?

 

[tonyrey]

I agree that you gave a precise explanation of design, but I don’t feel compelled to accept your conclusions as being logically necessary.

I’m not surprised. Any philosopher or scientist who claims his or her conclusions are logically necessary needs psychiatric treatment!

Assuming you can get the proposed research past the “human subjects” review board, I don’t see why not. For example, see here.

Do you really believe that is a method for testing whether a person is a good person or whether we are responsible for our behaviour?

 

[Just_Lurking]

Do you really believe that is a method for testing whether a person is a good person or whether we are responsible for our behaviour?

I do. Just as I believe mathematical proof is the best way to really get at understanding the properties of infinite numbers.

Assuming you use the words “good” and “responsible” similarly to how I do, then they have testable implications, and the best way to get at the truth is to test those implications.

Now it could be that the metaphysical terms mean something different, and have absolutely no testable implications. For example, whether animals have souls. In this case, divine revelation is the only way to get at the truth.

 

[tonyrey]

Assuming you use the words “good” and “responsible” similarly to how I do, then they have testable implications, and the best way to get at the truth is to test those implications.

How do you use those words?

 

[Just_Lurking]

How do you use those words?

Well, the link I gave was to a study that tested people’s honesty. To me, being honest is one important aspect of being good.

As for responsibility, if a person is responsible for his or her actions, then it is just to impose punishment if those actions are harmful. From another thread, it seems I disagree with Catholic metaphysics, because I think it is just to spank my dog for misbehaving, and dogs aren’t supposed to have free will according to the thread.

 

[Leela]

We have to represent reality in order to use it! We are not concerned with “one true description of The Way Things Really Are” but with a true description of the way particular things really are, not how they appear to be…

If we think of language as evolving as a tool for coping with the world, then there is no reason to think that we need to represent reality with language in order to use language to help us cope with reality. A sentence then doesn’t need to be thought of as a representation of anything any more than a hammer does.

As to the issue of being interested in a true true description of the particular things. I agree. I just don’t think that we are interested in a true representation of a particular thing. To know a thing is not to capture it’s essence in language but to be able to use it or put in in relation to some other thing. For example, all there is to know about the table I am sitting at is that certain sentences are true about it. It is brown, it is ugly, it is composed of atoms, it is hard, it is heavy, etc. We can write such sentences all day long. Which sentence is the essence of the table? Do we need to list more? At what point can we say that we have knowledge of the essence of the table if we are to think that there is an essence to it to be known (Kant’s Thing In Itself)? Or are any of these sentences any more the essence of the table than any other? If knowledge is about finding the correct sentences and believing them, and if sentences can only relate things to other things, then it is impossible to think that there is an essence of the table to be known that stands apart from its accidental relations to other things. And if language is a way of using reality rather than representing it, it is impossible to think that believing the wrong sentences takes us out of touch with reality. It just means we are using a hammer when a screw driver would better help us achieve our desires.

Do you mean your mind is less significant than the outside world?

No. I’m not sure what you mean here. All I meant was that if we are concerning ourselves with the question of whether we have been imaginative enough to come up with interesting alternatives to our current beliefs, we never need to ask such questions as whether we have gotten past appearances to reality as it really is. You want to keep saying that I am only concerned with appearances, while I am saying that there is no reason to think that an metaphysical appearance-reality problem need be a problem for us.

Best,
Leela

 

[davidv]

If we think of language as evolving as a tool for coping with the world, then there is no reason to think that we need to represent reality with language in order to use language to help us cope with reality. A sentence then doesn’t need to be thought of as a representation of anything any more than a hammer does.

I can agree that coping is one purpose of language. Is that its only purpose? It is also used for personal fulfillment, such as, expressing oneself in poetry, or declaring your love for the beloved.
{snip}

 

[tonyrey]

Well, the link I gave was to a study that tested people’s honesty. To me, being honest is one important aspect of being good.

What are the other important aspects of being good and how could they be tested?

As for responsibility, if a person is responsible for his or her actions, then it is just to impose punishment if those actions are harmful.

What do you base your idea of justice on? Human convention?

From another thread, it seems I disagree with Catholic metaphysics, because I think it is just to spank my dog for misbehaving, and dogs aren’t supposed to have free will according to the thread.

Don’t you think humans and dogs are punished for different reasons? Are dogs punished because it is just to do so?

 

[Just_Lurking]

What are the other important aspects of being good and how could they be tested?

What do you base your idea of justice on? Human convention?

Don’t you think humans and dogs are punished for different reasons? Are dogs punished because it is just to do so?

I’m not really seeing the point of all these questions. I’ve already agreed that metaphysics deals with important questions. My reservations all lie in whether metaphysics has any methods that can yield reliable answers to these questions.

If you are stuck with asking me what the answers to those questions are, then metaphysics is in a world of hurt!

 

[MindOverMatter]

I’m not really seeing the point of all these questions. I’ve already agreed that metaphysics deals with important questions. My reservations all lie in whether metaphysics has any methods that can yield reliable answers to these questions.

If you are stuck with asking me what the answers to those questions are, then metaphysics is in a world of hurt!

What is metaphysics to you, and why exactly do you feel the need to reserve positive judgment on the matter.

 

[Leela]

I can agree that coping is one purpose of language. Is that its only purpose? It is also used for personal fulfillment, such as, expressing oneself in poetry, or declaring your love for the beloved.
{snip}

“Coping with reality” is supposed to be a broad term for helping us achieve whatever purposes we have. Certainly the examples you gave are some such purposes. One of those purposes may even in fact be to represent reality. I’ve been railing against the idea that that is the sole purpose of language.

My pragmatic suggestion is that we drop that unfruitful project in favor of some more promising ones. I’ve tried to show that the metaphysical project of trying to get past appearances to get in touch with reality through language is one we don’t need to pursue and we’d be better off dropping. We don’t have to think of language as having taken us out of touch with reality to begin with. Others have argued that it is part of human nature to do metaphysics, and that such activity is unavoidable. I don’t see humanity as having any intrinsic Human Nature that we need to get back to but rather as an ongoing project of self-creation with a lot of promise.

Best,
Leela

 

[MindOverMatter]

My pragmatic suggestion is that we drop that unfruitful project in favor of some more promising ones. I’ve tried to show that the metaphysical project of trying to get past appearances to get in touch with reality through language is one we don’t need to pursue and we’d be better off dropping.

Leela

Isn’t this just what you would like the case to be? It would allow us to take life less seriously so that we can get on with exploiting the senses. Is that what you have mind?

 

[tonyrey]

I’m not really seeing the point of all these questions. I’ve already agreed that metaphysics deals with important questions. My reservations all lie in whether metaphysics has any methods that can yield reliable answers to these questions.

The whole point of these questions is to demonstrate that they cannot be answered scientifically. If you do have answers they cannot be scientific. So what are they?

You are obviously not obliged to answer my questions - or any other questions for that matter. I leave others to draw their own conclusions…

 

[Leela]

Isn’t this just what you would like the case to be? It would allow us to take life less seriously so that we can get on with exploiting the senses. Is that what you have mind?

Nope. I never said anything to suggest that human happiness is the mere accumulation of pleasures, and I have no idea how you got there, I’m saying we can stop trying to represent reality and instead focus on changing it.

By giving up the Greek appearance-reality distinction and replacing it the pragmatic idea of more or less useful descriptions of the world, we can stop worrying about whether our beliefs are well-grounded in metaphysical first principles and instead concern ourselves with whether or not we can come up with better alternatives to our current beliefs. Can our future be made better than our present? Can we imagine new ways to diminish human suffering and increasing the ability of all human children to start life with an equal chance at happiness? In short, we can replace knowledge with hope.

Best,
Leela

 

[MindOverMatter]

Nope. I never said anything to suggest that human happiness is the mere accumulation of pleasures, and I have no idea how you got there, I’m saying we can stop trying to represent reality and instead focus on changing it.

Perhaps ultimate happiness along with productive and endurable change requires a metaphysical understanding of being, and perhaps changing things for the better require more then a finite understanding of things. Perhaps we need to believe that we exist for an objective purpose, meaning and a positive end; even if we refuse to define that on religious terms.

 

[Just_Lurking]

The whole point of these questions is to demonstrate that they cannot be answered scientifically. If you do have answers they cannot be scientific. So what are they?

No problem, just trying to figure out where you were going with that.

I think the question of how good should be defined, or how responsible should be defined, is not a scientific question. However, once those terms are given a definition, I think it is within the realm of science to determine if people are good, etc.

 

[Just_Lurking]

What is metaphysics to you, and why exactly do you feel the need to reserve positive judgment on the matter.

I feel like the emphasis on how science isn’t able to address some foundational questions is akin to a 18th century physician trying to explain that since modern medicine can’t cure cancer, I should let him put leeches on my body.

From Areopagite’s post (#2), it could be because I’ve been exposed to a lot of bad metaphysical arguments, and few if any good ones. Is there a recommendation for an introductory paper on why I should believe metaphysics has the answers to these important questions?