Metaphysics

[EvilRedGuy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics

What do you think? I heard it was bullshit pseudo-science, how come?

[Luís Henrique]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics

What do you think? I heard it was bullshit pseudo-science, how come?

1. Don't take Wikipedia too seriously.
2. Don't take what you hear too seriously either.

But nevertheless, metaphysics is not pseudo-science, because it does not pretend to be science. Whether it is valid philosophy, or not, is another question. And note that different philosophers give different definitions of what "metaphysics" is.

Luís Henrique

[Revolution starts with U]

Exactly. Something can only be pseudo-science if it is acting as if it is science. Metaphysics (for the most part) makes no such claim, and instead deals with the things science does not and/or cannot know.

Now, when you are dealing with the metaphysics of ghosts, or free energy or something, you're probably dealing with pseudo-science, but those cranks are not using the term metaphysics correctly anyway.

[o well this is ok I guess]

Metaphysics as a whole? Most certainly not.
Although I suppose one could make a somewhat compelling argument regarding Metaphysics before Kant as such.

[syndicat]

metaphysics is a subject. it can be approached in a pseudo-science way or in a scientific way. it is not inherently pseudo-science tho.

[EvilRedGuy]

Thanks for the answers. Although i heard it was pseudo-science dosen't mean i toke it seriously, just wanted an idea whether it was true or not. Thanks anyway. ;)

[matevz91]

metaphysics is a subject. it can be approached in a pseudo-science way or in a scientific way. it is not inherently pseudo-science tho.

Exactly. Metaphysics is not some bullshit stuff, as "Revolution starts with U" said, it just deals with things science does not know/is not interested into.

You can imagine normal physics and metaphysics as two subforums. The more we progress into future, the more posts from the metaphysics forum are moved to the normal physics forum. Examples of such posts are in last century time travel and telepathy. Cant wait to see what will be moved to normal physics forum in the next 1000 years :cool:

[Ryan the Commie Girl]

Exactly. Metaphysics is not some bullshit stuff, as "Revolution starts with U" said, it just deals with things science does not know/is not interested into.




In other words, bullshit stuff.

[Meridian]

In other words, bullshit stuff.
'Science' is entirely uninterested in your comment, so I propose we all just ignore that bullshit.

[∞]

Move this to philosophy. Seriously.

[matevz91]

In other words, bullshit stuff.

Ryan, such a answer I did not expect. I mean, seriously, if you want to post just that something is bullshit, go to the trashcan and post there.

If you do not have anything meaningful to say, don`t say it. If you are lost in your own world, that does not mean that we all others are. Only a uneducated person would say "bullshit" and not explain, why they think so.

You think that time travel does not belong into science? Oh, where have you been living for the last century?
You think that telepathy does not belong into science? Scientists have studied telepathy for decades now. Look this: http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/vision_remota/esp_visionremota_9a.htm. Soviet union was a superpower in the research of telepathy before 1937 and after 1960 (when Stalinist restrictions were lifted). But since you are so against the 20th congress and end of the cult of Stalin, I do not blame you if you call soviet union after 1953 "fascist" and with it any research into area of metaphysics also "fascist".

You still do not believe in telepathy? You never experienced it and you need a "scientific proof"? Read the Primary Quantum Theory of Telepathy, written by Gao Shan from the Chinese Institute of Electronics and Institute of Quantum Physics, Beijing (released in 2004).

In it, Gao and his team clearly state:
"The physical nature of psi phenomena such as telepathy is an important problem in present science of consciousness. Scientists have basically confirmed the existence of telepathy phenomena through many strict experiments. Then can modern science (e.g. quantum theory) provide a scientific explanation for telepathy phenomena?"

You still think that metaphysics is bullshit? You know, materialism as philosophy died in 20th century (here I do not mean Marx`s d. materialism, which is of course valid). I mean, physical materialism died. Anybody who knows a thing or two about modern physics, sees that. Materialism is like Newtonian physics - it applies in general, but the devil is in the exceptions.

You will argue that materialism is basis of all great 18th and 19th century works? Well, materialism was in fashion back then, because the world needed strong philosophical foundations, and world at that time could not provide such foundations. Large majority of people just followed their masters (mostly church) blindly, while the intelligentsia mostly settled for materialism. Materialism was actually needed back then, but today times are different.
Of course, blind people still exist (I have such even in my family and among my friends), people who follow anti-communists and other types of "preachers", but they will die out with evolution.
Today, majority of our society is already based on materialist foundations, and that gives science the freedom to look for the exceptions.

My philosophy regarding materialism and non-materialism is such: I look at everything first from the materialistic and then from the non-materialistic viewpoint. Balance is the right path, not extremism.

I really need no further dose of such "bullshit" comments. Go and post bullshit somewhere else.

[Kenco Smooth]

Ryan, such a answer I did not expect. I mean, seriously, if you want to post just that something is bullshit, go to the trashcan and post there.

If you do not have anything meaningful to say, don`t say it. If you are lost in your own world, that does not mean that we all others are. Only a uneducated person would say "bullshit" and not explain, why they think so.

You think that time travel does not belong into science? Oh, where have you been living for the last century?
You think that telepathy does not belong into science? Scientists have studied telepathy for decades now. Look this: http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/vision_remota/esp_visionremota_9a.htm. Soviet union was a superpower in the research of telepathy before 1937 and after 1960 (when Stalinist restrictions were lifted). But since you are so against the 20th congress and end of the cult of Stalin, I do not blame you if you call soviet union after 1953 "fascist" and with it any research into area of metaphysics also "fascist".

You still do not believe in telepathy? You never experienced it and you need a "scientific proof"? Read the Primary Quantum Theory of Telepathy, written by Gao Shan from the Chinese Institute of Electronics and Institute of Quantum Physics, Beijing (released in 2004).

In it, Gao and his team clearly state:
"The physical nature of psi phenomena such as telepathy is an important problem in present science of consciousness. Scientists have basically confirmed the existence of telepathy phenomena through many strict experiments. Then can modern science (e.g. quantum theory) provide a scientific explanation for telepathy phenomena?"

You still think that metaphysics is bullshit? You know, materialism as philosophy died in 20th century (here I do not mean Marx`s d. materialism, which is of course valid). I mean, physical materialism died. Anybody who knows a thing or two about modern physics, sees that. Materialism is like Newtonian physics - it applies in general, but the devil is in the exceptions.

You will argue that materialism is basis of all great 18th and 19th century works? Well, materialism was in fashion back then, because the world needed strong philosophical foundations, and world at that time could not provide such foundations. Large majority of people just followed their masters (mostly church) blindly, while the intelligentsia mostly settled for materialism. Materialism was actually needed back then, but today times are different.
Of course, blind people still exist (I have such even in my family and among my friends), people who follow anti-communists and other types of "preachers", but they will die out with evolution.
Today, majority of our society is already based on materialist foundations, and that gives science the freedom to look for the exceptions.

My philosophy regarding materialism and non-materialism is such: I look at everything first from the materialistic and then from the non-materialistic viewpoint. Balance is the right path, not extremism.

I really need no further dose of such "bullshit" comments. Go and post bullshit somewhere else.

The research your talking about is not metaphysical. Also anything that is so blindly accepting of telepathy as validly proven under experimental conditions is simply not good science. Materialism and metaphysics are not antitheses, indeed the claims of materialism are essentially metaphysical ones about what types of things fundamentally exists.

And it's very strange to see a political radical preaching the virtues of balance against extremism. As empty a term as it is most people would consider this forum an extremist one (or at least one based upon extreme ideals).

[matevz91]

The research your talking about is not metaphysical. Also anything that is so blindly accepting of telepathy as validly proven under experimental conditions is simply not good science. Materialism and metaphysics are not antitheses, indeed the claims of materialism are essentially metaphysical ones about what types of things fundamentally exists.

And it's very strange to see a political radical preaching the virtues of balance against extremism. As empty a term as it is most people would consider this forum an extremist one (or at least one based upon extreme ideals).

Your points are valid. Of course, this forum is extremist and I subscribe to the extremism in many ways :cool:. I just addressed Ryan directly, tried to show her that when she replies, it is not enough that you just write "this is bullshit". Instead, one has to argue, why it is bullshit. Here I presented my arguments, why metaphysics is not bullshit. I thought that if she replies, she will reply something about materialism, and so I replied to her in advance. :rolleyes:

Anyway, telepathy today still belongs more into "border science", but hey, nothing in quantum physics is certain. Telepathy is just interesting to me as someone who studies computer science, regarding the transport of information between living beings. How, what protocol it follows, is it a FTL form of communication, what are its limits, can it transfer also objective informations like numbers (actually, it can).
About the "existence" of telepathy, if you do not believe experiments, ask yourself, have you ever experienced it? I have, many times. The "existence" is not a question, the question is "how?".

I mean, metaphysical information transfer is in general very interesting to me. I have read a lot about taychons, Bells anti-telephone and such devices. But those things are still part of science fiction, while telepathy is not anymore. That is the difference.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

There are plenty of good examples of metaphysical problems that have nothing to do with telepathy and the other kind of stuff you see in the "Metaphysics" section in the bookstore. Those questions are fun but unfortunately it's hard to make serious claims for or against such things.

More fundamental metaphysical questions are things like whether or not our ideas have perfectly corresponding external objects, why it is possible to classify 2 entities as a universal X, or whether or not a person has anything substantive which makes him the same person in time A and later in time B. All are serious philosophical questions. Other metaphysical problems which are quite famous are whether or not God exists, whether the universe has an origin, or whether or not the universe is infinite, but I don't think those kinds of questions are as popular anymore since so much has already been written on them and its questionable whether or not they can even be answered (for instance, see Kant's critique of pure reason where he claims that questions like whether or not god exists are impossible to answer).

Basically, metaphysics asks questions that cannot be logically answered by science, or in the very least not by science alone. It asks questions on topics that are beyond the realm of knowable physics. Hence the term METAphysics is appropriate, although it may be merely coincidental because Aristotle wrote "Metaphysics" after his "Physics".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics_%28Aristotle%29#Title.2C_date.2C_and_t he_arrangement_of_the_treatises


Subsequent to the arrangement of Aristotle's works by scholars at Alexandria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandria) in the first century CE, a number of his treatises were referred to as τὰ μετὰ τὰ φυσικά (ta meta ta fysika; literally, "the [writings] after the Physics"). This is the origin of the title for collection of treatises now known as Aristotle's Metaphysics. Some have interpreted the expression "τὰ μετὰ τὰ φυσικά" to imply that the subject of the work goes "beyond" that of Aristotle's Physics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_%28Aristotle%29) or that it is metatheoretical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metatheory) in relation to the Physics. But others believe that "τὰ μετὰ τὰ φυσικά" referred simply to the work's place in the canonical arrangement of Aristotle's writings, which is at least as old as Andronicus of Rhodes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andronicus_of_Rhodes) or even Hermippus of Smyrna (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermippus_of_Smyrna).[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics_%28Aristotle%29#cite_note-3) Within the Aristotelian corpus itself,[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics_%28Aristotle%29#cite_note-4) the metaphysical treatises are referred to as τὰ περὶ τῆς πρώτης φιλοσοφίας (literally, "the [writings] concerning first philosophy"); "first philosophy" was what Aristotle called the subjects of metaphysics. (He called the study of nature or natural philosophy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_philosophy) "second philosophy" (Metaphysics 1037a15).)Anyone who thinks metaphysics is "bullshit" is being silly, although I think you'll find that viewpoint is common among Marxists due to the general disdain towards anything which seems too "idealistic"

[deLarge]

Being that naturalism presupposes various metaphysical principles, yes, metaphysics is valid.

[matevz91]

There are plenty of good examples of metaphysical problems that have nothing to do with telepathy and the other kind of stuff you see in the "Metaphysics" section in the bookstore. Those questions are fun but unfortunately it's hard to make serious claims for or against such things.

More fundamental metaphysical questions are things like whether or not our ideas have perfectly corresponding external objects, why it is possible to classify 2 entities as a universal X, or whether or not a person has anything substantive which makes him the same person in time A and later in time B. All are serious philosophical questions. Other metaphysical problems which are quite famous are whether or not God exists, whether the universe has an origin, or whether or not the universe is infinite, but I don't think those kinds of questions are as popular anymore since so much has already been written on them and its questionable whether or not they can even be answered (for instance, see Kant's critique of pure reason where he claims that questions like whether or not god exists are impossible to answer).

Basically, metaphysics asks questions that cannot be logically answered by science, or in the very least not by science alone. It asks questions on topics that are beyond the realm of knowable physics. Hence the term METAphysics is appropriate, ...

Yes, metaphysics includes many things, not just paranormal. About the philosophical questions of metaphysical realm, even if interest into them is falling, that does not mean that progress will stop. As we know, science is in general limited by the development of mathematics.
For example, backward causation in the theory of time travel is one of such problems which will perhaps be solvable in the (very far) future, with both knowledge and mathematical tools (perhaps something like the mathematical tools used in sequential circuits), while the problems you put forward will perhaps remain unsolvable.

Problem of existence of God is one of the biggest questions of that kind and is very probably really unsolvable. The thing is, God is either considered to be out of our everything (creator God, anthropomorphic or not ) or is everything (pantheism God), and that makes us somewhat unable to describe him/it/she/? with our knowledge. But I am sure that Kant described that perfectly.

God is perhaps a system programmer?:) I have always said that every scientist should be a operating system programmer, because that makes you able to understand things you never did before. We programmers are much like creators and we can also create our own digital worlds with unique digital intelligent beings.:cool: Perhaps just I believe in interdisciplinary between computer science, physics, mathematics and philosophy? Anyway, that is half a joke and half serious.


Anyone who thinks metaphysics is "bullshit" is being silly, although I think you'll find that viewpoint is common among Marxists due to the general disdain towards anything which seems too `idealistic`. "

Nothing further to add. That attitude will hopefully change in the future.

[ckaihatsu]

or free energy or something,


As a sidebar here I'll note that 'free energy' is often given the meaning of a misnomer -- that is, it's misrepresented. 'Free energy' is akin to 'free food', in the sense that both are products of nature, ultimately, but neither is ever exactly 'free' by current societal practices of value. That said, though, one may probably be able to obtain 'free food' or 'free energy' by focusing on the tools and process for either, by being 'self-sufficient' or 'off-the-grid'. Again, societal connotations cannot be escaped entirely.





Anyone who thinks metaphysics is "bullshit" is being silly, although I think you'll find that viewpoint is common among Marxists due to the general disdain towards anything which seems too "idealistic"


Idealism / dualism is always a real and present intellectual trap, so the danger of it cannot be overstated.

However, there *is* something to be said for 'a priori' knowledge -- that which is entirely objective and material, fully independent of any given individual or population.








The terms a priori ("prior to") and a posteriori ("posterior to") are used in philosophy (epistemology) to distinguish two types of knowledge, justifications or arguments. A priori knowledge or justification is independent of experience (for example 'All bachelors are unmarried'); a posteriori knowledge or justification is dependent on experience or empirical evidence (for example 'Some bachelors are very happy'). A posteriori justification makes reference to experience; but the issue concerns how one knows the proposition or claim in question—what justifies or grounds one's belief in it. Galen Strawson wrote that an a priori argument is one in which "you can see that it is true just lying on your couch. You don't have to get up off your couch and go outside and examine the way things are in the physical world. You don't have to do any science."[1] There are many points of view on these two types of assertions, and their relationship is one of the oldest problems in modern philosophy.

See also the related distinctions: deductive/inductive, analytic/synthetic, necessary/contingent.




According to Kant, a priori knowledge is transcendental, or based on the form of all possible experience, while a posteriori knowledge is empirical, based on the content of experience.




Concepts such as time and cause are counted among the list of pure a priori forms. Kant reasoned that the pure a priori forms are established via his transcendental aesthetic and transcendental logic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori_and_a_posteriori





Materialism and metaphysics are not antitheses, indeed the claims of materialism are essentially metaphysical ones about what types of things fundamentally exists.


I appreciate this point especially since I've devoted a fair amount of time to developing conceptual structures along these lines -- here's an archetypal example, and more can be found by doing a web search for 'political educational diagrams'.


Consciousness, A Material Definition

http://postimage.org/image/35t4i1jc4/

[o well this is ok I guess]

Anyone who thinks metaphysics is "bullshit" is being silly, although I think you'll find that viewpoint is common among Marxists due to the general disdain towards anything which seems too "idealistic" But let's be fair.
When it comes to bad philosophy, bad metaphysics are the worst.

[Queercommie Girl]

Metaphysics is IMO boring and useless. It offers no concrete benefits to the socialist movement or any kind of anti-discrimination activism. It does not even directly aim to explain the world we live in as pure theoretical science aims to. It's largely irrelevant. Of course some people like to play with philosophical concepts etc, and they have the right to do that if they wish, but please don't pretend that metaphysics is of any serious consequence to real political movements. I'd rather make sure no-one in the world goes hungry first before we indulge in abstract philosophy.

[aristos]

Just because something is useless in a survivalist sense, doesn't mean it has no cultural value.

[Queercommie Girl]

Just because something is useless in a survivalist sense, doesn't mean it has no cultural value.


As Marx said, one must feed and clothe himself/herself first, before he/she can engage in art and philosophy.

You are free to play abstract logical games if you wish, I'm simply pointing out that it has little to do with socialist politics.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Metaphysics is IMO boring and useless. It offers no concrete benefits to the socialist movement or any kind of anti-discrimination activism. It does not even directly aim to explain the world we live in as pure theoretical science aims to. It's largely irrelevant. Of course some people like to play with philosophical concepts etc, and they have the right to do that if they wish, but please don't pretend that metaphysics is of any serious consequence to real political movements. I'd rather make sure no-one in the world goes hungry first before we indulge in abstract philosophy.

On the contrary, metaphysics can be very relevant to anti-discrimination politics. Discrimination is often based on various kinds of metaphysical assumptions which ignorant people have about the world. I can think of any number of such assumptions which impede your rights to self-actualization as a transgendered person. Various teleologies and ontological presuppositions underpin the kind of hatred that various groups of people face.

[Meridian]

As Marx said, one must feed and clothe himself/herself first, before he/she can engage in art and philosophy.
You seem to be ignoring the fact that while art generally seeks to evoke emotion and thought, philosophy aims to accurately make claims about the world.

This is why it, unfortunately in many cases, is unjustified to group art and philosophy together. Philosophy is not some genre of art, nor is it derivative of science.

Also, materialism does not necessitate metaphysics, unless you are specifically talking about a metaphysical materialist theory of reality. One could in my mind give the 'materialist' label to other ideas as well, such as the idea that language has basis in its human use in communication, and that philosophy is distortion of how sentences are formed. So that resolve in philosophy would be the clarification of language use and the original question exposed as not possibly having an answer.

[Queercommie Girl]

You seem to be ignoring the fact that while art generally seeks to evoke emotion and thought, philosophy aims to accurately make claims about the world.


Perhaps it does claim to, but I trust science to explain the world more than philosophy.



This is why it, unfortunately in many cases, is unjustified to group art and philosophy together. Philosophy is not some genre of art, nor is it derivative of science.


Marx was referring to the cultural superstructure in general.

Anyway, I think sometimes art, philosophy and science can all give humans pleasure, and this is important too. I don't agree with a purely utilitarian view of value theory, some things can have value even if they are useless. I literally believe hedonism - the idea of pleasure as an end in itself, is to some extent a justifiable goal, as long as there are many other values present as well.

Personally, I actually have more interest in value theory (ethics and aesthestics) than metaphysics and logic. I very explicitly reject "moral nihilism" - the idea that value theory has no value at all.

My point is simply that none of this is really relevant to Marxist politics. But then I hope for most people Marxism isn't the full scope of their entire lives, otherwise it would really be quite sad. I have many interests which frankly have nothing to do with socialism.

[Queercommie Girl]

On the contrary, metaphysics can be very relevant to anti-discrimination politics. Discrimination is often based on various kinds of metaphysical assumptions which ignorant people have about the world. I can think of any number of such assumptions which impede your rights to self-actualization as a transgendered person. Various teleologies and ontological presuppositions underpin the kind of hatred that various groups of people face.

It seems though that in this case anti-metaphysics would be more applicable...:lol:

[ckaihatsu]

(At the risk of precipitating a coup for leadership of my sprawling fan club I'll brazenly yet unobtrusively slip in one more diagram here without attempting to posit or disclaim it as a part of metaphysics or not.)

(Incidentally, it's complementary with the conceptual geometry of the previous diagram I posted -- the circular 'Consciousness' may be laid flat with these 'Meanings' rising vertically upward to indicate a hierarchy of relative importance.)


Interpersonal Meanings

http://postimage.org/image/1d5a6d1c4/

[matevz91]

My point is simply that none of this is really relevant to Marxist politics. But then I hope for most people Marxism isn't the full scope of their entire lives, otherwise it would really be quite sad. I have many interests which frankly have nothing to do with socialism.

I agree with you totally. I too have many more interests and hobbies that have nothing to do with my ideology.

[∞]

Seriously, why is this in sciences and environment? Move this to philosophy ASAP.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

It seems though that in this case anti-metaphysics would be more applicable...:lol:

Hardly ... anti-metaphysical arguments don't answer the core problems that drive people to metaphysics to begin with, and usually themselves contain various metaphysical assumptions. The problem isn't with metaphysics as such the problem is with how people make metaphysical assumptions without understanding the consequences or even recognizing those assumptions as "metaphysical".

I would much rather offer a more logical and honest metaphysics than throw the metaphysical project in the dustbin altogether.

[Queercommie Girl]

Hardly ... anti-metaphysical arguments don't answer the core problems that drive people to metaphysics to begin with, and usually themselves contain various metaphysical assumptions. The problem isn't with metaphysics as such the problem is with how people make metaphysical assumptions without understanding the consequences or even recognizing those assumptions as "metaphysical".

I would much rather offer a more logical and honest metaphysics than throw the metaphysical project in the dustbin altogether.

The fundamental problem with metaphysics, compared with science, is that metaphysical "facts" are supposed to be absolutely immutable and eternal, while no scientists would ever even try to suggest that present-day scientific theories will hold forever, or even for a very long period of time. For instance, modern physics replaced classical or Newtonian physics in the 20th century.

On the other hand, metaphysicians have more of a fetish for going back to "classical ideas and concepts", rather than simply seeing them as completely out-of-date. Metaphysics doesn't move forward with history like science does.

As an ancient Chinese proverb says, Change is Eternal. There are no "eternal truths" anywhere.

Also, I'm more interested in epistemology myself, rather than metaphysics or abstract logic. Where does knowledge come from? What is the justification for the claims metaphysicians make? Can they be considered to be "knowledge" at all? I have a naturally skeptical mind and I don't accept anything simply as a matter of faith or intuition. Knowledge does not come from intuition. Just because an idea seems to "make sense" and "clicks in one's head", doesn't mean the idea is true or justifiable in any serious way.

But on a more practical level, how do you think certain types of metaphysics lead to transphobia and how would your "corrections" and "revisions" to metaphysics lead to the elimination of transphobia?

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

The fundamental problem with metaphysics, compared with science, is that metaphysical "facts" are supposed to be absolutely immutable and eternal, while no scientists would ever even try to suggest that present-day scientific theories will hold forever, or even for a very long period of time. For instance, modern physics replaced classical or Newtonian physics in the 20th century.

On the other hand, metaphysicians have more of a fetish for going back to "classical ideas and concepts", rather than simply seeing them as completely out-of-date. Metaphysics doesn't move forward with history like science does.


It does change with history, albeit more slowly. For instance, Kant's critique of pure reason changed how a lot of philosophers in metaphysics do their work. Now because they are trying to find "essential facts" about the universe that never change and not empirical entities, it means that old ideas can stay relevant for much longer and debates can continue without empirical proof to resolve the conundrum. But there are still important metaphysical problems despite this fact.



As an ancient Chinese proverb says, Change is Eternal. There are no "eternal truths" anywhere.
That is itself a metaphysical statement (also "change is eternal" is itself an eternal truth :P) it is funny because I think that Chinese philosophers like Lao Tzu had an intriguing metaphysics.



Also, I'm more interested in epistemology myself, rather than metaphysics or abstract logic. Where does knowledge come from? What is the justification for the claims metaphysicians make? Can they be considered to be "knowledge" at all? I have a naturally skeptical mind and I don't accept anything simply as a matter of faith or intuition. Knowledge does not come from intuition. Just because an idea seems to "make sense" and "clicks in one's head", doesn't mean the idea is true or justifiable in any serious way.
There is something to this I will grant you-metaphysics is important but it needs to be tempered by an understanding of epistemology. But that merely means that metaphysics is best pursued with a solid epistemology, not that metaphysics get abandoned altogether.

Even the most anti-metaphysical religious founder in history, the Buddha, believed in making metaphysical arguments for pedagogical purposes.



But on a more practical level, how do you think certain types of metaphysics lead to transphobia and how would your "corrections" and "revisions" to metaphysics lead to the elimination of transphobia?For one, I think the disassociation of a person's essential character from the gender one is born with. In other words, what you are as a human being is not absolutely dependent on your biological status. By disassociating metaphysical essence of a person from the biological material you can deal with all of those obnoxious people who think that a "a man is born a man, not a woman!"

[∞]

This is still in sciences, I'm getting mad pissed.

[ckaihatsu]

As an ancient Chinese proverb says, Change is Eternal. There are no "eternal truths" anywhere.





That is itself a metaphysical statement (also "change is eternal" is itself an eternal truth :P)


One hazard in doing this kind of thing -- wanton philosophizing -- is that general abstractions can just lead to more generalized abstractions, blithely distant from any pre-agreed-upon basis or common understanding for the discussion. (This evokes the stereotype of stoned college students rambling on endlessly in this way, also having long forgotten the topic they started with -- or so I've heard (grin).

Since we don't have the luxury to err in the opposite direction either by being blithely *dismissive* of all generalizations altogether -- 'metaphysics', if you like -- we *can* find a firm footing by *qualifying* (categorizing) generalizations on a continuum -- the one-dimensional radial arm of a circle -- from that which is most literal / factual to that which is most erroneous. On yet another diagram I've indicated three basic "zones" of gradations -- your own actual fuzziness will vary, of course:


[ literal ]

[ figurative / themes / overview ]

[ abstraction / aesthetics / vagueness / superficiality / error ]


[1] History, Macro Micro -- Precision

http://postimage.org/image/34mjeutk4/


Generalizations-Characterizations

http://postimage.org/image/1d6itveo4/

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Metaphysics doesn't have to be bullshit, but it can be and often is.


This is still in sciences, I'm getting mad pissed.

I don't know, I think S&E is an appropriate venue to discuss the relationship between metaphysics and science.

[∞]

Metaphysics doesn't have to be bullshit, but it can be and often is.



I don't know, I think S&E is an appropriate venue to discuss the relationship between metaphysics and science.

I assume this sub-forum would be discussing things with actual scientific basis. Not relations with philosophy and science itself. The discussion of science's relationship philosophy so far has been a purely a philosophical discussion (at least on this thread).

[Queercommie Girl]

Now because they are trying to find "essential facts" about the universe that never change and not empirical entities, it means that old ideas can stay relevant for much longer and debates can continue without empirical proof to resolve the conundrum. But there are still important metaphysical problems despite this fact.


Why assume the universe has "essential facts that never change" in the first place?

Did you know that during the primitive tribal era, humans did not possess metaphysics, and metaphysics is an ideology that only arose with the emergence of class society?



Even the most anti-metaphysical religious founder in history, the Buddha, believed in making metaphysical arguments for pedagogical purposes.
On metaphysical issues, I do prefer Oriental philosophers like the Buddha and Laozi than Western philosophers.

Just out of interest, who do you think is more "anti-metaphysical", Buddha or Laozi?



For one, I think the disassociation of a person's essential character from the gender one is born with. In other words, what you are as a human being is not absolutely dependent on your biological status. By disassociating metaphysical essence of a person from the biological material you can deal with all of those obnoxious people who think that a "a man is born a man, not a woman!"
Ok. But another way is to simply stop assuming that the human biological body as it stands now is some kind of "metaphysical absolute". Stop making biology into a kind of metaphysics. Human biology can be transformed. I sympathise with technocracy and transhumanism (even though I don't label myself as such) and I don't rule out genetic engineering in principle.

[Luís Henrique]

Sorry - double post.

[Luís Henrique]

Metaphysics doesn't have to be bullshit, but it can be and often is.

What the dickens is metaphysics?

Most philosophers seem to define it as "philosophy made by other, dumber, philosophers, which I have shown to be wrong". The only guys I know that give a positive value to metaphysics are tomists/aristotelians - but then they seem to make it a synonim with ontology.

Luís Henrique

ETA: but yes, what is this philosophical thread doing in the science forum?

[matevz91]

Did you know that during the primitive tribal era, humans did not possess metaphysics, and metaphysics is an ideology that only arose with the emergence of class society?


:laugh: So, everything that is not strict science is for you something that arose with the emergence of class society? What is mathematics then? A product of capitalism? And computer science is something that is used to exploit proletarians?

During tribal era, humans were not developed enough to "posses metaphysics". Philosophy is something that comes with development.

But since you have already written comments like this, I will repeat what aristos already wrote: "Just because something is useless in a survivalist sense, doesn't mean it has no cultural value." Just replace "cultural value" here with any value.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Fair enough, thread moved, not my problem any more. :D

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Why assume the universe has "essential facts that never change" in the first place?


Is it an assumption? The "eternal entities" being looked for are sought usually for a good reason. Most people believe in some sort of facts which are always true. For instance, the notion that it's wrong or unjust to discriminate based on race, gender or sex certainly shouldn't be treated as something which can change. Metaphysicians want to know why that is the case, and if "change" is possible then what is the nature of that which is changing, etc.



Did you know that during the primitive tribal era, humans did not possess metaphysics, and metaphysics is an ideology that only arose with the emergence of class society?I disagree, when tribal societies are discovered around the world they have metaphysical systems even if they usually lacked what modern philosophers would consider a sufficiently rigorous method of analysis. I think what happened with class society is that metaphysics became a distinct job, whereas before it was tasked to shamanistic figures which acted as metaphysicians, doctors, timekeepers, ritualists and magicians at the same time. This meant that metaphysics became more doctrinal, scholastic and specialized, but it wasn't necessarily a new thing.

The same happened to ethics, epistemology and aesthetics-surely tribal people have systems whereby something can be viewed as true or false, right or wrong, etc, but there weren't necessarily discrete systems which they viewed as "Ethics" or people with the job of "Ethicist".



On metaphysical issues, I do prefer Oriental philosophers like the Buddha and Laozi than Western philosophers.

Just out of interest, who do you think is more "anti-metaphysical", Buddha or Laozi?
Buddha and Laozi agree with many Western philosophers on many issues including metaphysics.

I find Buddha more anti-metaphysical because he makes a bunch of metaphysical statements but also claims that their truth value is relative in nature and therefore all metaphysical statements are without any absolute truth value. The Tao on the other hand is a metaphysical idea, but what's interesting about Laozi's metaphysics is that he keeps his metaphysics mysterious and simple, so it cannot be abused to justify various grand conclusions about how the world should work.

Overall though I would say that Buddhist and Taoist philosophy (as religions being practiced by society, both are often interpreted metaphysically) are both two of the least metaphysical religious philosophies out there, alongside perhaps Jainism and some interpretations of Hinduism.



Ok. But another way is to simply stop assuming that the human biological body as it stands now is some kind of "metaphysical absolute". Stop making biology into a kind of metaphysics. Human biology can be transformed. I sympathise with technocracy and transhumanism (even though I don't label myself as such) and I don't rule out genetic engineering in principle.Hey, I'm all for not conflating biology with metaphysics, but there's a good reason why people do that. Metaphysical assumptions don't come out of nowhere.

[matevz91]

Fair enough, thread moved, not my problem any more. :D

Well done!

[Meridian]

For instance, the notion that it's wrong or unjust to discriminate based on race, gender or sex certainly shouldn't be treated as something which can change.
But it is something that changes. Whether you think that is good or bad has no relevance. It is demonstrably not the case that humans everywhere have always considered discrimination of various kinds a bad thing.


surely tribal people have systems whereby something can be viewed as true or false, right or wrong, etc, but there weren't necessarily discrete systems which they viewed as "Ethics" or people with the job of "Ethicist".
Stating that x is true or false, right or wrong, does not mean that there are "systems which they viewed as 'Ethics'". Language culture and use precedes any a priori philosophy.


Hey, I'm all for not conflating biology with metaphysics, but there's a good reason why people do that. Metaphysical assumptions don't come out of nowhere.They do not, but metaphysics is fundamentally different from physics. The one can not be used to produce the other.

[Luís Henrique]

Did you know that during the primitive tribal era, humans did not possess metaphysics, and metaphysics is an ideology that only arose with the emergence of class society?

Yes? Didn't they believe in gods, demons, devils, ghosts, magic, etc?

Luís Henrique

[Decolonize The Left]

In my humble opinion, metaphysics is meaningless philosophical babble. Nietzsche knew it. Wittgenstein knew it. Now we know it. It's all pointless nonsense which started with the 'world of forms' and presupposing that ideas exist separate from reality.

- August

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

But it is something that changes. Whether you think that is good or bad has no relevance. It is demonstrably not the case that humans everywhere have always considered discrimination of various kinds a bad thing.


Norms=/=morality. Maybe there is no such thing eternal, absolute moral system but there's a good reason why people argue in favor of such a thing, and as a concept it is best to keep it separate from the concept of social norms.



Stating that x is true or false, right or wrong, does not mean that there are "systems which they viewed as 'Ethics'". Language culture and use precedes any a priori philosophy.


You seem to have misread me, I said they had ideas which we would classify as ethics but not a discrete category of knowledge called "ethics".



They do not, but metaphysics is fundamentally different from physics. The one can not be used to produce the other.

Yes, metaphysics is different from physics. What I was saying is that most people make irrational jumps by giving material entities (like people with a male or female sex) some kind of essential feature about the nature of the person, and that this leap is reinforced by the general culture. This doesn't mean that I think that physics are the same as metaphysics.


In my humble opinion, metaphysics is meaningless philosophical babble. Nietzsche knew it. Wittgenstein knew it. Now we know it. It's all pointless nonsense which started with the 'world of forms' and presupposing that ideas exist separate from reality.

That's not much of an argument. Also I think the relationship with Nietzsche and Wittgenstein and metaphysics is a little more complicated than the way you present it.

[Luís Henrique]

Also I think the relationship with Nietzsche and Wittgenstein and metaphysics is a little more complicated than the way you present it.

Also the way each opposes "metaphysics" is very different - probably because each had also a different idea of what is "metaphysics".

Which brings back the question, "what is metaphysics", to which each philosopher gives a different answer (from a Marxist perspective, for instance, both Nietzsche's and Wittgenstein's philosophy could be classified as "metaphysic"). And so to say "metaphysics is meaningless philosophical babble" means little else than "philosophy I disagree with is meaningless philosophical babble".

Luís Henrique

[ckaihatsu]

[M]etaphysics is fundamentally different from physics. The one can not be used to produce the other.


This generalization is about as accurate as saying that houses cannot be made from seeds. Sure, in both cases there is an immediate ring of truth to them, but one may also choose to employ some *creativity* to have one lend itself to the service of the other.

I'll note that one quality / dynamic inherently *common* to both physics and metaphysics is that of *scale* -- often overlooked when the *context* of a statement is being considered.





[J]ust because I can say that we're *influenced* by world events doesn't mean that we're 100% *controlled* by them, either -- there's *some* kind of correlation but we have relative amounts of autonomy and self-determination at the *individual* scale, too.


A simple proof of this is to juxtapose the qualities of everyday (working) life to those of a distinct social / world *event* -- by definition transcending the individual or small group in terms of *scale*:


History, Macro-Micro -- Political (Cognitive) Dissonance

http://postimage.org/image/35rsjgh0k/

[Mr. Natural]

Luis Henrique pointed to a major problem attending discussions of metaphysics when he asked, "What the dickens is mataphysics?" He then noted in a following post that "each philosopher gives a different answer."

Metaphysics, as I understand it, works with existential issues and first principles and seems to have a spiritual element. Luis adds that it has been considered to be synonymous with ontology in some quarters.

However, Marx and Engels had a radically different take on metaphysics. They understood it as a rigid, mechanical, reductive science and philosophy of separate things, and they rejected this metaphysics to embrace dialectics and the emerging sciences of material organizational relations that were revealing life (thus society) to be a systemic process.

I consider this to be of the greatest importance, for the nascent sciences of organizational relations of Marx's and Engels' day have matured. These new sciences are dialectical, and dialectics can now be scientifically developed and brought into praxis.

So here is Marx's and Engels' view of mataphysics and dialectics, taken from Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, Engels' popularly-written presentation of the essentials from Anti-Duhring. This work and the project from which it emerged constitute an outstanding example of philosophy anticipating a science that then confirms the philosophy. And yes, science and philosophy have an intrinsically natural, dialectical relationship that needs to be honored by current Marxists if we are to be true to Marxism and revolutionary praxis.


"[Metaphysical natural science] left us as legacy the habit of observing natural objects as processes in isolation, apart from their connection with the vast whole; of observing them in repose, not in motion; as constants, not as essentially variables; in their death, not in their life. And when this way of looking at things was transferred by Bacon and Locke from natural science to philosophy, it begot the narrow metaphysical mode of thought peculiar to the last century.

"To the metaphysician, things and their mental reflexes, ideas, are isolated, to be considered one after the other, and apart from each other, are objects of investigation fixed, rigid, given once for all....For him a thing either exists or does not exist; a thing cannot at the same time be itself and something else. Positive and negative absolutely exclude one another; cause and effect stand in a rigid anththesis one to the other.

"In the contemplation of individual things, it forgets the connection between them; in the contemplation of their existence, it forgets the beginning and end of that existence; of their repose, it forgets their motion. It cannot see the wood for the trees.

"Every organic being is every moment the same and not the same; every moment it assimilates matter supplied from without, and gets rid of other matter; every moment some cells of its body die and others build themselves anew; in a longer or shorter time the matter of its body is completely renewed, and is replaced by other molecules of matter, so that every organic being is always itself, and yet something other than itself.

"Further, we find upon closer investigation that the two poles of an antithesis, positive and negative, e.g., are as inseparable as they are opposed, and that despite all their opposition, they mutually interpenetrate.

"None of these processes and modes of thought enters into the framework of metaphysical reasoning. Dialectics, on the other hand, comprehends things and their representations, ideas, in their essential connection, concatenation, motion, origin, and ending.

"Nature is the proof of dialectics ... Nature works dialectically, not metaphysically (emphasis mine); she does not move in the eternal oneness of a perpetually recurring circle, but goes through a real historical evolution. In this connection Darwin must be named before all others.

"In [the Hegelian] system--and herein is its great merit--for the first time the whole world, natural, historical, intellectual, is represented as a process, i.e., as in constant motion, change, transformations, development; and the attempt is made to trace out the internal connection that makes a continuous whole of all this movement and development."


The preceding passages make clear Marx's and Engels' understanding of metaphysics and dialectics and that they embraced dialectics and rejected reductive science and philosophy. Helena Sheehan's Marxism and the Philosophy of Science (1983) is quite valuable on this matter.

I thus find it shocking and politically paralytic that few modern Marxists understand that Marx and Engels dialectically viewed "nature, human society, and thought" as organic, systemic process. Bertell Ollman seems to have worked almost alone in this critical area, and he is right. See, especially, his comprehensive Dance of the Dialectic (2003).

What I find most shocking, though, is modern Marxism's near-wholesale rejection of the new sciences that work with organizational relations. The first of these sciences to appear was evolution, although neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory is mired in reductive concepts (see Richard Dawkins, et al). The red-green sciences that followed evolution include the new physics, cosmology, cybernetics, chaos theory, and, most importantly, systems-complexity science. These new, red-green sciences of organization have yet to be applied to human social systems by Marxists, and Marxists remain unable to organize revolutionary movements out of capitalism into socialism. Coincidence?

I believe these new red-green sciences make it possible to add one word to Marx's and Engels' definition of dialectics and bring dialectics into praxis. Dialectics can become "the science of the general laws of the organization, motion, and development of nature, human society, and thought." (Anti-Duhring) I believe it is now possible to scientifically, naturally, effectively organize!!!

My red-green very best.

[La Comédie Noire]

I suggest reading The Problems of Philosophy by Russell, where he gives a critical albeit sympathetic look at metaphysics and a spot on reason why philosophy is still important.

Some would like to think they are beyond the failings of western philosophy, but our thought is replete with all the errors and old problems and in a 100 years people will be wondering how we could ever be tricked by such conceptual traps. Kind of like now.

[ckaihatsu]

What I find most shocking, though, is modern Marxism's near-wholesale rejection of the new sciences that work with organizational relations. The first of these sciences to appear was evolution, although neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory is mired in reductive concepts




The red-green sciences that followed evolution include the new physics, cosmology, cybernetics, chaos theory, and, most importantly, systems-complexity science. These new, red-green sciences of organization have yet to be applied to human social systems by Marxists


I agree entirely with this political sentiment and think that it cannot be prioritized enough.

For the sake of illustration and mental conceptualization I'll suggest that a go-to way of visualizing the dialectical / complexity dynamic is to reference 'field theory' as a concept, in which areas or expanding spheres of emanations may overlap and interact with each other. (The background colors of the graphic I attached to post #17 may be seen as a crude depiction of this.)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_theory

[Mr. Natural]

ckaihatsu, I was wondering when we'd run into each other again and have read your posts and viewed your thumbnail diagrams. We continue to be among the very few RevLefters attempting to apply the new sciences of organizational relations to human social systems and movements.

Well, Marx and Engels would approve of our focus; you and I are active members of their fan club. Your work seems to be focused on emergent organizational levels and non-reductive hierarchies and scales, while I emphasize the underlying organization of living/social systems.

The field theory concept you mention can also be considered to be a "community" or "ecosystem" concept, I believe. As Stuart Kauffman of the Santa Fe Institute puts it, "local rules generate global order," i.e., the relations of self-organizing matter at one level generate a "higher level" systemic organization, or "field." The universe, itself, appears to be a giant, dynamically interdependent "field."

Another catchy phrase from the SFI that addresses living organization is "collective adaptation to individual ends." Here we have self-organized matter (people are matter) creating living systems, or "fields," or "communities," or "ecosystems."

My obsession is with people (self-organizing matter) learning to collectively self-organize into grassroots, democratic, red-green forms of communist community (red-green "fields"), and I believe I have some radical insights into how this might be accomplished. I have become accustomed, though, to my "let's get organized" posts being largely ignored.

Just the same, my post on metaphysics firmly established that Marx and Engels held a radically different view of metaphysics than was being discussed, and that the founding Marxists were dialecticians rooted in a Hegelian view of life and society as systemic process, and that they esteemed the emerging organic science.

Silly me! I find this interesting and significant.

In any case, I appreciate your response and am looking forward to further conversations with you.

My red-green best.

[ckaihatsu]

ckaihatsu, I was wondering when we'd run into each other again and have read your posts and viewed your thumbnail diagrams. We continue to be among the very few RevLefters attempting to apply the new sciences of organizational relations to human social systems and movements.


Well, you're entirely generous in the way you surmise my activity. These days, if it *weren't* for RevLeft, I'd probably just be practicing in front of a mirror...(!)





Well, Marx and Engels would approve of our focus; you and I are active members of their fan club. Your work seems to be focused on emergent organizational levels and non-reductive hierarchies and scales, while I emphasize the underlying organization of living/social systems.


Yep.





The field theory concept you mention can also be considered to be a "community" or "ecosystem" concept, I believe. As Stuart Kauffman of the Santa Fe Institute puts it, "local rules generate global order," i.e., the relations of self-organizing matter at one level generate a "higher level" systemic organization, or "field." The universe, itself, appears to be a giant, dynamically interdependent "field."


Yup. Exactly.





Another catchy phrase from the SFI that addresses living organization is "collective adaptation to individual ends." Here we have self-organized matter (people are matter) creating living systems, or "fields," or "communities," or "ecosystems."


I'll agree here in the organic sense of what you're saying but I think no one would dispute that there's a certain societal *momentum* that *shapes* us as individuals and society, due to an inertia from past practices, as from formal institutions.





My obsession is with people (self-organizing matter) learning to collectively self-organize into grassroots, democratic, red-green forms of communist community (red-green "fields"), and I believe I have some radical insights into how this might be accomplished. I have become accustomed, though, to my "let's get organized" posts being largely ignored.


For whatever it's worth, I think that that's simply the price of politics -- there's an inherent trade-off between theory and practice. The more pure one is with theory the less accessible it will probably be on the ground, in the streets. And the more active one is, the more shortcuts will have to be taken with the purity of agreement, and full adherence to theory. (Note 'Occupy Wall Street' as a prime example of this.)





Just the same, my post on metaphysics firmly established that Marx and Engels held a radically different view of metaphysics than was being discussed, and that the founding Marxists were dialecticians rooted in a Hegelian view of life and society as systemic process, and that they esteemed the emerging organic science.

Silly me! I find this interesting and significant.

In any case, I appreciate your response and am looking forward to further conversations with you.

My red-green best.


As ever. I'm sure you have my email address, after looking at all of those diagrams of mine....