Total Posts:38|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

- Metaphysics -

Lionheart
Posts: 520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2011 9:28:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I have recently taken a great interest in the subject of Metaphysics. I would like to hear everyone's thoughts and opinions who are interested in Metaphysics.

If you do not agree with Metaphysics or you do not like Metaphysics... I kindly ask you to use your time in a different forum.

If you wish to disregard my request, then so be it.... I cannot stop you.
"Knowing others is intelligence;
knowing yourself is true wisdom.
Mastering others is strength;
mastering yourself is true power."


- Lionheart -
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2011 9:33:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/3/2011 9:28:15 PM, Lionheart wrote:
I have recently taken a great interest in the subject of Metaphysics. I would like to hear everyone's thoughts and opinions who are interested in Metaphysics.

If you do not agree with Metaphysics or you do not like Metaphysics... I kindly ask you to use your time in a different forum.

You can't really "disagree" with metaphysics.

If you wish to disregard my request, then so be it.... I cannot stop you.

My position on metaphysics? We might live in an illusory world, but it doesn't matter. We don't interact with any other world than this--and this world has rules and ways of operating that can be learned.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2011 9:44:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Metaphysics is, by far, my favorite subdisicipline of philosophy. A lot of the interesting questions seem to lead back questions of ontology if you dig in deep enough.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2011 9:46:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/3/2011 9:44:07 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Metaphysics is, by far, my favorite subdisicipline of philosophy. A lot of the interesting questions seem to lead back to questions of ontology if you dig in deep enough.

Fixed. I hate these digital keyboards so much....
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Lionheart
Posts: 520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2011 9:48:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
How do you know that we don't interact with any other world but this one? And how do you know so clearly what this world even consists of?

Think of all the things we used to not understand or know about? The solar system, gravity, electricity, Quantum physics, radio waves, radiation, UV waves, etc.

Who is to say that we have it all figured out right now? Or that what we think we have figured out is even accurate?

When I suggest to you that the sky is really not blue... What does that do to your mind?

The sky is not blue. The mass particles around you in the various forms are 99% space if you listen to Quantum physics. Your consciousness is real correct? You are aware of being alive correct? So where did such a consciousness come from? We aren't like robots or computers... We are aware of ourselves and have free will.

You think there is nothing more than the world you experience with your 5 main senses?
"Knowing others is intelligence;
knowing yourself is true wisdom.
Mastering others is strength;
mastering yourself is true power."


- Lionheart -
Lionheart
Posts: 520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2011 9:49:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I find Metaphysics fascinating.
"Knowing others is intelligence;
knowing yourself is true wisdom.
Mastering others is strength;
mastering yourself is true power."


- Lionheart -
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2011 9:52:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/3/2011 9:33:14 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:

You can't really "disagree" with metaphysics.

There are strong and weak rejections of metaphysics. The strong one is that all metaphysical statements are meaningless, the weak one is that the human mind can not perceive the meaning of metaphysical statements. See for example the work of McGinn. Your latter quote sounds very similar to Feynman, which makes one wonder what he would have done had he been inclined to study it rather than what he did consider what he could achieve in his field.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2011 9:54:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/3/2011 9:48:11 PM, Lionheart wrote:
How do you know that we don't interact with any other world but this one?

I'm pretty sure I don't. No one else I know does, as far as they've told me. I can't think of anyone who has actually been able to demonstrate with certainty that they've interacted with the supernatural world.

And how do you know so clearly what this world even consists of?

I didn't say that I know everything about it. I said that it operates in a certain way, and that we can learn about it.

Think of all the things we used to not understand or know about? The solar system, gravity, electricity, Quantum physics, radio waves, radiation, UV waves, etc.

And now we do know about them, to a degree.

Who is to say that we have it all figured out right now? Or that what we think we have figured out is even accurate?

I never said we knew everything. I said that it's possible to learn about this world, real or not.

When I suggest to you that the sky is really not blue... What does that do to your mind?

Nothing. I don't think the sky is blue.

The sky is not blue. The mass particles around you in the various forms are 99% space if you listen to Quantum physics. Your consciousness is real correct? You are aware of being alive correct? So where did such a consciousness come from? We aren't like robots or computers... We are aware of ourselves and have free will.

My consciousness is real in a sense, so far as I know. Also, the "free will" thing is very suspect. I'm more of a determinist.

You think there is nothing more than the world you experience with your 5 main senses?

It wouldn't matter if there was anything more, because I'm unequipped to deal with it in the way that lower animals are unequipped to deal with philosophy.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2011 9:55:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
PCP, are not the meta-physical questions (free will, nature of time/space, etc.) dealt with in significant detail in theology? Are you not much more radically constrained than an atheist?
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2011 10:31:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Metaphysics is very real, and interesting, but there is nothing supernatural about it.

We are obviously limited by our own perception, which is why to observe many things scientifically, we need to augment our senses with the use of some type of tool. Even then, our ability to observe things through sensory augmentation is distorted and imperfect. We still rely on our own senses, and the best advanced equipment can do is translate phenomena into a way that is observable by our own built in senses.

For example, take an infrared camera. It translates these light vibrations into a form that is visible to us.. using visual stimuli that we can already perceive. This is not how infrared waves really look.

Reality is how we perceive the world.

Actuality is how the world is.

There is a difference, for certain.

There are definitely things outside of our knowing and ability to observe, but I would still argue that such forces would have to be natural. Supernatural is an absurdity.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Lionheart
Posts: 520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2011 12:07:07 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I think for the first time I actually agree with almost everything you said Alfonzo. That is a very nice change of pace.

I do question what we define as supernatural in comparison to what we define as natural.

If there is a spirit world... It has been here all along most likely. So it is really just as natural as anything else we can't perceive with our main 5 senses. I can't sense the world of radio waves that are all around me, yet they exist, and still yet they are natural. Same for UV rays. But if you went back 1000 years they would consider what you were talking about to be supernatural. A TV... supernatural. So, I wonder what we will know in another 1000 years and what we will consider "natural" at that point in time.

What do you think?
"Knowing others is intelligence;
knowing yourself is true wisdom.
Mastering others is strength;
mastering yourself is true power."


- Lionheart -
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2011 1:39:04 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/4/2011 12:07:07 AM, Lionheart wrote:
I do question what we define as supernatural in comparison to what we define as natural.


Supernatural is an absurdity, it is like saying "greater than god".

For something to be supernatural, it must violate the the laws of nature. Cause and effect, or more accurately, 2 or more forces acting on each other.

I would consider the average person's understanding of "free will" to fall into this category. I don't want to get into that discussion though, as I feel that arguing its case is counterproductive. Most people seem to think that they can use it as justification for being stupid, fat, and lazy.

Subjectively we experience free will. Live as though it is there.

If there is a spirit world... It has been here all along most likely. So it is really just as natural as anything else we can't perceive with our main 5 senses. I can't sense the world of radio waves that are all around me, yet they exist, and still yet they are natural. Same for UV rays. But if you went back 1000 years they would consider what you were talking about to be supernatural. A TV... supernatural. So, I wonder what we will know in another 1000 years and what we will consider "natural" at that point in time.

What do you think?

There is a spirit world, but it is not like the spirit world that most people think of.

The spirit world is the world within your own mind. The spirit world is a world of inner psychology.

There is a world beyond this. We can get a better understanding of what it is like by gaining a deeper understanding of the world within our heads.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2011 1:40:48 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/3/2011 9:33:14 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
You can't really "disagree" with metaphysics.

Oh, yes you can! hehehe
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2011 1:44:25 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/4/2011 1:42:36 AM, FREEDO wrote:
The only truly fruitful philosophical discipline is epistemology.

And Aesthetics, of course, but for entirely different reasons.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2011 1:56:57 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/4/2011 1:55:02 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/4/2011 1:42:36 AM, FREEDO wrote:
The only truly fruitful philosophical discipline is epistemology.

All of them are useful.

None of them can be examined with any sincerity without questioning the very nature of knowledge.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2011 2:01:28 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/4/2011 1:56:57 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 5/4/2011 1:55:02 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/4/2011 1:42:36 AM, FREEDO wrote:
The only truly fruitful philosophical discipline is epistemology.

All of them are useful.

None of them can be examined with any sincerity without questioning the very nature of knowledge.

That doesn't mean they aren't fruitful. You can make axiological observations relevant to this world while making pragmatically-justifiable assumptions about it. One can know that he values X without having to reference how he knows it, since the proof is inherent in the proposition.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2011 2:09:45 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/4/2011 2:01:28 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/4/2011 1:56:57 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 5/4/2011 1:55:02 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/4/2011 1:42:36 AM, FREEDO wrote:
The only truly fruitful philosophical discipline is epistemology.

All of them are useful.

None of them can be examined with any sincerity without questioning the very nature of knowledge.

That doesn't mean they aren't fruitful. You can make axiological observations relevant to this world while making pragmatically-justifiable assumptions about it. One can know that he values X without having to reference how he knows it, since the proof is inherent in the proposition.

One is treading on unsteady ground any time he makes a claim of inherent knowledge. There is nothing beyond doubt.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2011 2:16:00 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/4/2011 2:09:45 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 5/4/2011 2:01:28 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/4/2011 1:56:57 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 5/4/2011 1:55:02 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/4/2011 1:42:36 AM, FREEDO wrote:
The only truly fruitful philosophical discipline is epistemology.

All of them are useful.

None of them can be examined with any sincerity without questioning the very nature of knowledge.

That doesn't mean they aren't fruitful. You can make axiological observations relevant to this world while making pragmatically-justifiable assumptions about it. One can know that he values X without having to reference how he knows it, since the proof is inherent in the proposition.

One is treading on unsteady ground any time he makes a claim of inherent knowledge. There is nothing beyond doubt.

If I say "I value X", I'm pretty sure I can know that. My epistemic view is that, as far as external, objective claims, what we know is that we have data. What we don't know is how accurate that data is with regard to the actual state of things. That's why we can be certain in our subjective value judgments: unlike claims regarding the ultimate nature of existence, the referent for our value judgments is our own desires and preferences.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2011 3:06:12 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/4/2011 2:16:00 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/4/2011 2:09:45 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 5/4/2011 2:01:28 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/4/2011 1:56:57 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 5/4/2011 1:55:02 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/4/2011 1:42:36 AM, FREEDO wrote:
The only truly fruitful philosophical discipline is epistemology.

All of them are useful.

None of them can be examined with any sincerity without questioning the very nature of knowledge.

That doesn't mean they aren't fruitful. You can make axiological observations relevant to this world while making pragmatically-justifiable assumptions about it. One can know that he values X without having to reference how he knows it, since the proof is inherent in the proposition.

One is treading on unsteady ground any time he makes a claim of inherent knowledge. There is nothing beyond doubt.

If I say "I value X", I'm pretty sure I can know that. My epistemic view is that, as far as external, objective claims, what we know is that we have data. What we don't know is how accurate that data is with regard to the actual state of things. That's why we can be certain in our subjective value judgments: unlike claims regarding the ultimate nature of existence, the referent for our value judgments is our own desires and preferences.

http://www.debate.org...
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Lionheart
Posts: 520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2011 2:19:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
To actually believe that you can know nothing, because all knowledge is within the realm of doubt, then you only leave yourself with no knowledge at all. This would leave one as a madman that questions everything and everyone, but who will not accept any answer as truly valid. This is the path to madness, not enlightenment. To think that you can never truly know anything, this is madness in my opinion.

True madness.

I know what I know. This I know. I have accepted certain knowledge as my personal truth, but have also accepted that my personal truth might change as a become more intelligent or more wise. This is based from logic, reason, and rational thought...with the goal to understand anything that is unknown to me. It is with this mindset that you search for ultimate truth. The one truth that trumps all other truths. The one truth that all other truths can be built from.

To lose this ability is to lose sanity in my opinion. This is to lose your potential for growth. Instead, it will keep you in a fantasy state of mind, similar to a child, where nothing can be accepted as real and all knowledge is doubtful.

But even if you do truly feel like this... You are still assuming that you "know". You assume that you "know" all knowledge is doubtful through your own personal truth... An assumption that self defeats and will eventually cause insanity or madness.

This is my truth.
"Knowing others is intelligence;
knowing yourself is true wisdom.
Mastering others is strength;
mastering yourself is true power."


- Lionheart -
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2011 2:27:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/4/2011 2:19:40 PM, Lionheart wrote:

To actually believe that you can know nothing, because all knowledge is within the realm of doubt, then you only leave yourself with no knowledge at all. This would leave one as a madman that questions everything and everyone, but who will not accept any answer as truly valid.

That is actually how science works, it is only the people who do not understand it who assert that science proves something true. It is more correct to say it is about finding out what is less false and all that can ever be said is something is more probable than something else and that itself is only a probability not a claim to absolute.
Lionheart
Posts: 520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2011 3:13:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I agree with some of what you said Cliff.

But I do feel that everyone's accepted assumptions toward "information" or "knowledge" is the true definition of "knowledge" and is therefor not doubtful unless given new accepted assumptions which contradict the old accepted assumptions. At this point one would still take a stance as knowing what they know.

To live in true doubt is madness. To live in personal truth through reason, logic, and rationality... this is sanity.

For if you truly live in the doubt of all knowledge or information, then you would doubt reason, logic, and rationality as well... This would inevitably lead to madness. This is not all science or how all scientists think at all.

What you explain would be a "mad scientist".

A real scientist would never doubt logic, reason, and rationality. If anybody truly doubts these things... It will lead to madness or insanity...mental chaos, with no order.

For there to be mental order, you must have variables to build that mental order from. If you doubt anything to be true, then you have no variables to build your mental order upon.

I would like to understand...

How can anyone truly doubt everything, yet still think and have an opinion to stand on?
"Knowing others is intelligence;
knowing yourself is true wisdom.
Mastering others is strength;
mastering yourself is true power."


- Lionheart -
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2011 5:49:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
To be frank I don't think I ever met a scientist who asserted that they knew truth, even things like logic are not absolutes, they are all just frameworks. At the end of the day you start off with something and then see what happens if that is true and it either goes into contradictory chaos or does not. Since contradictory chaos is hard to utilize for a purpose those somethings tend to get abandoned. But really, underneath all of that we do not know that chaos is wrong and order is right, it could simply be that is the way our brains are wired.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2011 6:01:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Anton Wilson's words accurately sum up my thoughts.

I can see why he's considered a Discordian Saint.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Lionheart
Posts: 520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2011 6:33:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I firmly disagree with you Cliff. Logic is absolute. For without it you would cease to exist. Acknowledging existence is still done with logic. Therefor logic is absolute. You can't refute logic... For if you did, you would be using logic.

Logic is absolute. How can refute logic without using logic?

Impossible. To think in such a way is madness, chaos, insanity, and confusion.
"Knowing others is intelligence;
knowing yourself is true wisdom.
Mastering others is strength;
mastering yourself is true power."


- Lionheart -
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2011 6:38:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/4/2011 6:33:05 PM, Lionheart wrote:
I firmly disagree with you Cliff. Logic is absolute. For without it you would cease to exist. Acknowledging existence is still done with logic. Therefor logic is absolute. You can't refute logic... For if you did, you would be using logic.

Logic is absolute. How can refute logic without using logic?

Impossible. To think in such a way is madness, chaos, insanity, and confusion.

bad logic is still logic. And so logic can be refuted with alternative logic.

Also, you don't need logic to exist.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2011 6:40:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
http://farm6.static.flickr.com...
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2011 7:05:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/4/2011 6:33:05 PM, Lionheart wrote:

For without it you would cease to exist.

How is that now? What exactly do you think logic is?