Search found 7 matches
- Tue Mar 09, 2010 6:55 am
- Forum: General Serious Discussion & Philosophy
- Topic: Metaphysics as an Error
- Replies: 971
- Views: 63765
Re: Metaphysics as an Error
And as James has been trying to get across in this thread, in order to explore empiricism and the 'error' of metaphysics, you have to get your hands dirty on what it is to 'observe'. It is metaphysically possible that Berkeleyian Idealism is absolutely true. It is metaphysically possible that Locke...
- Sun Mar 07, 2010 4:16 am
- Forum: General Serious Discussion & Philosophy
- Topic: Metaphysics as an Error
- Replies: 971
- Views: 63765
Re: Metaphysics as an Error
I don’t see any deeper implications to the concepts “internal-external” than what is, in a sense, empirically transparent: X observes Y, X and Y are in a spatial relation to one another. The concepts of internality-externality have their meanings grounded in such relations, not in some hidden (non-...
- Sat Mar 06, 2010 10:55 pm
- Forum: General Serious Discussion & Philosophy
- Topic: Metaphysics as an Error
- Replies: 971
- Views: 63765
Re: Metaphysics as an Error
I am interseted in this part of your post, because I agree that Kant made the (platonic) error of setting up the distinction between phenomena and neomena, defining all knowable by senses the 'phenomena' and all unknowable by senses the 'neomena' and thus brewing the duality which has poisoned west...
- Sat Mar 06, 2010 5:41 am
- Forum: General Serious Discussion & Philosophy
- Topic: Metaphysics as an Error
- Replies: 971
- Views: 63765
Re: Metaphysics as an Error
Now, let's attend to the subset of 'E' - that is, the constituent parts of E (henceforth 'Es'), such as the Sun, other stars, the Earth, water, trees, pigs, humanity, etc. etc.. Though I really want to focus upon 'you', the individual itself (henceforth 'ii'). Now, how does the ii observe/see/perce...
- Sat Mar 06, 2010 5:01 am
- Forum: General Serious Discussion & Philosophy
- Topic: Metaphysics as an Error
- Replies: 971
- Views: 63765
Re: Metaphysics as an Error
Im entirely uncomfortable with the idea that the "empirical world" is anything but a metaphorical container; what does it mean for something to be outside the empirical world? I think it was Ayer who pointed out the Cartesian error of taking metaphors as literal facts about the world. Could you be ...
- Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:52 pm
- Forum: General Serious Discussion & Philosophy
- Topic: Metaphysics as an Error
- Replies: 971
- Views: 63765
Re: Proof that kills relativism
The relativists' claim is that there is no way to know of anything, other than 'E' (the empirical realm). Now, let's attend to the subset of 'E' - that is, the constituent parts of E (henceforth 'Es'), such as the Sun, other stars, the Earth, water, trees, pigs, humanity, etc. etc.. Though I really...
- Fri Mar 05, 2010 9:49 pm
- Forum: General Serious Discussion & Philosophy
- Topic: Metaphysics as an Error
- Replies: 971
- Views: 63765
Re: Metaphysics as an Error
Reposted, though slightly updated. Last paragraph added. What does it mean to say "Metaphysics is an error"? It means to ask the question "What do we mean when we say this or that exists?" and to find the answers we find in philosophy and outside unsatisfactory. It is not a profession of faith that...