Metaphysics is necessary

[SpeedOfSound]

Friends and captives, I have this metaphysical notion that everything is contained and constrained within the Everloving EverythingnessTM. Nothing that is not anything is not encapsulated and enclosed in the EETM. Everybody can deny it, but none can deny it: the whole caboodle, in a sense, IS the Everloving EverythingnessTM! And so, there is no escape. There isn't not no escape, neither. Even if the great Double ETM is not necessary, it is unavoidable and inevitable. You can't run away from it, and you can't falsify it; it resides within the tiniest cell. The tiniest mouse resides within the tiniest cell, serving its time, and the mouse itself is integrated within the EETM, as is time itself. And I ask you: could there be time without the Terrific Timeness of TimeTM, a mere subsidiary of the Everloving EverythingnessTM? I don't think so. And you won't need to think much. Simply accept your place, your Oneness with the One EverythingnessTM, and everything can be all once more...

Oh Fuck! I just flushed a mouse down the toilet.

[Surendra Darathy]

Even if the great Double ETM is not necessary, it is unavoidable and inevitable.

Don't the moon look good, mama, shinin' through the trees?
Don't the brakeman look good, mama,
flagging down the "Double E"?
Don't the sun look good goin' down over the sea?
Don't my gal look fine when she's comin' after me?

(It Takes a Lot to Laugh, It Takes a Train to Cry)

Well, that is my understanding of metaphysics, which can all be reduced to the thought, "There must be more to this than meats the I." There just hasta be! Hasta seem-pray!

Metaphysics is probably best defined as the endeavour to discover whether that thought is correct.

As you know, James, I do not use the word "discover" lightly, and would be interested to know what you think is entailed (there's that fucking word again!) in making a "discovery". Quite frankly, and I think you know this, I find that metaphysics is the endeavour to convince other people by means of spurious "arguments" that there is something more to the Double E than the Double E itself, or that "everything" does not, in some sense really mean "everything".

But, this is your forum, too, and if you want to use the word "discover" in novel and inventive ways, there's nobody here who is going to stop you. So, out with it: When a thought just sort of "pops into your head" that "it might be that there is a higher plane of existence", or something similar, how does one distinguish it from the kind of popping-into-the-head of notions that turn out to be the foundation of great novels? How do we, um, discover this?

The problem, as I see it, with the sort of "metaphysics" you are on about is that not only the content must be discovered, but the methodology as well. The grief you get from me is that you already seem to be off after the content, without having said enough about the methodology, which may simply amount to "trusting the wisdom of the past".

[Hermit]

Did I really just read that or am I imagining there's an elephant in that snake?

It's just a hat, damnit.



Metaphysics is a fun way of wasting time.

[jamest]

Metaphysics is probably best defined as the endeavour to discover whether that thought is correct.

As you know, James, I do not use the word "discover" lightly, and would be interested to know what you think is entailed (there's that fucking word again!) in making a "discovery".

As far as I know, the only angel of God, is reason. I held her hand and she took me to a realm beyond 2.4 kids and a dog called Muffie. Ah, but, how do I know that reason does not have the limitations of being "human, all too human"? Oh, because I know that reason cannot be judged thus until somebody proves to me that I am 'human'. In fact, the very thought you sought to reduce metaphysics to, questions that claim. And, of course, claims of being imply an ontology/metaphysic all of their own, anyway. And so, I take no heed of such scowling retorts and satisfy myself in the thought that if reason was good enough to find the question, then perhaps she has the answer. Certainly, any scepticism of reason should not extend to the slamming of the door, before her enticing gaze.

The problem, as I see it, with the sort of "metaphysics" you are on about is that not only the content must be discovered, but the methodology as well.

My methodology? Well, as you've witnessed, my primary concern is to sweep away the dirt before I lead you down that road made of yellow bricks, Darathy.

[Comte de Saint-Germain]

My methodology? Well, as you've witnessed, my primary concern is to sweep away the dirt before I lead you down that road made of yellow bricks, Darathy.

"Me-ods?" asked the two year old while finishing his fingerpainting.

[Surendra Darathy]

The problem, as I see it, with the sort of "metaphysics" you are on about is that not only the content must be discovered, but the methodology as well.

My methodology? Well, as you've witnessed, my primary concern is to sweep away the dirt before I lead you down that road made of yellow bricks, Darathy.

I didn't ask about your aims, which you seem to mistake for a methodology. Your solitary claim seems to be that the aims justify the means, and consist of a desire for neatness matched only by those with certain obsessive-compulsive disorders. If you ever got on to your methodology, my surmise is that it would be vaguely presuppositionalist. That sort of vagueness is quite often merely the handmaiden of ignorance borne of sloth.

I admire the philosophical dedication to the noble task of policing the grounds for stray ideas that have been unfairly written off by applied rationality, but I see very little in the way of your doing your own sweeping, and rather more in the way of making authoritarian demands of others to sort out the weeds in your precious little postage-stamp garden.

As far as I know, the only angel of God, is reason. I held her hand and she took me to a realm beyond 2.4 kids and a dog called Muffie.

Oh, let us hear your testimony, Brother! You know you want to.

Ah, but, how do I know that reason does not have the limitations of being "human, all too human"? Oh, because I know that reason cannot be judged thus until somebody proves to me that I am 'human'.

I thought the task was only to prove that the humans are above the animals, but just short of the angels. You won't be able to do that, either, but demonstrating that you're more than just "all too human" may involve some spoon-bending.

[colubridae]

SD why do you want people to release the 'little girl from Kansas"?

[Surendra Darathy]

SD why do you want people to release the 'little girl from Kansas"?

Don't take me literally. I'm only asking people to give up the ghost.

[jamest]

My methodology? Well, as you've witnessed, my primary concern is to sweep away the dirt before I lead you down that road made of yellow bricks, Darathy.

I didn't ask about your aims, which you seem to mistake for a methodology. Your solitary claim seems to be that the aims justify the means, and consist of a desire for neatness matched only by those with certain obsessive-compulsive disorders. If you ever got on to your methodology, my surmise is that it would be vaguely presuppositionalist. That sort of vagueness is quite often merely the handmaiden of ignorance borne of sloth.

I admire the philosophical dedication to the noble task of policing the grounds for stray ideas that have been unfairly written off by applied rationality, but I see very little in the way of your doing your own sweeping, and rather more in the way of making authoritarian demands of others to sort out the weeds in your precious little postage-stamp garden.

Mud with a consistency of materialism, relativistism, empiricism, atheism, or scepticism, all requires a hard-brush to get those bricks nice and yellow. Afterwards, the way I point seems obvious.

I thought the task was only to prove that the humans are above the animals, but just short of the angels. You won't be able to do that, either, but demonstrating that you're more than just "all too human" may involve some spoon-bending.

Ah, more mud. Why seek empirical evidence of metaphysical claims?

[jamest]

Don't take me literally. I'm only asking people to give up the ghost.

I will never give up my gust.

[Surendra Darathy]

Afterwards, the way I point seems obvious.

Have you gone Poe on us, James? I don't care if you think it's obvious. Show your fucking work, or you get no marks.

Why seek empirical evidence of metaphysical claims?

Do you know what "Put up or shut up" means? Or have you gone Poe on us?

[colubridae]

Surrender Dorothy. Now.

[jamest]

Afterwards, the way I point seems obvious.

Have you gone Poe on us, James? I don't care if you think it's obvious. Show your fucking work, or you get no marks.

I said that it would become obvious AFTER the mud had cleared. At this juncture, I'm only willing to show you the mud and the brush - not the path.

Why seek empirical evidence of metaphysical claims?

Do you know what "Put up or shut up" means? Or have you gone Poe on us?

No, I've just gone wise. I've been doing 'this' for about a decade, now. I now know when I am wasting my time.

Please let me know if you spot any yellowness.

[Matthew Shute]

Ah, more mud. Why seek empirical evidence of metaphysical claims?

Why indeed. *drum roll* What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

[Surendra Darathy]

Ah, more mud. Why seek empirical evidence of metaphysical claims?

Why indeed. *drum roll* What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

And there I was, thinking that my little thread had died and gone to Thread Heaven. Ah, Matt, you've presented the Central Theorem of Metaphysical Calculus! And not a moment too soon!

Metaphysics is necessary in order to seek out new worlds, and to boldly split infinitives where no one has split them before.