Metaphysics as an Error

[Little Idiot]

My problem with many Platonic-Kantians is that whilst I can agree that there is a distinction to be made between "appearance" and "reality", the distinction is by no means absolute nor exclusive. Put crudely, "appearance" is a subset of "reality", not a duality. Plato made the distinction an ontological duality, whilst Kant endorsed an epistemic dualism. Whilst I find these conclusions/metaphysics unsound, I certainly empathise with some of the basic premises. The problem lies not so much with the concepts these thinkers begin with, but, as you noted earlier, what they supposed these concepts (appearance, reality) implied.

Hi and welcome to the cesspool of egoism and agression which passes for a thread in these parts

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 western thought ever since. If we start with the neomena as the 'truth' and this is 'unknowable' we should not be suprised to conclude 'truth' is unknowable. This goes no where, its a simple circle back to the start point!
So, phenomena are the appearances, which constitute the our experience; noumena are the (presumed) things themselves, which constitute reality but cant be known.
Kant's conclusions that we can not know anything outside the phenomena is also his premise, and open to potential dismissal on this ground.

Kant supposed that the philosophical concept of material substance (reflected in the scientific assumption of an external world of material objects) is an a priori condition for our experience. This is now known to be an error, there is no bottom turtle to material substance, and open to potential dismissal on this ground

We know Kant's transcendental deduction of the categories as pure concepts of the understanding applicable a priori to every possible experience, we might naturally wish to ask the further question of him; whether these regulative principles are really true. Are there substances? To these further questions, Kant himself firmly refused to offer any answer.
Yet modern western thought plows ahead regardless, taking these as-if they were facts, resulting in threads like this as the culmination of thousands of years of thought!

(speculation warning! Looking at the big picture, applying the great hind-sight, maybe it was better that western thought believed truth unattainable so that science with its approximations and models could develop - it would possibly have never taken off in a metaphysical frame work where truth was attainable, but science could not claim to produce truth...)

[Little Idiot]

Little Idiot and jamest. You guys are going to love Stu Jackerhoff. He provides more opportunities for combining the ancient mystic traditions with neuroscience and physics per minute than anyone I have ever listened too. Even better he uses the word quantum in unique new ways like quantum-proteins quantum-holes.

With this new 'science' you should be able to avoid most of the more rational attacks on your position by demanding that we prove that JackOff is wrong. This could conceivably take centuries given the amount of new 'science' he has introduced in just 45 minutes.

Enjoy! ...and by all means use freely to cling to your meta-obfuscated ego and avoid real spiritual work for many decades to come.

While I can live with you dismissing ideas which dont mesh with your own as 'new-age' or 'wibble', 'woo' or what ever term is the fad of the moment to dismiss all non-conforming thought. What I do wish to speak against is the idea that idealism is counter to the real spiritual work. Thats obviously a silly thing to say, since real spirituality is possible within all metaphysics, hell even religion has some spiritually mature members.
Watch your mouth, or I will make it public knowledge that you credit god with existence!

Anyway, I will tage a look at 'jackoff' and see if he does anything for me

[Comte de Saint-Germain]

My problem with many Platonic-Kantians is that whilst I can agree that there is a distinction to be made between "appearance" and "reality", the distinction is by no means absolute nor exclusive. Put crudely, "appearance" is a subset of "reality", not a duality. Plato made the distinction an ontological duality, whilst Kant endorsed an epistemic dualism. Whilst I find these conclusions/metaphysics unsound, I certainly empathise with some of the basic premises. The problem lies not so much with the concepts these thinkers begin with, but, as you noted earlier, what they supposed these concepts (appearance, reality) implied.

Hi and welcome to the cesspool of egoism and agression which passes for a thread in these parts

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 western thought ever since. If we start with the neomena as the 'truth' and this is 'unknowable' we should not be suprised to conclude 'truth' is unknowable. This goes no where, its a simple circle back to the start point!
So, phenomena are the appearances, which constitute the our experience; noumena are the (presumed) things themselves, which constitute reality but cant be known.
Kant's conclusions that we can not know anything outside the phenomena is also his premise, and open to potential dismissal on this ground.

First, I agree - it is open to dismissal on this ground. More importantly, however, Kant is unavoidable. You don't really understand the progress of Western thought, do you? And neomena? I mean, what the fuck, man?

Kant supposed that the philosophical concept of material substance (reflected in the scientific assumption of an external world of material objects) is an a priori condition for our experience. This is now known to be an error, there is no bottom turtle to material substance, and open to potential dismissal on this ground

We know Kant's transcendental deduction of the categories as pure concepts of the understanding applicable a priori to every possible experience, we might naturally wish to ask the further question of him; whether these regulative principles are really true. Are there substances? To these further questions, Kant himself firmly refused to offer any answer.
Yet modern western thought plows ahead regardless, taking these as-if they were facts, resulting in threads like this as the culmination of thousands of years of thought!

(speculation warning! Looking at the big picture, applying the great hind-sight, maybe it was better that western thought believed truth unattainable so that science with its approximations and models could develop - it would possibly have never taken off in a metaphysical frame work where truth was attainable, but science could not claim to produce truth...)

I'm impressed. I mean it. I have seldom read such an entirely uneducated look at Western thought. You got it entirely wrong. I mean it. Completely and entirely wrong. It was not the perspective of 'unattainable truth' that drove science, it was the idea of attainable truth in Christianity that drove an interest in perceiving God's qualities through the world "We can not 'know' God through the world, but we can come to appreciate him, love him, understand him, &c." It was from this perspective that the Papacy was aimed at developing theories about the world and science flourished. To put Kant's transcendental idealism as a precursor to science - or the notion that truth is unattainable as a link - is preposterous.

Now, next time you want to lecture someone (TheArtfulDodger) who obviously understands philosophy much better than you do on Kant, get his KEY concepts right. It's noumena and phenomena. Not 'neomena'.

Hi and welcome to the cesspool of egoism and agression which passes for a thread in these parts

The problem was never egoism or aggression (agression? Really?) but some people who are entirely uneducated on the subject matter spouting bullshit and not understanding the rules. Basically, the kids won't stay at the kiddies table.

[GrahamH]

...
(speculation warning! Looking at the big picture, applying the great hind-sight, maybe it was better that western thought believed truth unattainable so that science with its approximations and models could develop - it would possibly have never taken off in a metaphysical frame work where truth was attainable, but science could not claim to produce truth...)

You could be right about that. Thinking that you Know The Truth is likely to divert you from gaining knowledge (approximate models that actually work).
If you think everything is void and not void, changing and not changing, mind but not your mind, conceptual and physical, how do you learn anything? It seems any new concept that might be embraced will necessitate a nullifying contradiction. Admitting that there might be questions we can't answer, that all knowledge is provisional and empiricism is the only means we have to check our knowledge is far, far more productive.

[GrahamH]

I wonder what the metaphysically inclined think the tools of metaphysics are. It seems to me that our speculations beyond the empirical are entirely rooted in empirical concepts. There is talk of mind, consciousness, waves, particles, membranes, bangs, parallel worlds, immaterial people, other realms and so on. all taken from this world we experience. How do you approach a realm beyond the empirical when you don't even have concepts to transcend the empirical? Taking an emprical concept and imagining it divorced from empirical examination isn't going to get to "Truth", is it?

[Comte de Saint-Germain]

...
(speculation warning! Looking at the big picture, applying the great hind-sight, maybe it was better that western thought believed truth unattainable so that science with its approximations and models could develop - it would possibly have never taken off in a metaphysical frame work where truth was attainable, but science could not claim to produce truth...)

You could be right about that. Thinking that you Know The Truth is likely to divert you from gaining knowledge (approximate models that actually work).
If you think everything is void and not void, changing and not changing, mind but not your mind, conceptual and physical, how do you learn anything? It seems any new concept that might be embraced will necessitate a nullifying contradiction. Admitting that there might be questions we can't answer, that all knowledge is provisional and empiricism is the only means we have to check our knowledge is far, far more productive.

Again; Ahistorical, after the fact, and completely abstracted from any understanding of the procession of Western thought. Moreover, post-modernism provides a specific framework of Marxist materialism that provides a scepticism of the involvement of intellectual movements on behaviour. That is to say, whether truth is considered unattainable or not, people are going to do what the hell they want anyway. Still, when it comes to these ages, dogma was important, and religious rules were often upheld for their own sake - one of the crimes of Christianity. Regardless, insofar as this was the case, it was not that truth was unattainable. It was that God could be understood through studying his works.

[Animavore]

It was that God could be understood through studying his works.

I could study his works all day



(Sorry to be so irreverent. I couldn't resist. Carry on)

[GrahamH]

...
(speculation warning! Looking at the big picture, applying the great hind-sight, maybe it was better that western thought believed truth unattainable so that science with its approximations and models could develop - it would possibly have never taken off in a metaphysical frame work where truth was attainable, but science could not claim to produce truth...)

You could be right about that. Thinking that you Know The Truth is likely to divert you from gaining knowledge (approximate models that actually work).
If you think everything is void and not void, changing and not changing, mind but not your mind, conceptual and physical, how do you learn anything? It seems any new concept that might be embraced will necessitate a nullifying contradiction. Admitting that there might be questions we can't answer, that all knowledge is provisional and empiricism is the only means we have to check our knowledge is far, far more productive.

Again; Ahistorical, after the fact, and completely abstracted from any understanding of the procession of Western thought. Moreover, post-modernism provides a specific framework of Marxist materialism that provides a scepticism of the involvement of intellectual movements on behaviour. That is to say, whether truth is considered unattainable or not, people are going to do what the hell they want anyway. Still, when it comes to these ages, dogma was important, and religious rules were often upheld for their own sake - one of the crimes of Christianity. Regardless, insofar as this was the case, it was not that truth was unattainable. It was that God could be understood through studying his works.

I was thinking more about meditative traditions and seeking truth from within, 'staring into the void'. Certainly the Abrahamic faiths' pursuit of understanding of god through the study of nature is significant, but that isn't where LI is coming from.

[GrahamH]

It was that God could be understood through studying his works.

I could study his works all day



(Sorry to be so irreverent. I couldn't resist. Carry on)

No need to appologise!
...
What were we talking about?

[Surendra Darathy]

I was thinking more about meditative traditions and seeking truth from within, 'staring into the void'. Certainly the Abrahamic faiths' pursuit of understanding of god through the study of nature is significant, but that isn't where LI is coming from.

I don't know how to name everywhere Little Idiot is coming from.

This is one place.

I think we can all relax about whether or not Little Idiot has any qualification to speak about physics, speaking of the study of nature. Why he hides his light under a bushel espousing a ragged theory of mentalism is a modern phenomenon of the internet. Little Idiot knows how to spell "elastic limit" and "tensile strength", but not how to spell "empirical". These are genuine mysteries of cognition. Maybe it has to do with words of more than three syllables.

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 western thought ever since. If we start with the neomena as the 'truth' and this is 'unknowable' we should not be suprised to conclude 'truth' is unknowable. This goes no where, its a simple circle back to the start point!
So, phenomena are the appearances, which constitute the our experience; noumena are the (presumed) things themselves, which constitute reality but cant be known.

Nope. There goes that "theory".

You may now continue with your discussion of ultimate reality.

[FBM]

It was that God could be understood through studying his works.

I could study his works all day

[img]http://www.hollywood-newsroom.com/wp-co ... ss.jpg/img]

(Sorry to be so irreverent. I couldn't resist. Carry on)

No need to appologise!
...
What were we talking about?

*cough* *wheeze* Ahem. Was somebody talking about something?

[Surendra Darathy]

*cough* *wheeze*

Jesus is coming. Soon. Or maybe it's just a lot of heavy breathing.

[FBM]

*cough* *wheeze*

Jesus is coming. Soon. Or maybe it's just a lot of heavy breathing.

I got invited here from RD. net for making the joke 'Jesus was well-hung, but it took him 3 days to rise again'.

[Surendra Darathy]

To put Kant's transcendental idealism as a precursor to science - or the notion that truth is unattainable as a link - is preposterous.

For one thing, it has things that happened after happening before. That's pretty preposterous. But unprepossessing.

Heck, couldn't we just shoot from the hip a little, and suggest that Kant was among the responses of the wibblers to the appearance of organised science? The responses are all over the board, to be sure, but it is in the fundamental underlying nature of wibbling to be "all over the board".

I'm on the Ouija Board of Directors.

[Surendra Darathy]

I've proved that 'something' exists beyond the single umbrella of the empirical realm. And the focus of this proof was the empirical realm itself. I haven't assumed anything, least of all metaphysics. Certainly, metaphysics is the conclusion of that particular proof, as in: and, therefore, there is a grounds for metaphysics to focus upon.
That is, my proof facilitates the onset of metaphysics.

Again with your garbage assertions, James. You assert that you've proven that something exists. To talk about existence at all, you already need to assume metaphysics, as "existence" is a metaphysical property.

To be clear: the proof that something must BE the grounds of empirical observation/knowledge/seeing/whatever, is to prove that something [else] must exist that is not just empirical observation/etc.; since 'being' is synonmous with 'existence'.

You have shown now a couple of dozen times you are not able to discourse about what you want to show without using the word "existence". For someone to try to bootstrap metaphysics by use of the word "existence" is pathetically inane.

Look, I'm aware that I've used the word 'existence', but note that it is a CONCLUSION to my reasoning.

Well, James, I think some of us are getting a little weary of hearing the conclusion of your "reasoning" without having seen any of your "reasoning". Such dedication to hiding your "reasoning" evokes images of the Emperor's New Clothes.

The other day upon the stair,
I met a man who wasn't there.
He wasn't there again today:
I wish to hell he'd go away.

The fact is that 'observation' is a significant concept in this matter, requiring an either/or solution.

No, I think you mean that "talking about observation" is a significant concept, and requires an either/or solution. A cat may look at a king, but then, cats don't give a flying fuck about clothing.

Whether communication is founded & faciltated solely upon 'the empirical', is obviously open to debate.

Well, let's "debate" it then. It will beat the fuck out of this simulation of AD-HDD. Communication is the empirical transmission of information from a source to a receiver. You don't have to know the ultimate nature of the source, the receiver, or the information to make a model of it.