Metaphysics as an Error

[Surendra Darathy]

This is outragous.

Does this have anything to do with ragout?

Sorry for being so merry, Nate, but a red whine ragout is one of my favourites. This sauté be the end of it.

Let stew something else now. Maybe there's a morel to the story, in this hard life of truffle and woe.

[Surendra Darathy]

We have a simple rule here: play nice. Demands and sarcasm are not helpful or productive and don't quite fit into that rule. Please keep your criticisms to ideas addressing ex recto assertions rather than people.

There. Fixed it for you. When we see an actual idea in this thread, a grateful planet will rejoice.

Oh, wait. There is one: "What if we were to consider metaphysics as an error?" A grateful planet rejoices!

[Little Idiot]

Little Idiot and Luis, I hope this isn't too much of a derail, but I just wanted to say "Aloha" to both of you. On RDF, I was known as "Dr. Robert Klass," but my new identity is "LaMont Cranston." Please don't tell anybody my secret identity...

Well there is some good news

Glad to know you finally got to drop the 'Dr.' which I know you wanted to do a while back, but I wasnt expecting the 'Robert Klass' to go too!

We're still here slugging it out, although I tried to drop out of the thread a few days back, but events took a funny turn as you will see if you have read any of the 'material' (think; brown, organic) in this thread

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Comte de Sant-Germain & Little Idiot,

You are both being far too personal in your posts. The constant "he said - she said" between you is irrelevant to the topic and boring to everyone else. Will you please BOTH knock it on the head now. Neither of you are playing nice.

The rules of this forum don't include 'official warnings'. Board warnings are only given as a joke for trivial acts of supreme inanity. What we do issue is reminders to play nice, which you have already received, which eventually include a warning that any further such behaviour will result in a brief suspension, so that you will have time to consider whether you really do understand the Play Nice rule. This post is that warning. The next time either of you post a continuation of your childish argument, that person will be sent for a vacation. And one word in retaliation from the other will mean the same for them.

Now can everyone please try to limit themselves to the topic. Enjoy your philosophising.

[Kenny Login]

it's hard to argue that questions concerning existence are not being handled preconceptually and preconsciously.

Elaborate please?

Why would any of it be pre?

'Questions' may be somewhat misleading here, and you could substitute other processes in connectionist or computational models of cognition. But either way, learning about the continuity of objects across space and time, and becoming aware that one is some kind of discrete entity, physically and psychologically individuated, is part of development. The evidence suggests it takes place outside of conscious awareness. The evidence also suggests that pre- or sub-conscious thought is not restricted to developmental psychology.

[SpeedOfSound]

it's hard to argue that questions concerning existence are not being handled preconceptually and preconsciously.

Elaborate please?

Why would any of it be pre?

'Questions' may be somewhat misleading here, and you could substitute other processes in connectionist or computational models of cognition. But either way, learning about the continuity of objects across space and time, and becoming aware that one is some kind of discrete entity, physically and psychologically individuated, is part of development. The evidence suggests it takes place outside of conscious awareness. The evidence also suggests that pre- or sub-conscious thought is not restricted to developmental psychology.

Now you have me curious. 'specially with the last line. What evidence?

[Kenny Login]

Luis - I did find that to be an amusing take on my post!

Although, I'm not quite sure why, for someone with an almost religious faith in science doing the job of 'unveiling', you seem to be overlooking the scientific evidence. Your post says (to me at least) that all we can do (i.e. know) comes from formulating and testing hypotheses within a positivist framework. If that were the basis of a philosophical argument, it would be dangerously close to tautological. It's also a position unsupported by the evidence.

Scientific research is made possible because the formation and testing of hypotheses necessitate a common protocol, a common language and common thought. As Surendra has mentioned, if you can't say something useful, or meaningful, what good is that to anyone? Well, it turns out that it might still be rather good for the individual, and it might in fact be going on all the time.

Conscious thought, and the very specialized type of conscious thought necessary to satisfy the rigorous requirements of formal research, is one activity of human beings. Developmental psychology shows that at least some human beings (little ones) discover very meaningful, valid things about themselves and the world in other ways, and preconsciously (i.e, not accessible to conscious awareness).

If babies are guilty of navel-gazing, rather than reading peer-reviewed scientific journals or debating analytic philosophy, then that navel-gazing seems to work out pretty good for them.

In the example you used, if there was indeed evidence that astrological thinking was hardwired, you would need to be sure that this gave us no valuable information, and then, how to correct an 'error' of this magnitude by simply reframing the problem.

If you've already decided a priori that all (current and future) things will be understood empirically, then naturally metaphysics is about as useful as poetry - QED. But I suspect that when you say empirically, you mean exclusively as part of scientific methodology (correct me if I'm wrong). 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'. Because 2 month old babies do not observe like scientists; nor do mystics or mad men. Who out of these need correcting?

[Comte de Saint-Germain]

Can a solipsist plagiarize?

Uhmm...damn. Not as far as s/he is concerned, I guess...

Of course he can. The question of solipsism concerns the existence of various elements, where the solipsists attributes metaphysical status - existence - only to his experiences, possibly himself (the latter is not necessary for solipsism - a commitment to only one's own existence ends up being absurd or the basis for further speculation, often leading to the more robust solipsism).
Consequently, even if he does not believe that anyone actually exists that wrote something, that does not mean he can not conceive others as 'non-existing' explanatory models that provide him with information. Plagiarism is the violation of a relationship, and that's still possible for a solipsist.

It's often erroneously assumed that the solipsist must believe that 'he' causes the universe. This is an error. It's entirely possible for a solipsist to be parsimonious about existence, believing only that empirical reality exists as it present itself to him, whilst not believing that causality exists metaphysically. He may simply refuse to comment or speculate. It's a somewhat confusing perspective, but no more confusing than metaphysics generally is.
Solipsism is a much more coherent position than is often supposed and most parodies of solipsism miss the point. For me, the objection is simple - I go one God further, one more step of parsimony further.

[SpeedOfSound]

Solipsism is a much more coherent position than is often supposed and most parodies of solipsism miss the point. For me, the objection is simple - I go one God further, one more step of parsimony further.

Damn. You had me tearing up on this one. I'm getting a bumper sticker with that.


....would that be plagiarism?

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Couldn't resist having the last word, could you CSG?

Perhaps a break from forum activities will give you time to think about it. I don't care how clever you thought your wording was, you were asked to drop the subject and you didn't. See you this time tomorrow.

[SpeedOfSound]

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'. Because 2 month old babies do not observe like scientists; nor do mystics or mad men. Who out of these need correcting?

Even more interesting. If I could get a handle on something specific that you have in mind about development I would start a thread. Or you could. Are you hinting at instinctual sense of self?

Also you are teasing me with evidence. You don't have to cite links, just give me facts. The latest burning curiosity I have is what are you referring to specifically about babies and their well-served navel gazing?

[SpeedOfSound]

Couldn't resist having the last word, could you CSG?

Perhaps a break from forum activities will give you time to think about it. I don't care how clever you thought your wording was, you were asked to drop the subject and you didn't. See you this time tomorrow.

Oh come on! He was answering my question about solipsism and he did it rather well.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Couldn't resist having the last word, could you CSG?

Perhaps a break from forum activities will give you time to think about it. I don't care how clever you thought your wording was, you were asked to drop the subject and you didn't. See you this time tomorrow.

Oh come on! He was answering my question about solipsism and he did it rather well.

In the opinion of the staff, he did it in order to get one last dig in at Little Idiot. The two of them were warned to drop it - not to be more subtle. He'll be back tomorrow. We don't do permanent bans here.

[Surendra Darathy]

2 month old babies do not observe like scientists; nor do mystics or mad men.

The latest burning curiosity I have is what are you referring to specifically about babies and their well-served navel gazing?

The miracle of the intelligence of human infants is that they have invented an almost fail-safe means of inducing adult humans to care for them in all temporal matters. Their sense of "self" is their own affair, and, until they can speak, the only way they inflict it on anyone else is to scream loud enough so that no one else can sleep. It is worth noting that whining does not vanish as soon as a human being learns to speak.



[/cynicism]

If that were the basis of a philosophical argument, it would be dangerously close to tautological. It's also a position unsupported by the evidence.

Scientific research is made possible because the formation and testing of hypotheses necessitate a common protocol, a common language and common thought.

Tautologiae non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem. Or did you want to say something substantive about the fact of interpersonal communication?

2 month old babies do not observe like scientists; nor do mystics or mad men. Who out of these need correcting?

A man's grip should be able to grasp something, or what's a tautology for?

What does it mean to have a grasp of the facts? The only world in which correction is "needed" is a world in which mistakes are recognisable. Metaphysics is the manufacture of tautology.

The clever science party trick is to figure out things that are not trivial to figure out. Another tautology, but there it is. Metaphysics purports to figure out at great cost things that are trivial to figure out. This part is so easy, that metaphysics has lots of fantasised excess capacity to purport to spend on marketing itself as subtle, let alone possible.

It is no coincidence that aphorisms are parsimonious.

[jamest]

I keep saying, the basis/grounds of metaphysics is to discover that there is 'actual existence'. The success of metaphysics would be in describing the qualities/attributes associated with it.

Well, your metaphysics is still fucked, James, because you've just laid off the problem of existence on stating the attributes of beings that exist. The empiricist is satisfied with the apparent attributes of empirical objects.

I view this as a cop-out. A relativist is supposed to be neutral upon the notion of what exists, but I would expect such neutrality to extend to understanding the distinction between what is 'apparent' and what is 'actual' (regards 'existence').

The metaphysician doesn't say jack shit about how the attributes of "actual" metaphysical objects are detected

They are detected by reason - the only available tool to any philosopher. They are not detected by telescopes.

nor a means to state the distinction between "actual existence" and "apparent existence".

That would be the distinction between that which is susceptible to appearances, and apparences themselves. Rather, that would be the distinction between something that IS, and something that is seemingly so.

"By means of pure reason", says the metaphysical wibbler, and goes back to the comforting nonsense of medieval philosophy. "I conceive of a being greater than which no other being can be conceived."

Stop with your "canards". I have not used the ontological argument as a foundation for anything, so why mention it? I also find it telling that you ignored my statements about causality. Is it your strategy to willy nilly ignore anything that strikes a chord? Quite disingenious, imo.

We've been there and done that, James. It is called "extracting assertions from your hindquarters".

You really do need some new negative mantras.

So there exists an actual something that "causes" the perceptions of the empirical. The "actual something" has some properties that are displayed empirically.

I haven't said that the attributes of the 'actual something' are observable through a telescope, have I? If you don't understand my position, then ask questions. Stop trying to hang me from the nearest tree WITHIN YOUR VISION.

But this is not good enough for you, because we cannot say what all the properties are all at once, since some of them remain undiscovered. What other properties does the actual something have, and how are those properties going to be discovered? Either by detecting them empirically or by extracting statements from your butt. Did you do it yet?

You shall have to accept that my assignment of attributes for this 'something' will come at some later date. You are shifting the goalposts and are ignoring the actual goal of this thread. I don't need to explain anything about 'actual existence' at this juncture, other than that there is one - as opposed to just apparent existence.

No? What does it take to "establish" your metaphysical entities, James?

A metaphysical entity is something distinct to an apparent entity. Therefore, all it takes for me to establish that there is a metaphysical entity, is to show that there has to be more than apparent entities (aka 'empirical entities').

Are you seriously engaged in this discussion? Why don't you prove it and desist with the sneering attitude and start listening to what I am actually saying to you? At the moment, you sound like a scratched record.

Appearances are just empirical, James, but what is apparently happening is that you are extracting your metaphysical entities from your butthole.

I have one request. Desist from mentioning buttholes or hindquarters in your next post, please. I'm beginning to associate your responses with diarrhoea. Perhaps we can blame Pavlov for that. Regardless, just show that you can be fucking serious and respectful, for a change. Grow up, ffs.