So, metaphysics then.

[DaveDodo007]

What's that all about.

[pErvinalia]

great thread idea, Dave.

[Mr.Samsa]

I agree with Rev.

[Hermit]

This encapsulates it: How many metaphysicians does it take to change a light bulb?
Two to change the phenomenal bulb and one to explain that we might not have actually changed the bulb-an-sich at all.

[DaveDodo007]

Sorry, thread locked so the ratskep mods can review it.

[JimC]

Is it metaphysicians (which sounds a bit medical) or metaphysicists?

Or metapsychics...

Or metapsychos...

[Tero]

It's stuff you can't measure. I have three stories

Monday, February 21, 2011

Why Is There Something?
College Station, PA -- Philosophy majors Brad Couch and Bill Eppstein
set out to answer the age old question "why is there something,
instead of nothing?" during a Friday drinking session. By Saturday
afternoon, there was no answer, but at that point both would have
preferred the "nothing" option, as they took turns over the bucket
with dry heaves. Nothing much was coming up anymore.

Monday, July 4, 2011

Causality Needs To Be Meditated With

Eugene, OR -- Richard Ongstrom, an Anglicized form of Ångström, has started a congregation of the Church of Causality. A former Moonie, Richard studied many faiths and came to be in touch with The Causality last year.

The causality thinking appears to be a type of First Cause philosophy. The Universe could not come from nothing goes this thinking. But Richard appears to be in touch with the cause. "The Cause does not exist in time, so he is there now as he was in the beginning. If we stop believing in the cause, the cause disappears. When the beginning disappears, so does the present."

The religion appears to be involved with the here and now more than any afterlife. The members have as many children as possible, so that they can continue believing in the cause and make our existence possible.

Richard calls his contact a type of meditation. The Cause does not answer questions for him, but his belief in it brings the meditator a calmness and faith in the future.

Sunday, November 14, 2010

Philosophy Students Hold Hostages and Seek Meaning
Athens, GA -- Coming to an existential crisis after the chapter on ontology, three philosophy students (the leader identified as Michael Moore, 19) are holding a cashier and two supermarket managers hostage. Their demands are that William Lane Craig come and explain it to them before they release the hostages.

[Animavore]

What's that all about.

It's whatever you want it to be.

[Scott1328]

That which cannot be reduced to physics. C.f. Non-existent

[Mr.Samsa]

That which cannot be reduced to physics. C.f. Non-existent

Surely that has it a little backwards. Metaphysics is the more fundamental field in relation to physics so physics must reduce to metaphysics, not the other way around. And I know you're making a joke but your statement would rule out mathematics and logic as "non-existent" (Theropod ran into the same problem over on RatSkep when he claimed that fields dependent on logical reasoning were meaningless).

[LucidFlight]

*Pulls up a chair...*

[Scott1328]

It is a joke. (And people say you don't see humor), however for certain definitions of existent/nonexistent, my description of metaphysics about sums it up. It's odd that one has to adopt a metaphysical stance to describe metaphysics.

overall, I agree with your position as you've laid it out at RatSkep on what metaphysics is about.

[LucidFlight]

Metaphysics to describe metaphysics. That sounds a bit circular. Circles are geometric forms. Therefore, maths is more fundamental.

[Mr.Samsa]

It is a joke. (And people say you don't see humor),

People say lots of things and it's times like those I think Freud's ideas on projection aren't completely bunk. It was clearly a joke but I thought it raises an interesting issue and it's an unfortunately common point of view.

however for certain definitions of existent/nonexistent, my description of metaphysics about sums it up. It's odd that one has to adopt a metaphysical stance to describe metaphysics.

Fair point, I guess if by "existent" we mean something like physical or observable or measurable, etc, then those things might still be consistent with what you've said (but I imagine there'd be a few annoyed mathematicians after hearing that numbers don't exist).

overall, I agree with your position as you've laid it out at RatSkep on what metaphysics is about.

Metaphysics to describe metaphysics. That sounds a bit circular. Circles are geometric forms. Therefore, maths is more fundamental.

You're starting to sound like Max Tegmark!

[pErvinalia]

however for certain definitions of existent/nonexistent, my description of metaphysics about sums it up. It's odd that one has to adopt a metaphysical stance to describe metaphysics.

Fair point, I guess if by "existent" we mean something like physical or observable or measurable, etc, then those things might still be consistent with what you've said (but I imagine there'd be a few annoyed mathematicians after hearing that numbers don't exist).

He's getting at the same thing I was I think when I mistakenly described metaphysics as non-physical/empirical. It is indeed that, but not that alone as it's obviously more than that. So in that sense, numbers don't exist - i.e. we can't see, touch, feel them. They are ideas as opposed to physical objects. They certainly exist as concepts, the same way that logical statements and evidence exist.