value of metaphysics

[michel]

That is inaccurate. There is increasing interest in emergence in complex systems including, for example, the emergence of empathy and reciprocol altruism

You mention empathy; just out of interest, what do Secular humanists make of telepathy ?...I have often wondered; is it seen as coincidence ?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You mention empathy; just out of interest, what do Secular humanists make of telepathy ?...I have often wondered; is it seen as coincidence ?

I don't speak for "Secular humanists", but I see it as unsubstantiated.

 

[michel]

I don't speak for "Secular humanists", but I see it as unsubstantiated.

Fair enough (BTW, sorry, I had you in the wrong pidgeon hole; I could have looked at your profile) Naturalism..........O.k, I'll try and remember that.

 

[Scarlett Wampus]

If we didnt have metaphysics we woldnt be left in the condition of the petty materialist or immoralist, but the schizophrenic, with no way to niether order nor disregard the massive impact of stmiuli that would hit us. Your concusion would only come about if christian morality of God were the fundamental reality.

This really clicked for me.

To S W's question before, you asked wether i believe kierkergaad's belief in god was a failer of his appriciation of metaphysics. The way i look at it, its not, because God is itself a metaphysic. Rather its a overappriciation of metaphysics. But i have nothing against as i said before, because he has genuinely doubted that faith and seen the world for what it is, but he couldnt take it and so fell back on his metaphysic. But despite this he never gave up his honest, and tried to combine the two.

So Kierkegaard's 'leap of faith' would be a result of his not being able to take...all that existential doubt and angst. Hmmm, I've never thought of it like that (if it is indeed what you meant).

*goes away to be all doubty and angsty*

 

[robtex]

Naturalism assumes that there is nothing beyond the material, and that there is no meaning. Metaphysics assumes that there is

.

Interesting choice of words. I don't see naturalism assuming anything but rather assessing what can be physically evidenced. However, I do see metaphyics assuming, through faith, things that cannot be evidenced or measured. It isn't a matter each side assuming but of one using assumtions to draw conclusions and the other not.

Yes, we need metaphysics, because otherwise, all we're left with is materialism (in the social sense, not just the philosophical sense) and egoism.

1) Why would it be wrong or bad to be left with materialism?
2) How do you equate materialism to haveing an ego?

 

[robtex]

Perhaps, but do remember that philosophy/metaphysics is not a theistic phenomena.

That statement is true of philosophy but not of metaphysics. I can't think of any applications of metaphysics that would apply to a non-theist philosophy can you?

Non-theist venture into it just as much IMO. The only difference may be that we don't try to measure it.

A bigger difference is you don't try to validfy or qualify it but accept it entirely on faith.

 

[Golyadkin]

This really clicked for me.


So Kierkegaard's 'leap of faith' would be a result of his not being able to take...all that existential doubt and angst. Hmmm, I've never thought of it like that (if it is indeed what you meant).

*goes away to be all doubty and angsty*

hi sw

have you ever read Fear and Trembling? Theres a revealing passage in there, its a bit long but its good "If there were no eternal conciousness in man, if at the bottom of everything there were only a wild ferment, a power that twisting in dark passions produced everything great or inconsiquential; if an unfathomable, insatible emptiness lay hid beneath everything, what would life be but dispair? If it were thus, if there were no sacred bond uniting man, if one generation rose up after another like the leaves of the forest, if one generation succeeded the other as the songs of birds in the woods, if the human race passed through the world as a ship through the sea or the wind in the desert, a thoughtless and fruitless whim, if an eternal oblivion always lurked hungrily for its prey and there were no power strong enough to wrest it from its clutches - how empty and deviod of comfort ife would be! But for that reason it is not so, and as god created man and woman, so too he shaped the hero and the poet and the speech-maker. The latter has none of the skills of the former, yet he, too, no less than the hero, is happy. . ."
Im curious as to what your oppinion is on this.

 

[lilithu]

That is inaccurate. There is increasing interest in emergence in complex systems including, for example, the emergence of empathy and reciprocol altruism

Science can only explain how things like empathy and altruism came about via naturalist explanations. It can never explain why. (This is not a criticism; this is what makes science so effective.) So even if we can give a biological explanation for empathy, even if we can demonstrate how the trait is adaptive for the species, science in and of itself cannot advocate empathy. Any value judgement that we put on empathy is a human interpretation that is overlayed.

Without metaphysics, there is no ideal, therefore there is no such thing as "good" and "bad." It all becomes personal opinion and/or social convention. I blame our epidemic of moral relativism at least partly on the collapse of metaphysics and the dominance of scientism.

And actually, I see this interest in emergent properties in complex systems as an attempt to reconstruct metaphysics from the bottom-up, to once again recognize "layers" of reality. It's interesting.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Without metaphysics, there is no ideal, therefore there is no such thing as "good" and "bad." It all becomes personal opinion and/or social convention.

I think that this statement is wholly untrue.

Without metaphysics, there is no metaphysical value on the ideal. We can still have an ideal, just not a metaphysical one. We can still have "good" and "bad," but not an imaginary/Platonic good or bad.

For example, "good" can be defined as that which provides for humanity (and the rest of nature) and "bad" is that which neglects. The ideal is that which most adequately provides for humanity. Empirical study can discover/classify everything, and philosophy (or interpretation of the results) determines humanity's relationship with everything according to how it most ideally benefits humanity and nature. No need for metaphysics for ethics...

 

[michel]

.

Interesting choice of words. I don't see naturalism assuming anything but rather assessing what can be physically evidenced. However, I do see metaphyics assuming, through faith, things that cannot be evidenced or measured. It isn't a matter each side assuming but of one using assumtions to draw conclusions and the other not.



1) Why would it be wrong or bad to be left with materialism?
2) How do you equate materialism to haveing an ego?

To Lilithu's

Naturalism assumes that there is nothing beyond the material, and that there is no meaning. Metaphysics assumes that there is

Interesting choice of words. I don't see naturalism assuming anything but rather assessing what can be physically evidenced. However, I do see metaphyics assuming, through faith, things that cannot be evidenced or measured. It isn't a matter each side assuming but of one using assumtions to draw conclusions and the other not

.

Aren't you playing semantics ?

I read Lilithu's comment as meaning that Naturalists don't look beyound the material (because Naturalism per se implies that there is nothing)
To which you continued with

but rather assessing what can be physically evidenced

Aren't you saying the same thing?

However, I do see metaphyics assuming, through faith, things that cannot be evidenced or measured

You see, I would also argue with that; Metaphysics doesn't assume, through Faith, things that cannot be evinced or measured. It is more of a case of the metaphysician saying "There is more to this than can be evinced or measured, let us see if we can work out a possible reason for it, and for the facyt that it works". Or am I being pedantic? .....I guess it is just your choice of words which makes the metaphysician sound very much as if there is no method in his thinking.

 

[robtex]

One of the things I have learned from Master Vigil on here is the value of metaphores in explaining the divine. Perhaps this could be extended to metaphysics? Maybe the value of metaphyisics is, for those that find value in it, contained within the emotional need for expression at the wonderment of their existance. Metaphyiscs may be for those who feel life must have meaning in and ofitself as opposed to attached to it by humanity. The value attached to metaphyiscs may be in the need to express such meaning largely through the emotions of hope and joy and the decision of trust when it is extended to the meaning that is attacted to life.

 

[robtex]

Michel I was going to try not to make a sub topic in the thread by contrasting naturalism and metaphyisic but the one distinction between the two is that metaphyics is intimate with assume and naturalism is not.

 

[robtex]

I would say another value in metaphyics is it creates a system of absolutes or postulated absolutes which is neccessary for many in contrast to unknown notions of our existance. It may be the only branch of philosophy out there that asserts there is a "why" to our existance or a reason behind it. If why is a central componet of need for the assesser metaphysics may have quite a bit of value.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

One of the things I have learned from Master Vigil on here is the value of metaphores in explaining the divine. Perhaps this could be extended to metaphysics? Maybe the value of metaphyisics is, for those that find value in it, contained within the emotional need for expression at the wonderment of their existance. Metaphyiscs may be for those who feel life must have meaning in and ofitself as opposed to attached to it by humanity. The value attached to metaphyiscs may be in the need to express such meaning largely through the emotions of hope and joy and the decision of trust when it is extended to the meaning that is attacted to life.

Yes! Metaphors are all that we have when we reach into the unknown.

 

[michel]

Michel I was going to try not to make a sub topic in the thread by contrasting naturalism and metaphyisic but the one distinction between the two is that metaphyics is intimate with assume and naturalism is not.

Ah, but that is the point; "metaphysics is intimate with assume".........I would argue that; I would say that metaphysics accepts (something Naturalism doesn't do) that there are things we cannot see, and that "there are undeniable traits which seem to suggest.............", which after all, is an empirical approach, if not scientific.

 

[lilithu]

I think that this statement is wholly untrue.

Without metaphysics, there is no metaphysical value on the ideal. We can still have an ideal, just not a metaphysical one. We can still have "good" and "bad," but not an imaginary/Platonic good or bad.

I was refering specifically to Platonic type ideals. I was refering specifically to value. Without metaphysics, all ideals are subjective and without inherent value.

For example, "good" can be defined as that which provides for humanity (and the rest of nature) and "bad" is that which neglects. The ideal is that which most adequately provides for humanity. Empirical study can discover/classify everything, and philosophy (or interpretation of the results) determines humanity's relationship with everything according to how it most ideally benefits humanity and nature. No need for metaphysics for ethics...

Sure, you can decide to define "good" in a certain way and then figure out how to objectively measure it, and that may give the illusion of objectivity. But the initial decision to define "good" that way and not another way is still purely subjective.

 

[robtex]

Ah, but that is the point; "metaphysics is intimate with assume".........I would argue that; I would say that metaphysics accepts (something Naturalism doesn't do) that there are things we cannot see, and that "there are undeniable traits which seem to suggest.............", which after all, is an empirical approach, if not scientific.

Metaphyics is a branch of philosophy as opposed to science so I am thinking in the compare contrast realm it isn't the best contrasting element. Because it it "beyond nature" naturalism is a good contrast for it though.

Because metaphyiscs is "beyond nature" it is non-measurable and because it is non-measurable its postulations and theories have some to much measure in at tied to assumption in the form of premises. The premises accepted as truth without supporting evidence.

Some examples is metaphyics attempt to determine why we are here. The why is assumed in a premise. No attempt is made qualify or evidence the why in the premise that I have ever seen.

The ontological and theological arugments assume that a higher power is the source of life which is defined as faith. No attempts in metaphyiscs are made to qualify or evidence the power. It is just assumed in the premise as such. The first mover arguement is an example of that. No attempt is made to assess why the universe had to begin or why God is the ONLY option for the orgin of the universe.

metaphyiscs as a philosophy is inimate with assume because it is intimate with faith. Because it is a branch of philosophy though, it isn't capable of saying I don't know. To say I don't know is a non-philosophical act or an act of non contemplation.

 

[lilithu]

Thats not entirely true though, because the satisfaction people get through matireal things is still a metaphysic, and so is the belief in ones self.

You mean consciousness? Haven't you heard the news from the likes of Dan Dennett and Paul Churchland, consciousness is an illusion.

Nietzsche ones said that "The antithesis of the apparent world and the true world is reduced to the antithesis "world" and "nothing". If we didnt have metaphysics we woldnt be left in the condition of the petty materialist or immoralist, but the schizophrenic, with no way to niether order nor disregard the massive impact of stmiuli that would hit us.

ok, I'll buy that. The collapse of metaphysics, I believe, has led to rampant materialism and egoism on the one hand, but I also believe that Christian fundamentalism/biblical literalism is another result of the collapse. Without the ability to understand layers of meaning, everything in scripture gets reduced to the literal. The belief in God coupled with a literalist (ie - materialist) view of scripture is a type of schizoprenia, imo. Different people will develop different, fractured ways to cope the paradox of human existence, so yeah, I would agree that my statement on materialism/egoism is overly simplistic.

Your concusion would only come about if christian morality of God were the fundamental reality. I agree with that last comment by robtex, that in (the majority of) religion the more blind faith yyou have the 'closer' you are to god, which also seems to reflect victors conclusion.

I am not Christian, and actually I was thinking more of Plato when I wrote what I wrote.

 

[robtex]

I was refering specifically to Platonic type ideals. I was refering specifically to value. Without metaphysics, all ideals are subjective and without inherent value.

I would concur that without metaphysyics ideas are sujective and without inherent value but it would lead me to ask why the standard must be non-subjective?

Existentialism is an example of a branch of philosophy that makes no attempts to place any objective value on existance yet is able to have a completed philosophical system.

Metaphyiscs by contrast by placing constraints on what is subjective and what is not, may in fact be limiting the scope of value to the assumptions of the metaphyiscal arguement by stifling contigencies and contexts that are outside the objective premises.

 

[robtex]

You see, I would also argue with that; Metaphysics doesn't assume, through Faith, things that cannot be evinced or measured. It is more of a case of the metaphysician saying "There is more to this than can be evinced or measured, let us see if we can work out a possible reason for it, and for the facyt that it works".

That is another way of saying they are inferring from the information that they have. The theories which both are

1) unevidencable or unobservable
2) neccessary to metaphyiscs

forces an assumption. Perhaps and maybe don't come about in metaphyics much. It seems to be a theory presented in absolutes or near-absolutes by its general inclination towards pressing for objective value. on things which by the defintion of the branch of this philosophy itself, cannot be measured.