value of metaphysics

[robtex]

What is the value of metaphyics and why do we need it in our current societies?

 

[Golyadkin]

hi

thats a really interesting question. My oppionion is that our spieces cant live without 'acting' of some sort, we need to impose an order on what is otherwise chaotic- or not even that, but totally concept-less. If we didnt have a metaphysic we'd be catatonic.
But our society certaily has not found the right way to live. Despite the fact that we need 'falsehood' to live and survive, we nevertheless should not esteem it - this is what separates an honest and open-minded person from the rest, and is what Nietzsche coined the will to power or the will to truth, he once said, "If you want to spare your eyes and your mind, follow the sun from the shadows behind"
This is also what made the greeks so great, in that as they had no history as such, they imposed order on what was otherwise a viod, and so "danced on the surface of things"
And the philosophical Taoists talk of returning to the 'spontanity' of the newborn child

 

[Golyadkin]

but if you meant metaphysics as in religion, i think it has become to ingrained in us for everybody to beable to overcome it, kiekergaad is an example of this. But dispite this he was still a genius and a amiable person, so there is nothing wrong with religious people in so much as they are as honest as kiekergaad was, but for the ones who arent as honest and have 'blind' faith that they have never questioned and things like that, it seems as though the road that civilisation is one will eventually overcome that kind of passion, as science takes over more and more, but i think there will always be people who believe in god

 

[Nehustan]

Often that which lies beyond the scientific paradigm, i.e. metaphysics, of today, can become the scientific paradigm of tomorrow, i.e. physics. This has often been the case whether it has come to us through traditional metaphysics i.e. mysticism, or more modern metaphysics, i.e. science fiction.

 

[Scarlett Wampus]

Metaphysics seems to mostly consist of interpreteting the results of scientific investigations nowadays with little direct input from pure philosophers.

Golyadkin I notice you mentioned Nietzshe and seem to share his skepticism about the value of metaphysics. What I found curious though were your comments about Kierkegaard. You feel that his belief in God is by itself a failure of his appreciation of metaphysics? Or, what?

 

[michel]

From Wikipedia;

Metaphysics (Greek words μετα [meta] = after/beyond and Φυσις [phusis] = nature) is a branch of philosophy concerned with giving a general and fundamental account of the way the world is. Metaphysics is thus like the sciences in that it tries to describe the world, but it differs from these disciplines in its scope and fundamentality. Whereas the biologist is concerned with the nature of organisms and the physicist with the nature of bodies, the metaphysician is concerned with the nature of all reality. A central branch of metaphysics is ontology, the investigation into what categories of things are in the world and what relations these things bear to one another. The metaphysician also attempts to clarify the notions that figure fundamentally in our understanding of the world; these notions include existence, objecthood, property, space, time, causality, and possibility.

It is interesting, because Metaphysics (from the above definition) is far more of a 'grounded' form of Holistic approach than I thought.

In that case, I would have to agree with the following.......

Often that which lies beyond the scientific paradigm, i.e. metaphysics, of today, can become the scientific paradigm of tomorrow, i.e. physics. This has often been the case whether it has come to us through traditional metaphysics i.e. mysticism, or more modern metaphysics, i.e. science fiction.

Sorry, I suddenly realised that I hadn't addressed the original OP;

What is the value of metaphyics and why do we need it in our current societies?

I would say the value and need are both in the range of giving science some 'interesting thoughts' to work on; ideas that might not occur to a scientist, without that bit of 'what if'........

 

[angellous_evangellous]

What is the value of metaphyics and why do we need it in our current societies?

I've been meditating on this as well.

It seems to me that the scientific method pretty much killed metaphysics in philosophy. Rationalism now assumes naturalism, and has for some time. Metaphysics has been ejected from philosophy and is now only in the realm of myth-makers.

The safest relationship for myth-making and metapysics to real life is attributing metaphysical value on physical actions (which may be products of science) instead of explaning natural phenomenon that are currently inexplicable. That is, we can thank God for healing when a doctor does a successful surgury or find God's purpose in evolution - that kind of thing, rather than explaining natural happenings that will eventually be explained by science.

 

[Scarlett Wampus]

It is interesting, because Metaphysics (from the above definition) is far more of a 'grounded' form of Holistic approach than I thought.

Aye it could (should) be I have a lot of respect for the Buddhist philosopher Ken Wilber for insisting that the effort be made for science and religion to co-inform each other. He's not made such a bad attempt himself at doing this, and I would count him as being a 'metaphysical' clever clogs.

 

[Quiddity]

To fulfill the innate human need of attaching meaning. Totally normal in the human species, but some are uncomfortable with an infinite number of states of affairs. Cause we all know that quantum unicorn farts and the spaghetti monster is just as valid. Or is it?

 

[Scarlett Wampus]

To fulfill the innate human need of attaching meaning. Totally normal in the human species, but some are uncomfortable with an infinite number of states of affairs. Cause we all know that quantum unicorn farts and the spaghetti monster is just as valid. Or is it?

Why don't you answer this question? Sounds like you might have something interesting to say.

 

[Quiddity]

Why don't you answer this question? Sounds like you might have something interesting to say.

I figured the title of my religion was not so vague as to lead people into the direction of my conclusion. But this is the world wide web and perspicuity is more demanding. In short, I believe attaching meaning is the beginning and once words (such as logic, reason, philosophy background and the psychological state of the individual) are defined you should move forward in relation to those definitions and how we function as a whole and individual level.

What I noted may create even more questions but that's it in a nutshell.

 

[michel]

I figured the title of my religion was not so vague as to lead people into the direction of my conclusion. But this is the world wide web and perspicuity is more demanding. In short, I believe attaching meaning is the beginning and once words (such as logic, reason, philosophy background and the psychological state of the individual) are defined you should move forward in relation to those definitions and how we function as a whole and individual level.

What I noted may create even more questions but that's it in a nutshell.

You forgot the pink unicorn!(poor pink unicorn):tsk:

 

[Scarlett Wampus]

In short, I believe attaching meaning is the beginning and once words (such as logic, reason, philosophy background and the psychological state of the individual) are defined you should move forward in relation to those definitions and how we function as a whole and individual level.

You mean, once some shared meaning to language is established, its better to use that to build upon rather than? Sorry Victor, I just don't get it.

 

[robtex]

I've been meditating on this as well.

It seems to me that the scientific method pretty much killed metaphysics in philosophy. Rationalism now assumes naturalism, and has for some time. Metaphysics has been ejected from philosophy and is now only in the realm of myth-makers.

.

I would concur with the above and it is what prompted me to make the thread. I wanted to phrase it in an open-ended format for less bias debate though. I almost titled the tread "What is the contrast between metaphyics and methology?"

 

[robtex]

To fulfill the innate human need of attaching meaning. Totally normal in the human species, but some are uncomfortable with an infinite number of states of affairs. Cause we all know that quantum unicorn farts and the spaghetti monster is just as valid. Or is it?

Maybe for a theist the value of that attachment can be defined in the intimacy of their personal relationship with their higher power of choice. If that is true perhaps, and it is a big perhaps, perhaps the value of metaphyics is the measurement in the percieved value that is attainted from it to qualify ones personal relationship with their God.

Nate brought up a good point about rationalism being a thorn in the side of metaphysics and from what I have learned on my time of RF, emotional consideration is the driving force for many's spirtual beliefs. A sub-question may will be what is the value and validity of a decsion based on emotional wants and needs as opposed to rational evaluations? Rationalism/naturalism and metaphyics may be a dicotomy in their current propositions.

 

[Quiddity]

You mean, once some shared meaning to language is established, its better to use that to build upon rather than? Sorry Victor, I just don't get it.

No, both theist and non-theist attach meaning. But what you will find is that theist and non-theist approach things with a different philosophy and set of definitions. Some try to Naturalize Epistemology by pursuing it with the Scientific Method for example.

In my opinion, the idea that such familiar phenomena (beliefs, desires, intentions, subjectivism, etc.) as these need to be understood in some specially favored dialect in order that their credentials as "natural" be vindicated, is one that must strike any fluent speaker of the language who is not corrupted by contemporary philosophical jargon, as bizarre in the extreme.

 

[lilithu]

What is the value of metaphyics and why do we need it in our current societies?

Naturalism assumes that there is nothing beyond the material, and that there is no meaning. Metaphysics assumes that there is. Yes, we need metaphysics, because otherwise, all we're left with is materialism (in the social sense, not just the philosophical sense) and egoism.

 

[Quiddity]

Maybe for a theist the value of that attachment can be defined in the intimacy of their personal relationship with their higher power of choice. If that is true perhaps, and it is a big perhaps, perhaps the value of metaphyics is the measurement in the percieved value that is attainted from it to qualify ones personal relationship with their God.

Perhaps, but do remember that philosophy/metaphysics is not a theistic phenomena. Non-theist venture into it just as much IMO. The only difference may be that we don't try to measure it.

~Victor

 

[Golyadkin]

Naturalism assumes that there is nothing beyond the material, and that there is no meaning. Metaphysics assumes that there is. Yes, we need metaphysics, because otherwise, all we're left with is materialism (in the social sense, not just the philosophical sense) and egoism.

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. 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. 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.
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.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Naturalism assumes that there is nothing beyond the material, and that there is no meaning. Metaphysics assumes that there is. Yes, we need metaphysics, because otherwise, all we're left with is materialism (in the social sense, not just the philosophical sense) and egoism.

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