Metaphysics: The ACTUAL Key to Everything

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
181

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:
Since i got a bit more time this night, here is my take on this question.

A thing is the “result” of a difference.
A thing exists only because it is somewhat different from another thing.
It doesn’t matter if it is real or not, objective or not, material or not.
Where there is a difference in affect, percept or concept, there is a thing.

Which means that things never exist in isolation, but in a system.
It’s the relationships that determines the elements, not the other way around.

edit :
I suppose you could call that “structuralism”.
It’s both very modern (structuralism was the last good thing that happened to western philosophy before the catastrophic rise of post-modernism) and very old, since we could find similar ideas in ancient stoicism (which was the last good thing that happened to greek philosophy before the catastrophic rise of gnosticism and neo-platonism).[/quote]

I think you fell in to your tautological sink hole, but I’ll shut up lest ye make me a fool.[/quote]

Oh, sooner or later, this line of reasoning will certainly become a circle.
But at this point, it’s not yet the case. These definitions do add some informations, or at least they raise new questions.
[/quote]

I got a question about the first statement. ‘A thing is the result of a difference’. That to me sound like a perception issue more than what a thing is. I mean if you are observing a ‘nothing’ certainly a something would ‘appear’ different in some way. But if you are observing a something, it would still be a ‘thing’ if even if you don’t perceive it that way. A ‘difference’ would give another ‘thing’ some autonomy from the other thing, but both things are things still. I think, unless I misunderstood what you said or meant.

182

[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:
Are they actions that cause suffering of have the intent to? I would tend to agree, I see no reason for suffering in of itself. I’m surprised the idea of revenge is a part your belief system. Forget the system, I’m just surprised that your notion of justice encompasses intentional suffering.

Am I mislabelling it by calling it revenge? [/quote]

I suppose so, because I haven’t mentioned revenge.

183

If i observe a thing, and there is no difference between this thing and another specific thing, then both things are actually the same thing.

Yes, this “same thing” is still a thing, but only because/if it can be differentiated from other things.

Reductio ad absurdum :
If there were no difference between things, no difference at all, we would not be able to perceive or conceive anything, since we only perceive by contrast and we only conceive by opposition and exclusion.

Everything would be the same thing.
And actually, this “same thing” would not even be a thing, stricto sensu.
It would be an indefinite entity, a void or a chaos, like Anaximander’s Apeiron.

Now, A thing can be a thing even if i don’t perceive it as such. It just means that i don’t see or don’t know its difference.

184

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:
Are they actions that cause suffering of have the intent to? I would tend to agree, I see no reason for suffering in of itself. I’m surprised the idea of revenge is a part your belief system. Forget the system, I’m just surprised that your notion of justice encompasses intentional suffering.

Am I mislabelling it by calling it revenge? [/quote]

I suppose so, because I haven’t mentioned revenge. [/quote]

Not to hop in your debate with Chris. But I certainly see there is a point to revenge. Or perhaps we can call it vengeance. Or making something right. Or making someone whole.

Jot for jot measure for measure…some things aren’t wrong simply because you don’t ascribe to a particular belief system.

The punishment part of the US system is generally either fines or prison. To be frank there is little or no attempt to rehabilitate.

First of all though I would say deserved suffering isn’t evil in my opinion. To you obviously it would be. In cases of terrible inhumane crimes what does it take to make them right? To make someone whole? In many cases there is nothing that will make a victim or their family whole and in those cases killing the person responsible has sometimes been deemed acceptable by society.

To extend your suffering argument would get a sort of classic utilitarianism which leads to some conundrums.
I would say to paraphrase a bit of what I think Pat was saying as their are some cases that are so egregious we are in agreement about what is immoral. There are many many other issues where this is not the case. One of them being punishment say.

185

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:

Truth is mental construct - it only makes sense if you thnk that there is an actual state of affairs - there isnt one outside of our perception of the state of affairs. Truth is correspondance with our own internal logic.[/quote]

Oh my![/quote]
que? how about someone discusses something instead of poking fun and saying nothing more…im genuinely interested to know why you would and how you disagree with the above, please tell me.[/quote]

I am happy to discuss, but I am a little bit of a loss as to where to begin. I have heard of the ol’ ‘relative morality’ thing, but relative truth? I kinda thought that truth not being relative was a given. Statement truths for instance function on the ‘law of excluded middle’ which means that a statement is either true, or ‘is the case’ or it’s not true or ‘is not the case’, there is no third option.
A truth states ‘what is the case’. So if I say ‘There are two people in the room.’ and there are in fact are two people in the room that statement is true because that is in fact the case. Now if I say ‘There are two people in the room.’ and there is nobody in the room, then that is a non-truth in that, that is not the case. So that’s all truth is a statement about what is the case.
So when you say that it depends on the person, or observer, I don’t know what you could possibly mean.
I cannot say ‘There are two people in the room.’ there be nobody in the room and it be a true statement by sheer will. [/quote]

Ok, I think I maybe haven’t been very clear about what I mean by subjective truth (this is partly because this position is not fully explored for me yet, im still figuring out what I think).

I agree that truth is what is the case. When I say I believe absolute truth is not possible, it is simply because I don’t know if we have “access” to the real world in such a way that we can say something true about it.

When i said truth depends on the observer, I mean that for a truth to hold across observers, they need to have the same access/perception to the state of things. I was talking more with respect to imaginary observers, who are perhaps a different species or “thing”, I think truth holds among humans and we can know (to an extent) about our reality and all the parts within.

The law of excluded middle may not hold for a non human entity, which is why truths may take a different form. In order for us to know something, our brain cognizes in a certain way. If a different entity has a different structure of mind, its form of truth may be different

186

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:
Are they actions that cause suffering of have the intent to? I would tend to agree, I see no reason for suffering in of itself. I’m surprised the idea of revenge is a part your belief system. Forget the system, I’m just surprised that your notion of justice encompasses intentional suffering.

Am I mislabelling it by calling it revenge? [/quote]

I suppose so, because I haven’t mentioned revenge. [/quote]

Not to hop in your debate with Chris. But I certainly see there is a point to revenge. Or perhaps we can call it vengeance. Or making something right. Or making someone whole.

Jot for jot measure for measure…some things aren’t wrong simply because you don’t ascribe to a particular belief system.

The punishment part of the US system is generally either fines or prison. To be frank there is little or no attempt to rehabilitate.

First of all though I would say deserved suffering isn’t evil in my opinion. To you obviously it would be. In cases of terrible inhumane crimes what does it take to make them right? To make someone whole? In many cases there is nothing that will make a victim or their family whole and in those cases killing the person responsible has sometimes been deemed acceptable by society.

To extend your suffering argument would get a sort of classic utilitarianism which leads to some conundrums.
I would say to paraphrase a bit of what I think Pat was saying as their are some cases that are so egregious we are in agreement about what is immoral. There are many many other issues where this is not the case. One of them being punishment say.[/quote]

I guess I don’t see how someone can want to inflict harm for no reason other than the belief someone deserves it. Just seems petty to me.

187

[quote]kamui wrote:

Now, A thing can be a thing even if i don’t perceive it as such. It just means that i don’t see or don’t know its difference.

[/quote]
can you expand on this?

188

[quote]silee wrote:
[[/quote]

Just a few point since i think we are getting in over our heads. First it matters ( to me at least) if you are arguing for a foundation for knowing since its exactly those you are into foundations that are doing metaphysics. A non foundational view doesn’t need to be reductionistic, meaning it doesn’t have to be reduced to first principles ok. Although with that said if you look at Transformational grammar, and the work of Noam Chomsky he does say that there is a universal grammar ok. How that universal grammar plays out depends on different languages.

The other point I want to make and here i am addressing your ( what i think is over-simple view) of logic being essential for humans. Is that in natural languages its not clear at times what if any logic is at work. ( check out Montague semantics which is an attempt to right a logic for natural languages) I don’t expect you to read that much since its a lot of stuff there and we can still talk without knowing about what I am pointing to.
Here’s a bit of a counter example to your logic is a foundation like objectivity is. Often in our everyday lives we are just looking for support (emotional support) for what we say, and while there maybe sense, could be even irrational, some set of logical laws isn’t even applicable there. Just look at the way maybe right-wing tea party folks see buying into the health care mandate as bad for their health care when the facts tell us other wise.

I am not saying I have a complete understanding of human communication and all its manifestations ,socially, psychologically, emotionally , pragmatically, logically, culturally.
But it should is fun to have to think deeper about it[/quote]

Thanks for your replies - I think your counter example doesn’t prove logic cannot be treated as an objective law. Humans can still make seemingly incorrect or even illogical judgements if they do not have all the facts or misunderstand a situation.

I think you are rigght that our emotions can cloud our logical reasoning but that doesnt meanlogic isnt still correct. I may feel scared of heights even if there is no logical reason, but this isnt because logic is brewaking down, its more to do with phsycology i guess.

Im not saying logic is as good a foundation as objectivity - im saying objectivity may not exist. how can something be purely objective? doesnt that make it non contingent? how can something have any relation or interaction with something else and also be completely independent of it?

189

[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:

[quote]silee wrote:
[[/quote]

Just a few point since i think we are getting in over our heads. First it matters ( to me at least) if you are arguing for a foundation for knowing since its exactly those you are into foundations that are doing metaphysics. A non foundational view doesn’t need to be reductionistic, meaning it doesn’t have to be reduced to first principles ok. Although with that said if you look at Transformational grammar, and the work of Noam Chomsky he does say that there is a universal grammar ok. How that universal grammar plays out depends on different languages.

The other point I want to make and here i am addressing your ( what i think is over-simple view) of logic being essential for humans. Is that in natural languages its not clear at times what if any logic is at work. ( check out Montague semantics which is an attempt to right a logic for natural languages) I don’t expect you to read that much since its a lot of stuff there and we can still talk without knowing about what I am pointing to.
Here’s a bit of a counter example to your logic is a foundation like objectivity is. Often in our everyday lives we are just looking for support (emotional support) for what we say, and while there maybe sense, could be even irrational, some set of logical laws isn’t even applicable there. Just look at the way maybe right-wing tea party folks see buying into the health care mandate as bad for their health care when the facts tell us other wise.

I am not saying I have a complete understanding of human communication and all its manifestations ,socially, psychologically, emotionally , pragmatically, logically, culturally.
But it should is fun to have to think deeper about it[/quote]

Thanks for your replies - I think your counter example doesn’t prove logic cannot be treated as an objective law. Humans can still make seemingly incorrect or even illogical judgements if they do not have all the facts or misunderstand a situation.

I think you are rigght that our emotions can cloud our logical reasoning but that doesnt meanlogic isnt still correct. I may feel scared of heights even if there is no logical reason, but this isnt because logic is brewaking down, its more to do with phsycology i guess.

============================================================================================
Sorcher wrote:

Im not saying logic is as good a foundation as objectivity - im saying objectivity may not exist. how can something be purely objective? doesnt that make it non contingent? how can something have any relation or interaction with something else and also be completely independent of it?

I agree with you about objectivity that it doesn’t exist. But objectivity here must mean something like certainty and possessing no grounds for doubt ok. Objectivity can also mean having no human interest in the observation or the investigation of a matter of concern, but there too that is filled with problems. Objectivity in the sense we are doubting or disclaiming it has to be with a metaphysical claim of certainty.

190

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]silee wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]silee wrote:
I think you can make a case that Ontology, metaphysics, Theology and to a lesser extent epistemology are interrelated. But if i had to choose two that seem to underlay all thought that would be ontology and metaphysics. I further think that modern scientific investigation can escape metaphysics in so far as Theory, have to be supported by data and subject to peer review or replication although i don’t think this is the essence of science. The reason i say this is a team of scientist could be working to replicate a study and in the process come up with hypotheses that strike out in a new direction and after a long process lead to a new paradigm for advancing knowledge.[/quote]

The science is empirical. Just sayin’. Though yes, guided by metaphysical entities.

Pat… I dont’ think we have to reduce science to any metaphysical foundations to have a vibrant science which deals with the natural world. Here i am think only of physics, chemistry and biology… The human science would have a different methodology or many different methodologies because of the fact that human’s are also subjects and just observing them as if they were objects of study in a laboratory like atoms or germs or two variables doesn’t work to further our understanding of the complexity that we are.
[/quote]
[/quote]

Well, yes and no. The scientific method seems to operate fine as an empirical methodology, but the ‘scientific method’ itself is a metaphysical entity. It also depends on what your end game is. If you are trying to come up, say with a new rubber compound for tires, that’s pretty much an empirical proposition. If you are trying to find out what the law behind electromagnetism is, that’s a metaphysical proposition. In the latter, you can use empirical process as a guiding factor, but the proposition is a metaphysical one.[/quote]

First the idea of a scientific method is problematic since there are the natural sciences and they have their own methodology and then there is the social science which has more than one methodology, and we have hermeneutics which is still another way to proceed in coming to an understanding about text, and communication.

I don’t see how the law of electromagnetism is a metaphysical proposition. Its stated and then its used to explain propositions about certain natural feature of the natural world. If there were examples of it being wrong it would be given up. Metaphysical propositions don’t function in the same way… But I don’t know enough about it to really say anything substantive.

191

http://www.philosophy.ox.ac.uk/podcasts/philosophy_for_beginners

Perhaps moving pictures will help me digest these topics.

192

[quote]ephrem wrote:
http://www.philosophy.ox.ac.uk/podcasts/philosophy_for_beginners

Perhaps moving pictures will help me digest these topics.[/quote]Very good Ephrem. Some of these will go in my car too. I see that one is named “metaphysics and epistemology”. Brother Chris and Tiribulus? Ain’t that cozy =]

EDIT: I offered this to Kamui last night. http://presupp101.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/van-til-a-survey-of-christian-epistemology.pdf Just for your own continuing education. Seriously.

193

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
http://www.philosophy.ox.ac.uk/podcasts/philosophy_for_beginners

Perhaps moving pictures will help me digest these topics.[/quote]Very good Ephrem. Some of these will go in my car too. I see that one is named “metaphysics and epistemology”. Brother Chris and Tiribulus? Ain’t that cozy =]

EDIT: I offered this to Kamui last night. http://presupp101.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/van-til-a-survey-of-christian-epistemology.pdf Just for your own continuing education. Seriously. [/quote]

You do know a metaphysicist or metaphysican came up with the first use of epistemology in writings…right?

194

I do know that almighty God speaking through His friend and servant Moses gave us the most seminal writings on ANYthing and EVERYthing including epistemology.

195

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I do know that almighty God speaking through His friend and servant Moses gave us the most seminal writings on ANYthing and EVERYthing including epistemology. [/quote]

Can you go further than this?

196

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I do know that almighty God speaking through His friend and servant Moses gave us the most seminal writings on ANYthing and EVERYthing including epistemology. [/quote]

Can you go further than this?[/quote]You never answered this before so I’ll ask it a different way. Which part of this statement:[quote]God has all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of himself; and is alone in and of himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which He has made, nor deriving any glory from them, but only manifesting His own glory in, by, to, and upon them; He is the alone foundation of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom, are all things; and He has most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or to them, whatever He pleases. In his sight all things are open and manifest; his knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent of the creature; so that nothing is to him contingent or uncertain. He is most holy in all his counsels, in all his works, and in all his commands. To him is due from angels and men, and every other creature, whatever worship, service, or obedience he is pleased to require of them.[/quote]do you feel is NOT contained in and birthed from this statement:[quote]“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”[/quote]I say that is the most epistemological/ontological/teleological/cogent and concise THEOlogical and hence comprehensively philosophical single statement ever committed to human language of any kind. Kamui, don’t lemme down now.

197

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< You never act nice to me except in private. Don’t give me that I don’t know how to act when you’re nice. >>>[/quote]I said 03-04-2012, 12:27 AM[quote]You’re gonna have to bear with me here Chris. I have spent more time with you than anybody else ever that I have not met in person and many that I have. You are one of the most beloved people in my life. I am incapable of being more sincere than that. I am beyond honored that you would take the time and thought required to construct a post like the above in my thread. Where’s the “but” right? <<<>> You are a very gifted kid Chris and I have no doubt that the God I love is working in your life. I would be proud to have you as my son. Like never before it is going to break my heart to have to disagree, strenuously, with very much (but not all) of what you’ve said in this post. I’m still learnin Christopher. Expect a more “charitable” Tiribulus. (within reason =] )[/quote] http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/the_key_to_everything?id=5080368&pageNo=10

198

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I do know that almighty God speaking through His friend and servant Moses gave us the most seminal writings on ANYthing and EVERYthing including epistemology. [/quote]

Can you go further than this?[/quote]You never answered this before so I’ll ask it a different way. Which part of this statement:[quote]God has all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of himself; and is alone in and of himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which He has made, nor deriving any glory from them, but only manifesting His own glory in, by, to, and upon them; He is the alone foundation of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom, are all things; and He has most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or to them, whatever He pleases. In his sight all things are open and manifest; his knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent of the creature; so that nothing is to him contingent or uncertain. He is most holy in all his counsels, in all his works, and in all his commands. To him is due from angels and men, and every other creature, whatever worship, service, or obedience he is pleased to require of them.[/quote]do you feel is NOT contained in and birthed from this statement:[quote]“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”[/quote]I say that is the most epistemological/ontological/teleological/cogent and concise THEOlogical and hence comprehensively philosophical single statement ever committed to human language of any kind. Kamui, don’t lemme down now.
[/quote]

I didn’t know Moses was at Westminster.

199

[quote][quote]Tiribulus wrote:
You’re gonna have to bear with me here Chris. I have spent more time with you than anybody else ever that I have not met in person and many that I have. You are one of the most beloved people in my life. I am incapable of being more sincere than that. I am beyond honored that you would take the time and thought required to construct a post like the above in my thread. Where’s the “but” right? <<<>> You are a very gifted kid Chris and I have no doubt that the God I love is working in your life. I would be proud to have you as my son. Like never before it is going to break my heart to have to disagree, strenuously, with very much (but not all) of what you’ve said in this post. I’m still learnin Christopher. Expect a more “charitable” Tiribulus. (within reason =] )[/quote]
http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/the_key_to_everything?id=5080368&pageNo=10
[/quote]

Time =/= nice. And, I don’t care about you being nice. Nice is not the same thing as charitable and it sure isn’t the same thing as respectful.

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/civilization/cc0373.htm

200

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I do know that almighty God speaking through His friend and servant Moses gave us the most seminal writings on ANYthing and EVERYthing including epistemology. [/quote]

Can you go further than this?[/quote]You never answered this before so I’ll ask it a different way. Which part of this statement:[quote]God has all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of himself; and is alone in and of himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which He has made, nor deriving any glory from them, but only manifesting His own glory in, by, to, and upon them; He is the alone foundation of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom, are all things; and He has most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or to them, whatever He pleases. In his sight all things are open and manifest; his knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent of the creature; so that nothing is to him contingent or uncertain. He is most holy in all his counsels, in all his works, and in all his commands. To him is due from angels and men, and every other creature, whatever worship, service, or obedience he is pleased to require of them.[/quote]do you feel is NOT contained in and birthed from this statement:[quote]“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”[/quote]I say that is the most epistemological/ontological/teleological/cogent and concise THEOlogical and hence comprehensively philosophical single statement ever committed to human language of any kind. Kamui, don’t lemme down now.
[/quote]

I didn’t know Moses was at Westminster. [/quote]

LOL!!