Metaphysics: The ACTUAL Key to Everything

[pat]

[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:

[quote]silee wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Silee if you want me to read that, fix your quotes… It happens to me all the time so I know.[/quote]

yeah they did get messed up.[/quote]

Had a really strange occurance yesterday (or was it the day before…)… I posted something, then realized that the first quote command had a / in front of it, i.e. messing up all my quotes…
Clicked on “edit”… And there it showed me the same quote command without the /… Don’t know if there is some autocorrect function going on?
Anyway, thing is… I am absolutely positive That the first quote should never have had that / in front of it because I quoted someone elses post in the first place… Which automatically places the correct quote command at the beginning. (and ends the quote at the end of the quoted post).

Weird all around.

[/quote]

I have gone through the painstaking process of fixing my quotes, re posting and everything looking good. Then open up another browser later only to find everything screwed up again. That’s really frustrating.

[Tiribulus]

[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]I persist in my friendly assertion that you do not understand epistemology.

[Tiribulus]

The forum software either doesn’t do multi level nested quotes well or I haven’t figured out how it wants it yet. Too bad the preview function doesn’t work like it used to.

[Cephalic_Carnage]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:

[quote]silee wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Silee if you want me to read that, fix your quotes… It happens to me all the time so I know.[/quote]

yeah they did get messed up.[/quote]

Had a really strange occurance yesterday (or was it the day before…)… I posted something, then realized that the first quote command had a / in front of it, i.e. messing up all my quotes…
Clicked on “edit”… And there it showed me the same quote command without the /… Don’t know if there is some autocorrect function going on?
Anyway, thing is… I am absolutely positive That the first quote should never have had that / in front of it because I quoted someone elses post in the first place… Which automatically places the correct quote command at the beginning. (and ends the quote at the end of the quoted post).

Weird all around.

[/quote]

I have gone through the painstaking process of fixing my quotes, re posting and everything looking good. Then open up another browser later only to find everything screwed up again. That’s really frustrating.
[/quote]

FWIW, if you edited a post for that too soon after posting it, it will usually revert back after a while… Still happens all the time. I have to often wait a suprisingly long time after posting something before I can edit it and have the edit stick.
Been that way for a long time though.

[pat]

[quote]kamui wrote:

Ah, so what’s your impression of my ontological perspective, based on my answers? It’s interesting to see how this would differ from what I perceive of myself.[/quote]

I’m not really sure.
I sometimes get the impression that you have two different ontological perspectives :
-A medieval, realist one, with aristotelian/thomist influences
-a more “modern” and rationalist one, with influences from Hume and Kant

Not sure which is the “true” one for you.
If i had to bet, i would say that you’re probably a realist who is well aware of the developments of idealism and rationalism and who does not hesitate to use them when your argument need or allow it.

That being said, I’m not sure ontology matters that much for you. The real stakes are theological and moral ones.

Well, then you aren’t far off from the impression I have of my own postings. Maintaining an ontology or image doesn’t mean much to me at all. The stakes for me are to land on the right side of an argument and to make good solid arguments despite the topic. The stakes very depending on the topic.
The past couple of years I have very much grown weary of politics, and world issues in general. It’s almost like I just don’t care anymore. I care, but the frustrating glacial pace of politicking, the drone of incessant whining and the utter lack of absolutes in that realm leaves me dissatisfied with the topic.
The complications from back surgery that have left me unable to train leaves me not wanting to discuss training. It’s like sitting at a feast unable to eat. I get fired up about it, only left being unable to do anything about it.
Philosophy and religion are to great loves of mine. They are things I enjoy discussing and have nobody in the real world to discuss them with. Like I could probably go to a coffee shop with you and talk about philosophy until the sun rises and not even realize the time passed. But I have nobody like that around me, so this is a good outlet for me to discuss this stuff.

As for your ontology, I am not really sure whose philosophical personally you seem to emulate, but I see you as a realist/ rationalist, but a cautious one and very calm. You will rather not say enough then say too much.

[kamui]

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).

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

Metaphysics: The ACTUAL Key to Everything [/quote]And how do you know this?

I think you missed my pun (is that the right word, pun?).

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]silee wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]silee wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
A thing is true to the extent that it conforms to the ideal defined by the essence of the kind it belongs to. [/quote]

Things aren’t true or false only statements are. [/quote]

Not according to the subject. :)[/quote]

what do you mean ? what is true or false is always dependent on what can be said i. e. statement of fact in a language…[/quote]

With respect to truth, it is useful, in understanding what is being said, to think of “true” in the sense of “real” or “genuine.”

Further…a triangle drawn sloppily on the cracked plastic seat of a moving school bus is not as true a triangle as one drawn slowly and carefully on paper with a Rapidograph pen and a ruler, for since its sides will be less straight it will less perfectly instantiate the essence of triangularity.

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:
A metaphysical challenge : define “thing” without using it (nor a synonym like “entity”).

(edit : i think i already made an allusion about this one in one of our discussion about the cosmological argument)[/quote]

Hmmm, Ok.
Thing - that which exists.[/quote]

Is a unicorn a thing?

[silee]

[quote]Tiribulus 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]I persist in my friendly assertion that you do not understand epistemology.
[/quote]

Nah you want to say epistemology is primordial, the ground of the ground the source of divinity. I have a different conception thats all. I know you want to say That there is only one way to see it. I just disagree.

[silee]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]silee wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]silee wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
A thing is true to the extent that it conforms to the ideal defined by the essence of the kind it belongs to. [/quote]

Things aren’t true or false only statements are. [/quote]

Not according to the subject. :)[/quote]

what do you mean ? what is true or false is always dependent on what can be said i. e. statement of fact in a language…[/quote]

With respect to truth, it is useful, in understanding what is being said, to think of “true” in the sense of “real” or “genuine.”

Further…a triangle drawn sloppily on the cracked plastic seat of a moving school bus is not as true a triangle as one drawn slowly and carefully on paper with a Rapidograph pen and a ruler, for since its sides will be less straight it will less perfectly instantiate the essence of triangularity. [/quote]

I understand what you state “with respect to truth… or “genuine”” But Truth has nothing to do with that understanding, it has more to do with the sentence structure and the meaning i derive from it.

The second assertion strikes me as platonic. That is the triangle written on a paper in a moving school bus isn’t as true as the “form triangle” which is a super-sensible figure or form. Do you want to also say that since the drawing on the bus was done by hand that that to makes it just a bad copy of the real? I think you do. And equally if the triangle was made out of some material like copper or tin or what have you, it would also be inferior for you.

For me the thing that gives triangle its meaning is its abstraction which is captured by language.

[Scorched_Soul]

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:
A metaphysical challenge : define “thing” without using it (nor a synonym like “entity”).

(edit : i think i already made an allusion about this one in one of our discussion about the cosmological argument)[/quote]

A thing is the total of a moleculair framework.

Or is “moleculair framework” “using it”?[/quote]

Well, i could say that you can’t know anything about molecular frameworks if you don’t already know what a thing is.
But it’s not an epistemological thread, it’s a metaphysical one.

So no, “molecular framework” is not “using it” in this context.
But
-It excludes things that exists below the “molecular framework level”.
And it excludes non-material things.

-that does not tell what allow us to say that something is a discrete “total”. Where/when do we start and stop to “totalize” ?

So i don’t think it’s a valid definition of a thing.

Actually, i believe that “the total of a molecular framework” could be a pretty good definition of a material body. A solid one, preferably.
[/quote]

A thing is our perception of a concept, which is shaped by our mind - a thing is anything our mind can isolate so that we can conceptualise it.

[Scorched_Soul]

[quote]silee wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]silee wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]silee wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
A thing is true to the extent that it conforms to the ideal defined by the essence of the kind it belongs to. [/quote]

Things aren’t true or false only statements are. [/quote]

Not according to the subject. :)[/quote]

what do you mean ? what is true or false is always dependent on what can be said i. e. statement of fact in a language…[/quote]

With respect to truth, it is useful, in understanding what is being said, to think of “true” in the sense of “real” or “genuine.”

Further…a triangle drawn sloppily on the cracked plastic seat of a moving school bus is not as true a triangle as one drawn slowly and carefully on paper with a Rapidograph pen and a ruler, for since its sides will be less straight it will less perfectly instantiate the essence of triangularity. [/quote]

I understand what you state “with respect to truth… or “genuine”” But Truth has nothing to do with that understanding, it has more to do with the sentence structure and the meaning i derive from it.

The second assertion strikes me as platonic. That is the triangle written on a paper in a moving school bus isn’t as true as the “form triangle” which is a super-sensible figure or form. Do you want to also say that since the drawing on the bus was done by hand that that to makes it just a bad copy of the real? I think you do. And equally if the triangle was made out of some material like copper or tin or what have you, it would also be inferior for you.

For me the thing that gives triangle its meaning is its abstraction which is captured by language. [/quote]

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.

[silee]

[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:

[quote]silee wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]silee wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]silee wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
A thing is true to the extent that it conforms to the ideal defined by the essence of the kind it belongs to. [/quote]

Things aren’t true or false only statements are. [/quote]

Not according to the subject. :)[/quote]

what do you mean ? what is true or false is always dependent on what can be said i. e. statement of fact in a language…[/quote]

With respect to truth, it is useful, in understanding what is being said, to think of “true” in the sense of “real” or “genuine.”

Further…a triangle drawn sloppily on the cracked plastic seat of a moving school bus is not as true a triangle as one drawn slowly and carefully on paper with a Rapidograph pen and a ruler, for since its sides will be less straight it will less perfectly instantiate the essence of triangularity. [/quote]

I understand what you state “with respect to truth… or “genuine”” But Truth has nothing to do with that understanding, it has more to do with the sentence structure and the meaning i derive from it.

The second assertion strikes me as platonic. That is the triangle written on a paper in a moving school bus isn’t as true as the “form triangle” which is a super-sensible figure or form. Do you want to also say that since the drawing on the bus was done by hand that that to makes it just a bad copy of the real? I think you do. And equally if the triangle was made out of some material like copper or tin or what have you, it would also be inferior for you.

For me the thing that gives triangle its meaning is its abstraction which is captured by language. [/quote]

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]

If for you Truth is correspondence with your own internal logic, then Truth is many things to many different people. Just a point about the psychology of man its irrationality that drives him. The only reason for rationality are linguistic conventions. AND IF YOU SAY TRUTH IS correspondence then you’re saying its a relation between mental phenomenon and internal logic. You’re turning Truth into a psychological thing.

[Scorched_Soul]

[quote]silee wrote:

[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:

[quote]silee wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]silee wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]silee wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
A thing is true to the extent that it conforms to the ideal defined by the essence of the kind it belongs to. [/quote]

Things aren’t true or false only statements are. [/quote]

Not according to the subject. :)[/quote]

what do you mean ? what is true or false is always dependent on what can be said i. e. statement of fact in a language…[/quote]

With respect to truth, it is useful, in understanding what is being said, to think of “true” in the sense of “real” or “genuine.”

Further…a triangle drawn sloppily on the cracked plastic seat of a moving school bus is not as true a triangle as one drawn slowly and carefully on paper with a Rapidograph pen and a ruler, for since its sides will be less straight it will less perfectly instantiate the essence of triangularity. [/quote]

I understand what you state “with respect to truth… or “genuine”” But Truth has nothing to do with that understanding, it has more to do with the sentence structure and the meaning i derive from it.

The second assertion strikes me as platonic. That is the triangle written on a paper in a moving school bus isn’t as true as the “form triangle” which is a super-sensible figure or form. Do you want to also say that since the drawing on the bus was done by hand that that to makes it just a bad copy of the real? I think you do. And equally if the triangle was made out of some material like copper or tin or what have you, it would also be inferior for you.

For me the thing that gives triangle its meaning is its abstraction which is captured by language. [/quote]

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]

If for you Truth is correspondence with your own internal logic, then Truth is many things to many different people. Just a point about the psychology of man its irrationality that drives him. The only reason for rationality are linguistic conventions. AND IF YOU SAY TRUTH IS correspondence then you’re saying its a relation between mental phenomenon and internal logic. You’re turning Truth into a psychological thing.
[/quote]

truth IS a psychological thing = we think of it being the state of affairs, but there is no objective state of anything. rationality is simply the order we apply to our conceprs, it only means something in relation to human thought

[Tiribulus]

[quote]silee wrote:<<<Nah you want to say epistemology is primordial, the ground of the ground the source of divinity. I have a different conception thats all. I know you want to say That there is only one way to see it. I just disagree.[/quote]I say that divinity is the source of everything, including epistemology which in turn makes or breaks every single thought we think.

[kamui]

[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:
A metaphysical challenge : define “thing” without using it (nor a synonym like “entity”).

(edit : i think i already made an allusion about this one in one of our discussion about the cosmological argument)[/quote]

A thing is the total of a moleculair framework.

Or is “moleculair framework” “using it”?[/quote]

Well, i could say that you can’t know anything about molecular frameworks if you don’t already know what a thing is.
But it’s not an epistemological thread, it’s a metaphysical one.

So no, “molecular framework” is not “using it” in this context.
But
-It excludes things that exists below the “molecular framework level”.
And it excludes non-material things.

-that does not tell what allow us to say that something is a discrete “total”. Where/when do we start and stop to “totalize” ?

So i don’t think it’s a valid definition of a thing.

Actually, i believe that “the total of a molecular framework” could be a pretty good definition of a material body. A solid one, preferably.
[/quote]

A thing is our perception of a concept, which is shaped by our mind - a thing is anything our mind can isolate so that we can conceptualise it.[/quote]

If the mind is the shaper of concepts, where does it find the basic materials he give shape to ?
Does the mind create them ?
In other words :
Is there something before and outside the shaping activity of the mind ?

[Mr_Chen]

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:
A metaphysical challenge : define “thing” without using it (nor a synonym like “entity”).

(edit : i think i already made an allusion about this one in one of our discussion about the cosmological argument)[/quote]

A thing is the total of a moleculair framework.

Or is “moleculair framework” “using it”?[/quote]

For from Israel was it also: the workman made it; therefore it is not God: but the calf of Samaria shall be broken in pieces.
(Hos 8:6 KJV)

Ruminate on that.

[kamui]

[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:

[quote]silee wrote:

[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:

[quote]silee wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]silee wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]silee wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
A thing is true to the extent that it conforms to the ideal defined by the essence of the kind it belongs to. [/quote]

Things aren’t true or false only statements are. [/quote]

Not according to the subject. :)[/quote]

what do you mean ? what is true or false is always dependent on what can be said i. e. statement of fact in a language…[/quote]

With respect to truth, it is useful, in understanding what is being said, to think of “true” in the sense of “real” or “genuine.”

Further…a triangle drawn sloppily on the cracked plastic seat of a moving school bus is not as true a triangle as one drawn slowly and carefully on paper with a Rapidograph pen and a ruler, for since its sides will be less straight it will less perfectly instantiate the essence of triangularity. [/quote]

I understand what you state “with respect to truth… or “genuine”” But Truth has nothing to do with that understanding, it has more to do with the sentence structure and the meaning i derive from it.

The second assertion strikes me as platonic. That is the triangle written on a paper in a moving school bus isn’t as true as the “form triangle” which is a super-sensible figure or form. Do you want to also say that since the drawing on the bus was done by hand that that to makes it just a bad copy of the real? I think you do. And equally if the triangle was made out of some material like copper or tin or what have you, it would also be inferior for you.

For me the thing that gives triangle its meaning is its abstraction which is captured by language. [/quote]

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]

If for you Truth is correspondence with your own internal logic, then Truth is many things to many different people. Just a point about the psychology of man its irrationality that drives him. The only reason for rationality are linguistic conventions. AND IF YOU SAY TRUTH IS correspondence then you’re saying its a relation between mental phenomenon and internal logic. You’re turning Truth into a psychological thing.
[/quote]

truth IS a psychological thing = we think of it being the state of affairs, but there is no objective state of anything. rationality is simply the order we apply to our conceprs, it only means something in relation to human thought[/quote]

“we think”
“we apply”
“our concepts”

who is this “We” ?

If what you say is true, your mind is the only thing you will ever know and experience.
So it actually shoud be “I think”, “I apply”, “My concepts”.

You may think that it’s equally true for me, Pat or Tiribulus, but, in last analysis, we, like every human beings, are only concepts in YOUR mind.

Thank you very much for making me in your own image.

[Scorched_Soul]

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:
A metaphysical challenge : define “thing” without using it (nor a synonym like “entity”).

(edit : i think i already made an allusion about this one in one of our discussion about the cosmological argument)[/quote]

A thing is the total of a moleculair framework.

Or is “moleculair framework” “using it”?[/quote]

Well, i could say that you can’t know anything about molecular frameworks if you don’t already know what a thing is.
But it’s not an epistemological thread, it’s a metaphysical one.

So no, “molecular framework” is not “using it” in this context.
But
-It excludes things that exists below the “molecular framework level”.
And it excludes non-material things.

-that does not tell what allow us to say that something is a discrete “total”. Where/when do we start and stop to “totalize” ?

So i don’t think it’s a valid definition of a thing.

Actually, i believe that “the total of a molecular framework” could be a pretty good definition of a material body. A solid one, preferably.
[/quote]

A thing is our perception of a concept, which is shaped by our mind - a thing is anything our mind can isolate so that we can conceptualise it.[/quote]

If the mind is the shaper of concepts, where does it find the basic materials he give shape to ?
Does the mind create them ?
In other words :
Is there something before and outside the shaping activity of the mind ?
[/quote]

The question is flawed - the very concept of the mind/matter duality is a construct of the human mind. What do you mean “material”? If you mean is there more to conscienceness, who knows? What is the material that my thoughts are made out of? we can’t answer any of these questions - we are our reality, there is nothing more that “we” can perceive of.