Traditionalists that subscribe to Aristotle would not argue in favor of a rules based theory for metaphysics. Metaphysics is anomaly from which the guiding principles of all thoughts can only be mastered. To create a dialogue through properties logically based. (Sound inductive reasoning is enough.) Particular to measurement of what is true. Truth in the form of language. This is metaphysics in its movement. What we interpret in terms of any variable, post hoc. A priori to everything made of rational thought leads us to an ad hoc understanding of what we know is being said. Statements can be made as either true or false (that we all know). However, what we per se already know is that a statement cannot be both true nor false at the same time. For example: Rules based logic is not the same as rule based metaphysics. Think about it. My last statement infers that logic may have rules we must follow to judge what in terms of fallacies we create - or - metaphysical action diminishes the laws of which fallacies are committed? Either way we are using both logical induction along with metaphysics in its form to assess what we think of as being true.
Conclusion -
In theory, we can take the approach in metaphysics similar to a point. That we act as cohorts into metaphysics as an act, our understanding vis-a-vis translation of the thoughts, which we use as a vehicle of words qua information. Conclusively speaking we transcend anything that comes in its form as a conduit of our liking. This is metaphysics.
No comments:
Post a Comment