Theoretically - our own intuition is abstract as the argument. And all argument is - is a retention of the inventive element through the use of ideas which have metaphysical value. - Marco
=================
=================
Chris Weare
I assume you mean justify metaphysical knowledge. You cannot validate a metaphysical claim. That point is obvious based on the methods outlined below.
“1. foundations - any metaphysical entity or principle is founded on necessary assumptions, so these assumptions must be examined carefully and justified in a holistic examination”
You cannot actually tell if your grounding assumptions are necessary. They are always dogmatic in that one must assume they are true and ground what is built upon them. This step is typically an appeal to intuition. But you can’t tell if your intuition is true when pondering the fabric of reality. You cannot show that your false intuition is NOT a consequence of reality.
“2. coherence - the validity of claims are assessed by internal consistency and by their relationship to other external established ideas, in a broad range of rational experience”
Two diametrically opposed metaphysical theses can both be coherent while building on or supporting external ideas. You cannot tell which one is true and you cannot tell which one is false or if all are false.
“3. necessary part of best explanation - if a metaphysical entity or principle is a necessary part of the best explanation available for phenomena, then belief in it is justified”
Best explanation for phenomena? What do you mean by best? Who determines what best means? Is metaphysics subjective?
Metaphysical entities or principals do not explain phenomena, they ground phenomena. It is the job of science to explain them. If your metaphysical these can generate predictions of observable phenomena, then it is the job of science to attempt to falsify it. But you explicitly excluded science, so you have no way to falsify a coherent metaphysical thesis.
“4. intuitive judgment - nearly all new ideas start in intuition and common sense inspiration. These concepts are validated through life experience and history of personal worldviews”
Intuition and common sense are formed through personal experience, and are subjective. There is no reason to assume that they give insight into the foundations of reality. They are just guesses for starting points. Not grounds for truth.
“5. intersubjective agreement - validation of ideas occurs through open-ended, public conversation, based on rationality, practicality and axiomatic (ethical / aesthetic) arguments”
This is known as consensus. If you look through the history of philosophy you will see that philosophical consensus is rare and fleeting. Science, on the other hand, typically is able to develop long-standing consensus. Of course, consensus is always provisional in science, as it is in philosophy.
“6. pragmatic utility - if a metaphysical framework provides valuable insights into ethics, purpose, or the connections between different fields of knowledge, then it is a valid way of understanding reality”
Pragmatic utility, defined by pragmatists as a measure of truth, says nothing about what reality is, only about how we experience it.
“Metaphysics deals with abstract questions that are difficult, or impossible, to verify through direct experimentation, so it relies on reasoned argument, coherence, and the ability of its frameworks to provide a meaningful understanding of existence through mental idealization.”
At its best, metaphysics gives us a menu of possibilities to explore if the metaphysical thesis predicts observable consequences. If a metaphysical thesis predicts no observable consequences then it really does not help us understand existence. They just give us insight into how we think about existence.
=============
Chris Weare "You cannot validate a metaphysical claim." If you are answering why you make certain claims, you can lie about not agreeing with the same thing. Then, nothing is ascertainable according to your view. - Marco
Chris Weare "At its best, metaphysics gives us a menu of possibilities to explore if the metaphysical thesis predicts observable consequences. If a metaphysical thesis predicts no observable consequences then it really does not help us understand existence. They just give us insight into how we think about existence."
The onus is on the basis or result of thought. All I see you do is negating what metaphysically cannot be made clear. Which is false. Objectivity is in the eye of the beholder, or metaphysically - I wouldn't bother reading your views. I am arguing with you on the basis of conscious thought which categorically can be true or not. I repeat, it is metaphysical in nature to make the very least effort in understanding with a maximum amount of thought. - Marco
=============
=============
Gus Kostopoulos
We don't.
Science is the quest for greater knowledge.
Epistemology is the study of knowledge itself (why am I justified in believing in round Earth and general relativity and disbelieving in flat Earth and the cosmic ether?).
Ultimate really is unknowable and metaphysics is speculation. Its fun to speculate about metaphysics so go ahead and do so. But I have never seen the point to people making up metaphysical systems and arguing premises and syllogism as though this is serious intellectual work that could one day yield real knowledge.
Gus Kostopoulos I would argue that knowledge is the same basis of what is psychological, something which we feel. Secondly, we interpret what we do with how we observe ourselves. This is a branch of metaphysical thought. And further to this end, that I would say epistemology is a branch of psychology (metacognition) thinking about thinking.
- Marco
================
Paul Krauss
"Metaphysics exists beyond the merely physical world of so-called solid objects and in the realm of abstract ideas, which is where reality is." Why do you hide it? Why do you hide that you are declaring "reality is in the realm of abstract ideas." ... hide it as a secondary clause in where the first clause is obvious? That is a hoax. That denies reality. And you always claim to know where reality is - repeatedly in every asinine post. God bless your trickery. You do not own reality - it owns you. Your reality is insanity. I hope they have a special place for insane people in heaven.
Paul Krauss I like to think I am insane. How do I prove that to you, if metaphysically plausible. Are you saying I cannot prove to you I am insane? (Of course I'm not.)
My point is metaphysics is the height of intellectual discourse. - Marco
==================
==================
Niels Egede Olsen
How do you Know that reality is in the realm of abstract ideas?
If it was so, then all of our communications technology would not work.
Abstract thinking is also very unpredictable, with each person believing different things, even when largely agreeing, the details will be different. Unpredictable.
However, if reality just is, whether we think it is or not, we can model it and make advanced equipment that works, because our model is so accurate and reality seems to be predictable.
The evidence refutes that reality is defined by abstract thought.
The evidence supports that reality doesn't care what humans think it is. It just is.
Niels Egede Olsen "If it was so, then all of our communications technology would not work." = Of course, it would not work. It would be counter intuitive to make something deliberately "not work". That is in itself an indicator to our abstract ideas. We go against what might not (counter intuitively) work as proof of what can (abstract but true). Tell me how do we know unless we invent. That is a pure function. Function of how our minds work.
My point is we lead by how we act. Such is reality. We make it up as we observe. What we observe is either done without experience or is an essence. The more we train ourselves to think, the better the outcome. Such is metaphysical action, interestingly enough, our conscious connection to the world inside ourselves (private thoughts) vs, what we encounter to test ourselves externally. Truth is found in our search if metaphysically dominant, whereas philosophy can be purely abstract. - Marco
No comments:
Post a Comment