Metaphysics as an Error

[jamest]

This idea that avoiding metaphysics is a metaphysical position seems akin to saying atheism is a religion or ignoring the board a strategy in chess.

Exactly. Intelligent people get it in no time.

Hey, I caught that business about the move of the knight. He moves one square adjacent and then one square diagonally.

Now back to avoiding metaphysics. There's also a thread about female ejaculation, and whether it tastes good or feels good on the skin, and how large a damp spot it might make. For those who really wish to avoid metaphysics, try "meatphysics".

I don't like your new name, but what do you care? Nuttin. Regardless, welcome back to the siege.

[Surendra Darathy]

You're being silly and difficult for the sake of it. If a methodology demands verification via observation and indivisibility cannot be verified with observation, then it can only be verified by reason (philosophy) - which isn't necessarily limited to verifying facts via observation.

Verification? There aren't any "facts" except by observation. What gets measured is whether the observation fits the model. Nothing gets verified. When enough data accumulate that do not fit the model, a new one comes along.

Actually, there are certain aspects interpretations of QM which may allude to a metaphysical reality. For instance, it is arguable that the phenomenon model of quantum nonlocality, or entanglement, pertains to an indivisible and essentially spaceless reality, which of course is at odds with what is apparent.

There. Fixed it for ya. Non-locality is a property of a model, not a property of "reality".

But since such claims are essentially reason-dependent and cannot be empirically verified (for obvious reasons), it is clear that the current methodology of science prevents it from making such claims as these. In other words, it would have to be a philosopher that made such claims.

Scientists always set the interpretational part of their reports apart from the data. The interpretation of the data is made within a "model". What are "models", James, and why don't filosofeazers have them?

Yes, because philo-gazers have "Special sauce" that enables them to utter things that scientists "Can't" say. The sheer snobbish and arrogance within this line of thought completely escapes those philo-gazers who draw the frontiers to what they can or cannot say, by "thought" alone.

I haven't ever heard it said. Only a wibble about the color "red". It's the color of "existence".

[FBM]

What would be the advantage of adopting a Pyrrhonian view?

Pyrrho's goal was to reach a state of ataraxia, in which there was no perplexity, stress, etc. It's interesting that he went to India with Alexander the Great and only developed his school of philosophy after his return.

[jamest]

What would be the advantage of adopting a Pyrrhonian view?

Pyrrho's goal was to reach a state of ataraxia, in which there was no perplexity, stress, etc.

His goal, therefore, was selfish. It had no regard for 'reality', or 'truth'.

It's interesting that he went to India with Alexander the Great and only developed his school of philosophy after his return.

Why is that interesting? Alexander was a t@@t, doing all that he did for his ego... nothing else. Please don't import big names from history into your philosophical account of things, as if that would justify your stance.

[Surendra Darathy]

But that data infers that the essence of what we are observing is indivisible/spaceless.

First of all, statements imply, people infer. Secondly, don't use the word "essence" unless you care to define it. Third: You are using a hopelessly-feeble understanding of a mathematically-phrased empirical subject to try to shoehorn metaphysics into other people's discourse. This is a strange hobby, and one day, you may even get around to stating your point. You also used the word "is" in reference to "indivisible/spaceless", which if we inspect the rest of your discourse on the subject is the Argument From Arse-Gravy. You mention "what" we are observing. We are observing observations, to use Monsieur Le Comte's convenient and parsimonious empiricism. But then you say "what we are observing" has an "essence". Did you sniff out that "essence" with the eyelid on your third eye? I think that was just your navel, gazing back at you, like some sort of abyss.

But if data presents itself to reason that must logically render the realm of observation as indivisible/spaceless - as it so clearly does in the case of nonlocality/entanglement - then that data DOES transcend the notion that 'every thing' is separated... by concepts such as space & time, or space-time.

The model is not the interpretation of the data, and it is why the physicists whose concepts you are trying to steal do not engage in metaphysics or talk about "essences" when they are doing science. Everybody likes to sit around the campfire and trade ghost stories, though. This is a fine pastime for primates haunted by whatever they like to be haunted by. It is unprofessional, like trimming your nose hairs on your way to the office in the morning on the Bakerloo line.

And if anybody requires to know what scientific results mean with regards 'reality', then it is clear that such an individual would have to transcend this requirement for observational verification.

What scientific theories "mean", James, is in their capacity to predict the results of experiments that have not yet been designed, let alone performed. Who would "require" to know what "scientific results mean"? Will it keep the top of his head from peeling off with existential angst?

I don't like your new name, but what do you care?

I'll get you, my pretty, and your little God, too.

[FBM]

His goal, therefore, was selfish. It had no regard for 'reality', or 'truth'.

His goal was the same as everyone else's, I imagine. Why do you pursure this 'reality' or 'truth'?

Can you demonstrate that either can be known, or as for the 'truth', even known to exist?

[Thommo]

But if this Pyrrhonist skepticism is to avoid holding a position, then it would appear to be of no merrit in improving ones position and moving towards a better model. It would appear to run counter to modern scientific method, and be effectively stirile and impotent.

Yay. Relativism too. Philosophically lame.

This was telling. Rather than try and defeat the position you assert that the position is sterile and does not allow one to make metaphysical statements.

Since you want to make statements you go on to ignore the position.

-If metaphysics was an error, metaphysical statements would be meaningless or unfounded.
-I don't want metaphysical statements to be meaningless or unfounded. - (2)
-Therefore metaphysics is not an error.

This doesn't strike me as a valid syllogism. I think (2) needs to be replaced with something constructive.

That relativism or scepticism is impotent would only be a valid criticism if the alternatives were demonstrated to be potent by virtue of being grounded.

[RebeccaSmick]

Pyrrho's goal was to reach a state of ataraxia, in which there was no perplexity, stress, etc. It's interesting that he went to India with Alexander the Great and only developed his school of philosophy after his return.

It would seem, from the accounts, that he achieved his goal.

Why interesting?...

[FBM]

Pyrrho's goal was to reach a state of ataraxia, in which there was no perplexity, stress, etc. It's interesting that he went to India with Alexander the Great and only developed his school of philosophy after his return.

It would seem, from the accounts, that he achieved his goal.

Why interesting?...

Some philosophers, like Adrian Kuzminski and, IIRC, Mark Siderits, speculate that Pyrrho's ataraxia may be a Hellenized Buddhist enlightenment. That is, that Pyrrho interacted with Buddhist monks while he was in India.

[RebeccaSmick]

Pyrrho's goal was to reach a state of ataraxia, in which there was no perplexity, stress, etc.

So, if I were to follow this line of thinking... the suspension of judgments, then I too would be relieved of perplexity, stress, etc?
When Jerome says he's here to fulfill a need for conflict and Luis says that he's here for the entertainment value..yet he gets frustrated
with dogmatic opposition, have these two simply missed the boat on being stress free, calm, and filled with a sense of humility?

Is this skepticism something that people can actually live by and thus attain this state of ataraxia?

Pyrrho was introduced to the teachings of the Persian magi and the Indian Brahmans. From my understanding he believed objective knowledge
impossible to achieve and that one should free oneself from opinions and passions...and strive to calm the mind. Sounds mystical enough.

[FBM]

Pyrrho's goal was to reach a state of ataraxia, in which there was no perplexity, stress, etc.

So, if I were to follow this line of thinking... the suspension of judgments, then I too would be relieved of perplexity, stress, etc?
When Jerome says he's here to fulfill a need for conflict and Luis says that he's here for the entertainment value..yet he gets frustrated
with dogmatic opposition, have these two simply missed the boat on being stress free, calm, and filled with a sense of humility?

Is this skepticism something that people can actually live by and thus attain this state of ataraxia?

I can only report that I feel a lot less perplexed after adopting it.

Pyrrho was introduced to the teachings of the Persian magi and the Indian Brahmans. From my understanding he believed objective knowledge
impossible to achieve and that one should free oneself from opinions and passions...and strive to calm the mind. Sounds mystical enough.

The part I bolded is the first misunderstanding that most people have. The Academic Skeptics made the dogmatic assertion that objective knowledge is impossible. Pyrrho didn't. He suspended judgement on the question, keeping his mind open to evidence, but refusing to assert any metaphysical knowledge at all, including whether or not knowledge is possible, until decisive evidence was presented. (Apparently, it never has.) Understanding this difference is crucial to understanding how radically different, and opposed, are Academic and Pyrrhonian skepticisms.

I don't see anything mystical about it. More psychological. I'm curious, what about it sounds mystical?

[SpeedOfSound]

Since we know that we do not experience the actual real world as it really is in any instant - at least a small delay for the sound and light to enter the CNS and be processed - then there is sufficient grounds to merit inquiry into how things really are, beyond the simple practicality of aquiring lunch.
While it is good sense to aquire lunch first, our large brains have allowed us spare time in which we can ponder such questions.

..
Do you then say the world is exactly as it appears to be or not?
I assume this is not your opinion, but will you answer this simple question?

I noticed that neither you nor jamest took me up on my request that you define reality without a physical analogy. You may have something here if you could do it.

On the appearance being a bit askew... how is it exactly that we know it is? Empirical evidence is how. You still haven't broke away from the physical realm with all this talk of sensory error. We should name this little idealist ploy. "Da world aint da way it appears" Dwadwia? Or should we just keep calling it blatant intellectual dishonesty?

The main reason why I didnt touch it is that it seems a bit of a tangent. The topic here is the very validity of any metaphysics, not the validity of the ideaist metaphysic. To digress into attacking and defending idealism and so turn this into another 'it is so vs it aint so' thread seems a bit premature.

Then you must of seriously missed the point of the thread. But I'm sure you wouldn't try to define it without physical analogy anyway. Because you can't. Which is the point of the thread.

[Little Idiot]

Reposted, though slightly updated. Last paragraph added.

What does it mean to say "Metaphysics is an error"? It means to ask the question "What do we mean when we say this or that exists?" and to find the answers we find in philosophy and outside unsatisfactory.

Here is the first error; unless you wish to redefine metaphysics in order to dismiss it (i.e. either this is a straw-man by you, or you really don’t know what metaphysics is).
Metaphysics is not concerned only with what exists, and you have here wrongly forced this definition upon metaphysics, although not declaring this openly.
Metaphysics is not only the study of what exists, it is far more than this as you should know, and herein is the answer to your post, if you are able to see it; the study of "What do we mean when we say this or that exists?" is an error, however the study of 'metaphysics' is not. (The error may be linked to you not having said what the word exist means?)
Metaphysics is the study of reality, this need not be limited to existence and the inability to understand this may be your limit of comprehension, leading to your dissatisfaction not with metaphysics, but with what you think metaphysics is.
here is an atheism web site definition quoted below;
"In Western philosophy, metaphysics has become the study of the fundamental nature of all reality — what is it, why is it, and how are we can understand it. Some treat metaphysics as the study of “higher” reality or the “invisible” nature behind everything, but that isn’t true. It is, instead, the study of all of reality, visible and invisible; and what constitutes reality, natural and supernatural. Because most of the debates between atheists and theists involve disagreements over the nature of reality and the existence of anything supernatural, the debates are often disagreements over metaphysics."
here is wiki quoted below;
"Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy that investigates principles of reality transcending those of any particular science."

I have shown the error in your opening position; you are not attacking metaphysics at all, but rather your straw-man question "What do we mean when we say this or that exists?"
I have told you what metaphysics really means.

Now you have a choice;
Do you reopen your argument with metaphysics as a target.
Do you defend your opening as it is, i.e. dispute the meaning of metaphysics and try show metaphysics is only the study of what exists, presumably defining 'exist'.

So before we can really talk about metaphysics and specifically ‘metaphysics as an error’ I need you to decide; are we talking about metaphysics or existence?
Without such clarification, it is impossible to make sense of your remaining points, just to pick out one or two points;

It is not a profession of faith that metaphysics is impossible, but rather a profound scepticism, a lack of affiliation with any one claim that states it holds the answer to the question what 'existence' means.

Very interesting, but how about we talk about metaphysics, not existence?

One observes, this criticism and the scepticism is dipped in knowledge, not ignorance of metaphysical theories.

If you have deep knowledge of metaphysics, it becomes clear that this entire post is a deliberate straw man, rather than a simple error in understanding what metaphysics is.

[Little Idiot]

Since we know that we do not experience the actual real world as it really is in any instant - at least a small delay for the sound and light to enter the CNS and be processed - then there is sufficient grounds to merit inquiry into how things really are, beyond the simple practicality of aquiring lunch.
While it is good sense to aquire lunch first, our large brains have allowed us spare time in which we can ponder such questions.

..
Do you then say the world is exactly as it appears to be or not?
I assume this is not your opinion, but will you answer this simple question?

I noticed that neither you nor jamest took me up on my request that you define reality without a physical analogy. You may have something here if you could do it.

On the appearance being a bit askew... how is it exactly that we know it is? Empirical evidence is how. You still haven't broke away from the physical realm with all this talk of sensory error. We should name this little idealist ploy. "Da world aint da way it appears" Dwadwia? Or should we just keep calling it blatant intellectual dishonesty?

The main reason why I didnt touch it is that it seems a bit of a tangent. The topic here is the very validity of any metaphysics, not the validity of the ideaist metaphysic. To digress into attacking and defending idealism and so turn this into another 'it is so vs it aint so' thread seems a bit premature.

Then you must of seriously missed the point of the thread. But I'm sure you wouldn't try to define it without physical analogy anyway. Because you can't. Which is the point of the thread.

You really want to derail the thread into another physicalism vs idealism bash?

The whole sensory error argument is to lead away from the ignorant position that emperical observation is the only way to judge; it is one way but not the only way. I could easiy be distracted into pages of argument on that line.

But the validity of evidence in suport of idealism is another thread, is it not? This thread is the validity of metaphysics, or possibly about existence until the original poster figures out what he's talking about; see my post above this.

[SpeedOfSound]

I noticed that neither you nor jamest took me up on my request that you define reality without a physical analogy. You may have something here if you could do it.

The main reason why I didnt touch it is that it seems a bit of a tangent. The topic here is the very validity of any metaphysics, not the validity of the ideaist metaphysic. To digress into attacking and defending idealism and so turn this into another 'it is so vs it aint so' thread seems a bit premature.

You really want to derail the thread into another physicalism vs idealism bash?

The whole sensory error argument is to lead away from the ignorant position that emperical observation is the only way to judge; it is one way but not the only way. I could easiy be distracted into pages of argument on that line.

But the validity of evidence in suport of idealism is another thread, is it not? This thread is the validity of metaphysics, or possibly about existence until the original poster figures out what he's talking about; see my post above this.

I was actually referring to the part that i left above. But you and jamest did keep bringing up the appearance bullshit. And you did it first. To make some argument for the validity of metaphysics but I wasn't buying it.

"...metaphysics has become the study of the fundamental nature of all reality — what is it, why is it, and how are we can understand it.... involve disagreements over the nature of reality and the existence of anything supernatural, the debates are often disagreements over metaphysics."
here is wiki quoted below;
"Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy that investigates principles of reality transcending those of any particular science."

All of these either boil down to reality and existence and questions about it. The OP makes this clear. The issue is that some of us feel that such questions don't have answers. I consider the questions silly and naive. I always like to try and direct the person with these questions to look under the hood and find out where they are getting their information about existence and reality. A careful look at this would show them that the words and their underlying ideas are not founded on anything really real. Just real. And real is as good as it gets.

Therefore metaphysics is baseless.