Human, All-Too-Human

jamest
Posts: 1381
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 9:10 pm
Contact:

Re: Human, All-Too-Human

Post by jamest » Wed Mar 17, 2010 12:42 pm

Surendra Darathy wrote:
jamest wrote:The fact is that you cannot consider a scientific fact to have metaphysical value unless you are a materialist... which is, of course, at-odds with being an absolute sceptic.
So, are you suggesting that the tendency of living organisms to avoid circumstances that would cause their demise has some metaphysical value, even to living organisms that don't have the words "metaphysical value" in their lexicon, or have no language at all?
Of course not. This is the sort of question that you should be asking FBM, because my response to him regarded his apparent doubt about scientific facts having no metaphysical value.
I don't. Whatever you might call it, let's say "survival instinct" for short, is simply a tautology in reference to living things. You don't have to do any metaphysics to model this relationship as a system and its surroundings. You don't have to say what they are "made of" metaphysically.
Yeah, I know this. I can only assume that you have misunderstood me, because I agree with you completely.
In relation to all that, your sort of metaphysics is bootstrapped from absolutely nothing. Metaphysics, in that sense, is groundless.
My sort of metaphysics is 'bootstrapped' to several ideas, including that 'experience' (the empirical realm, or whatever you're comfortable with) is ill-defined if solely focussed upon the objects therein.

User avatar
Surendra Darathy
Posts: 701
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 3:45 pm
About me: I am only human. Keep in mind, I am Russian. And is no part of speech in Russian equivalent to definite article in English. Bad enough is no present tense of verb "to be".
Location: Rugburn-on-Knees, Kent, UK
Contact:

Re: Human, All-Too-Human

Post by Surendra Darathy » Wed Mar 17, 2010 12:44 pm

Comte de Saint-Germain wrote:Materialism is a framework in which one can place empirical data, it's a way of contextualising empirical data.
The arguments of dualists and monists and the sorts of problems that they have with "materialism" come because of an insistence on granting "experience" some sort of ontology, as if it was another kind of "stuff".

Experience can be "bottled" like other stuff, in a limited way by writing or painting it. We know it's an attempt to represent it.

Torpor and sloth, torpor and sloth, these are the cooks that unseason the broth;
Symbols and stains, symbols and stains, these are the crooks that unreason the brains.
I'll get you, my pretty, and your little God, too!

User avatar
Surendra Darathy
Posts: 701
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 3:45 pm
About me: I am only human. Keep in mind, I am Russian. And is no part of speech in Russian equivalent to definite article in English. Bad enough is no present tense of verb "to be".
Location: Rugburn-on-Knees, Kent, UK
Contact:

Re: Human, All-Too-Human

Post by Surendra Darathy » Wed Mar 17, 2010 12:47 pm

jamest wrote:
Surendra Darathy wrote: In relation to all that, your sort of metaphysics is bootstrapped from absolutely nothing. Metaphysics, in that sense, is groundless.
My sort of metaphysics is 'bootstrapped' to several ideas, including that 'experience' (the empirical realm, or whatever you're comfortable with) is ill-defined if solely focussed upon the objects therein.
What a cheap shot. I won't listen to you call something "ill-defined" if you don't do any definitions yourself, particularly when it comes to this word "experience" that gets wibbled over as much as it does.

When I talk about an amoeba responding to its environment, nobody need be confused about what I'm discussing.
Last edited by Surendra Darathy on Wed Mar 17, 2010 12:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I'll get you, my pretty, and your little God, too!

jamest
Posts: 1381
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 9:10 pm
Contact:

Re: Human, All-Too-Human

Post by jamest » Wed Mar 17, 2010 12:48 pm

Comte de Saint-Germain wrote:Materialism is a framework in which one can place empirical data, it's a way of contextualising empirical data. It does not mean that materialism believes that empirical data has 'metaphysical value',
Is this your own notion of materialism? It certainly doesn't match-up to the prevailing view about matter being the only thing that exists

jamest
Posts: 1381
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 9:10 pm
Contact:

Re: Human, All-Too-Human

Post by jamest » Wed Mar 17, 2010 12:50 pm

Surendra Darathy wrote:
jamest wrote:
Surendra Darathy wrote: In relation to all that, your sort of metaphysics is bootstrapped from absolutely nothing. Metaphysics, in that sense, is groundless.
My sort of metaphysics is 'bootstrapped' to several ideas, including that 'experience' (the empirical realm, or whatever you're comfortable with) is ill-defined if solely focussed upon the objects therein.
What a cheap shot. I won't listen to you call something "ill-defined" if you don't do any definitions yourself.
I intend to. Too busy doing a thematic analysis thingy right now. I should have paid Jerome for his assistance.

User avatar
Comte de Saint-Germain
Posts: 289
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2009 12:37 pm
About me: Aristocrat, Alchemist, Grand-Conspirator
Location: Ice and High Mountains
Contact:

Re: Human, All-Too-Human

Post by Comte de Saint-Germain » Wed Mar 17, 2010 12:52 pm

jamest wrote:
Comte de Saint-Germain wrote:Materialism is a framework in which one can place empirical data, it's a way of contextualising empirical data. It does not mean that materialism believes that empirical data has 'metaphysical value',
Is this your own notion of materialism? It certainly doesn't match-up to the prevailing view about matter being the only thing that exists
They do not offer 'existence' as a property, no. In fact, no one after Kant does.
The original arrogant bastard.
Quod tanto impendio absconditur etiam solummodo demonstrare destruere est - Tertullian

User avatar
Surendra Darathy
Posts: 701
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 3:45 pm
About me: I am only human. Keep in mind, I am Russian. And is no part of speech in Russian equivalent to definite article in English. Bad enough is no present tense of verb "to be".
Location: Rugburn-on-Knees, Kent, UK
Contact:

Re: Human, All-Too-Human

Post by Surendra Darathy » Wed Mar 17, 2010 1:00 pm

jamest wrote:
Comte de Saint-Germain wrote:Materialism is a framework in which one can place empirical data, it's a way of contextualising empirical data. It does not mean that materialism believes that empirical data has 'metaphysical value',
Is this your own notion of materialism? It certainly doesn't match-up to the prevailing view about matter being the only thing that exists
I even agree with you that somebody is outside the boundaries of empiricism when making asssertions about matter being the only thing that exists.

The way to save oneself the trouble is by refraining from making such assertions, or requiring people to commit themselves to a position on such points, one way that metaphysics loses its grounding.

Instead of using the word "exists" so carelessly, find another way to discourse about "matter", including definitions that do not commit one to metaphysical malarkey. Just fucking stop using the word "exists" without defining it. I was riding you for awhile about this in the original thread "Metaphysics as an Error", and I no longer believe you when you insist that you're eventually "going to get a round tuit". I call that "extemporising", and express explicitly the contempt I hold for such tactics.

:banghead:
Last edited by Surendra Darathy on Wed Mar 17, 2010 1:02 pm, edited 2 times in total.
I'll get you, my pretty, and your little God, too!

jamest
Posts: 1381
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 9:10 pm
Contact:

Re: Human, All-Too-Human

Post by jamest » Wed Mar 17, 2010 1:01 pm

Comte de Saint-Germain wrote:
jamest wrote:
Comte de Saint-Germain wrote:Materialism is a framework in which one can place empirical data, it's a way of contextualising empirical data. It does not mean that materialism believes that empirical data has 'metaphysical value',
Is this your own notion of materialism? It certainly doesn't match-up to the prevailing view about matter being the only thing that exists
They do not offer 'existence' as a property, no. In fact, no one after Kant does.
Then how is it possible to distinguish between materialism and empiricism, or relativism?

User avatar
Surendra Darathy
Posts: 701
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 3:45 pm
About me: I am only human. Keep in mind, I am Russian. And is no part of speech in Russian equivalent to definite article in English. Bad enough is no present tense of verb "to be".
Location: Rugburn-on-Knees, Kent, UK
Contact:

Re: Human, All-Too-Human

Post by Surendra Darathy » Wed Mar 17, 2010 1:35 pm

jamest wrote:
Comte de Saint-Germain wrote:
jamest wrote:
Comte de Saint-Germain wrote:Materialism is a framework in which one can place empirical data, it's a way of contextualising empirical data. It does not mean that materialism believes that empirical data has 'metaphysical value',
Is this your own notion of materialism? It certainly doesn't match-up to the prevailing view about matter being the only thing that exists
They do not offer 'existence' as a property, no. In fact, no one after Kant does.
Then how is it possible to distinguish between materialism and empiricism, or relativism?
Let's see if I have this right, then:

You could make a philosophy and label it "materialist" if you set it up with axioms about "matter" (among whose properties "existence" is not listed). Matter can have lots of properties (such as "position" and "momentum"). If you express it as an axiomatic system, it will not be explicitly "empirical".

I think all that "relativism" adds to the mix is to note that we (as philosophers) make our statements relative to a system of axioms that we have accepted. Even axioms are accepted provisionally, depending on how the statements derived from the axioms play out. If you start contradicting yourself, either your reasoning is bad (easily detectable by specifying a logic in which to work) or an axiom is bad.

Axiomatic systems in which the axioms are sacrosanct and immune to rejection are called "belief systems".
I'll get you, my pretty, and your little God, too!

jamest
Posts: 1381
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 9:10 pm
Contact:

Re: Human, All-Too-Human

Post by jamest » Wed Mar 17, 2010 4:48 pm

Surendra Darathy wrote:Let's see if I have this right, then:

You could make a philosophy and label it "materialist" if you set it up with axioms about "matter" (among whose properties "existence" is not listed). Matter can have lots of properties (such as "position" and "momentum"). If you express it as an axiomatic system, it will not be explicitly "empirical".

I think all that "relativism" adds to the mix is to note that we (as philosophers) make our statements relative to a system of axioms that we have accepted. Even axioms are accepted provisionally, depending on how the statements derived from the axioms play out. If you start contradicting yourself, either your reasoning is bad (easily detectable by specifying a logic in which to work) or an axiom is bad.

Axiomatic systems in which the axioms are sacrosanct and immune to rejection are called "belief systems".
I think that you're probably confusing materialism with physicalism. I also know that there are many people who believe in the actual reality of matter, who class themselves as materialists. I.e., they believe that THERE ARE material entities that exist independently to our knowledge/observation of them. In other words, most materialists employ that term with metaphysical intent.

User avatar
Horwood Beer-Master
"...a complete Kentish hog"
Posts: 7061
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 2:34 pm
Location: Wandering somewhere around the Darenth Valley - Kent
Contact:

Re: Human, All-Too-Human

Post by Horwood Beer-Master » Fri Feb 22, 2013 9:46 am

Image
Image

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests