Metaphysics as an Error

[jamest]

I've already done so, when I discussed how 'something' [that is not a 'thing' amidst the empirical realm] has to be integral to that realm. That is, since this 'something' is instrumental in constructing empirical data, and since empirical data is essentially an event happening to/within this something, that any definition of empirical data that failed to include this 'something', was limited and ultimately erroneous.

Emprical data is not complete, so what?

You're misreading me and missing the point of what I am saying. The point is that when a relativist says "We cannot know anything beyond the empirical realm" as a basis for rejecting the grounds for metaphysics, his very definition of what the empirical realm/data is, omits to mention the 'something' that is necessarily integral to that realm/data - and which is not an 'empirical thing' itself. That is, his limited and essentially erroneous definition of that realm, is the flawed reason for his rejection of there being a grounds for metaphysics. Clearly, this 'something' is a grounds/basis for metaphysics. Hence, relativism or empiricism or suchlike, are all short-sighted and ultimately incorrect philosophies.

Whether it is ultimately erroneous or not is not determinable, but we can say that it works.

Yeah, never said that science doesn't work. Again, you don't appear to be on the ball, so to speak.

How do you propose to 'include this something in the definition of empirical data'?

Well, foremost, we need an acknowledgement of its existence prior to formulating an official or acceptable redefinition of 'the empirical realm', which would have to somehow encapsulate this acknowledgement. That's all that's really relevant, right now.

You could make up an un-falsifiable story and claim it is 'the absolute truth of the something itself', but any number of other un-falsifiable stories will serve just as well. Why should any such story be taken as 'metaphysical truth'?

Are you talking about defining the 'something' itself (as opposed to the empirical realm)? That would be the end-product of any metaphysical enquiry, not the grounds for it. At this juncture, I'm trying to establish rational grounds for metaphysics, thus simultaneously refuting the philosophy of relativism. At some future time, I intend to progress from this grounds and attempt to explain how we can know significant details about this 'something'.

[SpeedOfSound]

[quote="jamest"][/quote]

Duplicate post. Ignore or delete.

[SpeedOfSound]

Again, you don't appear to be on the ball, so to speak.

The mods have asked us very nicely to quit saying this kind of thing. Let's try and do that. I'm guilty of it myself. You should start answering the questions I ask you and keep you're argument rolling. Unless you would rather we just talk about OUR past here?

[Little Idiot]

Scepticism, doubly so this particular type of scepticism mentioned in this thread, does not commit to a position; it is basically to point out that we dont know, right?

But 'metaphysics is an error' or 'you cant do metaphysics' is a very definite position, and therefore not the real position of a true sceptic, which should be 'we dont know if we can do metaphysics' and 'we dont know if metaphysics is an error'

Therefore the position; "I am a sceptic, you can not do metaphysics, and the burden of proof is on you to show how metaphysics is possible" is incoherent and self contradictory.
Either; one is a sceptic, and says metaphysics may or may not be possible - one does not know.
Or one is not a sceptic, one asserts metaphysics is an error and should demonstrate this by argument, or accept the criticism that one is making ungrounded assertions.

So, it is reasonable, is it not to ask for the J team to decide which of these positions they hold?
If indeed it is Scepticism, as has been asserted many time in the thread, then you have no business asserting what you cant know, and the OP falls down under its own weight.
If it is not Scepticism, which is a U-turn; then an argument needs to be presented and defended; showing why it is so, not just passing the burden of proof to one who wishes to do metaphysics?
After all proving something can not be done is very difficult.

[SpeedOfSound]

Scepticism, doubly so this particular type of scepticism mentioned in this thread, does not commit to a position; it is basically to point out that we dont know, right?

But 'metaphysics is an error' or 'you cant do metaphysics' is a very definite position,

That's the title of the thread but not the flavor or intent. So no, there is no firm position here. The OP is saying he doesn't have one and he doesn't think you do either.

Nevertheless we all have an open mind and want to see you provide the basis.

[jamest]

Again, you don't appear to be on the ball, so to speak.

The mods have asked us very nicely to quit saying this kind of thing. Let's try and do that. I'm guilty of it myself.

Not 'being on the ball' only implies that his mind is focussed upon a different issue. At least, that's how I intended it to be meant. It wasn't a derogatory remark. If he thinks that it was, I will apologise to him personally.

[GrahamH]

Scepticism, doubly so this particular type of scepticism mentioned in this thread, does not commit to a position; it is basically to point out that we dont know, right?

But 'metaphysics is an error' or 'you cant do metaphysics' is a very definite position, and therefore not the real position of a true sceptic, which should be 'we dont know if we can do metaphysics' and 'we dont know if metaphysics is an error'

Therefore the position; "I am a sceptic, you can not do metaphysics, and the burden of proof is on you to show how metaphysics is possible" is incoherent and self contradictory.
Either; one is a sceptic, and says metaphysics may or may not be possible - one does not know.
Or one is not a sceptic, one asserts metaphysics is an error and should demonstrate this by argument, or accept the criticism that one is making ungrounded assertions.

So, it is reasonable, is it not to ask for the J team to decide which of these positions they hold?
If indeed it is Scepticism, as has been asserted many time in the thread, then you have no business asserting what you cant know, and the OP falls down under its own weight.
If it is not Scepticism, which is a U-turn; then an argument needs to be presented and defended; showing why it is so, not just passing the burden of proof to one who wishes to do metaphysics?
After all proving something can not be done is very difficult.

Asserting the validity of metaphysics is to take an anti-sceptical position, to claim knowledge that cannot be tested.

You are trying to claim that scepticism is self-refuting because we should be sceptical of scepticism, which is nonsensical if you think it through.

If metaphysics is valid it should be possible to show it. The topic is sceptical that there is any possibility of showing metaphysics to be valid.

[Little Idiot]

Scepticism, doubly so this particular type of scepticism mentioned in this thread, does not commit to a position; it is basically to point out that we dont know, right?

But 'metaphysics is an error' or 'you cant do metaphysics' is a very definite position,

That's the title of the thread but not the flavor or intent. So no, there is no firm position here. The OP is saying he doesn't have one and he doesn't think you do either.

Nevertheless we all have an open mind and want to see you provide the basis.

So you agree that you dont know metaphysics is possible or if it is not possible?

[SpeedOfSound]

Maybe I can help you. Lets see you support this assertion by an argument, not by stating it is fact.

Let's first savour the fact that metaphysical scepticism is based upon an unfounded and limited view of what the empirical realm IS.

Prove that this is the foundation of our skepticism.

I've already done so, when I discussed how 'something' [that is not a 'thing' amidst the empirical realm] has to be integral to that realm. That is, since this 'something' is instrumental in constructing empirical data, and since empirical data is essentially an event happening to/within this something, that any definition of empirical data that failed to include this 'something', was limited and ultimately erroneous.

Now this 'something' you mention. I'm guessing it is that there is an observer constructing the data?
Why is that relevant?
Why is the data(treeness) not relevant?

[SpeedOfSound]

Scepticism, doubly so this particular type of scepticism mentioned in this thread, does not commit to a position; it is basically to point out that we dont know, right?

But 'metaphysics is an error' or 'you cant do metaphysics' is a very definite position,

That's the title of the thread but not the flavor or intent. So no, there is no firm position here. The OP is saying he doesn't have one and he doesn't think you do either.

Nevertheless we all have an open mind and want to see you provide the basis.

So you agree that you dont know metaphysics is possible or if it is not possible?

Yes. I've never seen any valid argument to get it started. I'm assuming that we are talking about absolute truth and ontologically deep existence here.

Do you know for sure?

[Little Idiot]

Scepticism, doubly so this particular type of scepticism mentioned in this thread, does not commit to a position; it is basically to point out that we dont know, right?

But 'metaphysics is an error' or 'you cant do metaphysics' is a very definite position, and therefore not the real position of a true sceptic, which should be 'we dont know if we can do metaphysics' and 'we dont know if metaphysics is an error'

Therefore the position; "I am a sceptic, you can not do metaphysics, and the burden of proof is on you to show how metaphysics is possible" is incoherent and self contradictory.
Either; one is a sceptic, and says metaphysics may or may not be possible - one does not know.
Or one is not a sceptic, one asserts metaphysics is an error and should demonstrate this by argument, or accept the criticism that one is making ungrounded assertions.

So, it is reasonable, is it not to ask for the J team to decide which of these positions they hold?
If indeed it is Scepticism, as has been asserted many time in the thread, then you have no business asserting what you cant know, and the OP falls down under its own weight.
If it is not Scepticism, which is a U-turn; then an argument needs to be presented and defended; showing why it is so, not just passing the burden of proof to one who wishes to do metaphysics?
After all proving something can not be done is very difficult.

Asserting the validity of metaphysics is to take an anti-sceptical position, to claim knowledge that cannot be tested.

You are trying to claim that scepticism is self-refuting because we should be sceptical of scepticism, which is nonsensical if you think it through.

If metaphysics is valid it should be possible to show it. The topic is sceptical that there is any possibility of showing metaphysics to be valid.

What I am saying is that if you are sceptical you should say we dont know, rather than its not possible. You seen to want to hold both positions at once....

I am not saying scepticism is self-refuting, its very useful to question. I am saying to say metaphysics is impossible is not scepticism, because its a position. Scepticism is we dont know if its possible.

[SpeedOfSound]

Again, you don't appear to be on the ball, so to speak.

The mods have asked us very nicely to quit saying this kind of thing. Let's try and do that. I'm guilty of it myself.

Not 'being on the ball' only implies that his mind is focussed upon a different issue. At least, that's how I intended it to be meant. It wasn't a derogatory remark. If he thinks that it was, I will apologise to him personally.

They have tighter standards here. At least on this thread. Just stop being personal. If you leave this sort of thing out then there wont be any question about your intent.

[SpeedOfSound]

Scepticism, doubly so this particular type of scepticism mentioned in this thread, does not commit to a position; it is basically to point out that we dont know, right?

But 'metaphysics is an error' or 'you cant do metaphysics' is a very definite position, and therefore not the real position of a true sceptic, which should be 'we dont know if we can do metaphysics' and 'we dont know if metaphysics is an error'

Therefore the position; "I am a sceptic, you can not do metaphysics, and the burden of proof is on you to show how metaphysics is possible" is incoherent and self contradictory.
Either; one is a sceptic, and says metaphysics may or may not be possible - one does not know.
Or one is not a sceptic, one asserts metaphysics is an error and should demonstrate this by argument, or accept the criticism that one is making ungrounded assertions.

So, it is reasonable, is it not to ask for the J team to decide which of these positions they hold?
If indeed it is Scepticism, as has been asserted many time in the thread, then you have no business asserting what you cant know, and the OP falls down under its own weight.
If it is not Scepticism, which is a U-turn; then an argument needs to be presented and defended; showing why it is so, not just passing the burden of proof to one who wishes to do metaphysics?
After all proving something can not be done is very difficult.

Asserting the validity of metaphysics is to take an anti-sceptical position, to claim knowledge that cannot be tested.

You are trying to claim that scepticism is self-refuting because we should be sceptical of scepticism, which is nonsensical if you think it through.

If metaphysics is valid it should be possible to show it. The topic is sceptical that there is any possibility of showing metaphysics to be valid.

What I am saying is that if you are sceptical you should say we dont know, rather than its not possible. You seen to want to hold both positions at once....

I am not saying scepticism is self-refuting, its very useful to question. I am saying to say metaphysics is impossible is not scepticism, because its a position. Scepticism is we dont know if its possible.

Saying it is not possible is a challenge not a position.

[Little Idiot]

Scepticism, doubly so this particular type of scepticism mentioned in this thread, does not commit to a position; it is basically to point out that we dont know, right?

But 'metaphysics is an error' or 'you cant do metaphysics' is a very definite position,

That's the title of the thread but not the flavor or intent. So no, there is no firm position here. The OP is saying he doesn't have one and he doesn't think you do either.

Nevertheless we all have an open mind and want to see you provide the basis.

So you agree that you dont know metaphysics is possible or if it is not possible?

Yes. I've never seen any valid argument to get it started. I'm assuming that we are talking about absolute truth and ontologically deep existence here.

Do you know for sure?

What I do know for sure is that the world of appearance is not what or as it appears to be, and that this gives validity to the question 'what the fuck do we know?' Which in turn justifies an attempt to figure out what can be known beyond the emperical investigation of appearance.
I also know that the sceptical answer is to say 'we dont know how much can be known' which does not rule out the validity of the enquiry.

[Luis Dias]

Scepticism, doubly so this particular type of scepticism mentioned in this thread, does not commit to a position; it is basically to point out that we dont know, right?

But 'metaphysics is an error' or 'you cant do metaphysics' is a very definite position, and therefore not the real position of a true sceptic, which should be 'we dont know if we can do metaphysics' and 'we dont know if metaphysics is an error'

This is a good retort. Mind us all, this is the same thing that we get from theists all the time, how on earth are you a "skeptic" and an "atheist", isn't atheism a position not of skepticism but a positive conclusion itself?

Well, yes and no. Atheism rises up with skepticism, not the other way around. Skepticism is the basis of either atheism and of metaphysical "denial".

Now, we should pause and ponder. What is skepticism? It is to be doubtful of the positive claims that are espoused, and in particular, the possibility of doing metaphysics. Here, we will find people really skeptical of this possibility, which means two things: one, that if forced to "jump" to a conclusion, these people will say that "metaphysics is impossible", two, that if asked about their agnosticism, they (we?) will say, "I am open to debate, and I'm even interested in hearing if there's actually a case for metaphysics".

Thus the denial of metaphysics should be read by the metaphysicians as a challenge, as a question asking for an answer, a convincing case. We, the skeptics, what we are really doing is putting metaphysics under the spotlight and making an inquisition, we are stressing it and see if it endures pain. Apparently, it does not.

We enjoy parsimony. We hate superfluous entities, superfluous theories, variables without consequence, tautologies without further information, wasted time with mumbo jumbo. We, the skeptics, enjoy the culling of bad ideas. We are enjoying metaphysics destruction.

Therefore the position; "I am a sceptic, you can not do metaphysics, and the burden of proof is on you to show how metaphysics is possible" is incoherent and self contradictory.

Yes, and thank the JS that this is the worst caricature of what's been happening here. We the skeptics are placing metaphysics under scrutiny. We are asking, is there any convincing case for it? This is all that we are asking. And as an answer, we get incredulity, indignation and whining... it sure doesn't make a good case.

If it is not Scepticism, which is a U-turn; then an argument needs to be presented and defended; showing why it is so, not just passing the burden of proof to one who wishes to do metaphysics?
After all proving something can not be done is very difficult.

That's why the quest should be taken in the opposite direction, one should show how it is possible. Thanks, you've just argued for me.