Metaphysics as an Error

[logical bob]

There's no reason to believe that in metaphysics, concepts/words from empiricism will still work. Take, per example, the term 'causality'. Within empiricism, it denotes a relationship between two events. Namely, that the occurrence of one event necessitates the other. If event A, then event B.

The bold looks like a bit of smuggled metaphysics in the OP, however. What is this necessity? Each time we observe A we also observe B. If this is true, what have we additionally said when we say it is necessarily true?

[Little Idiot]

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.

I may have a go after lunch.

"...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.

The conclusion is only as sound as the part in bold, where you say you feel that...
so its an opinion not an argument, right?

BTW.
This forum is now on 'prosilver2' but I still get an issue; when the post is longer than about 12 lines it wont scroll down properly; well it will scroll down but as soon as I type the view box moves up and the part I am working on is no longer visible. Whie I can type without seeing it, this makes it impossible to highlight a selection for example to bold text.

I am worling on windows xp with word 2007.

Any ideas how to stop it?

[jamest]

BTW.
This forum is now on 'prosilver2' but I still get an issue; when the post is longer than about 12 lines it wont scroll down properly; well it will scroll down but as soon as I type the view box moves up and the part I am working on is no longer visible. Whie I can type without seeing it, this makes it impossible to highlight a selection for example to bold text.

I am worling on windows xp with word 2007.

Any ideas how to stop it?

Try this: Press 'tools'; then tick 'compatability view'. It should now work fine.

[RebeccaSmick]

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.

Sounds a lot like a Buddhist... Although while a Buddhist sets out to end suffering, a pyrrhoist seeks an end to perplexity which is the cause of suffering.
Or, in the case of the contrarian Jerome, conflict is happiness.

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 understand the stated difference between the two. I just don't buy into it. At least I am unconvinced. I don't believe that a Pyrrhonist sets a goal for discovering truth nor aims at discovering truth. In fact, Jerome has stated that he hasn't much use for truth, or something to that effect. Information he has use for, but not truth. IOW..I have seen no evidence that would indicate a Pyrrhonist would accept a truth even if it were shown to exist. I hope to be proven wrong here btw.

Have you read, M. Burnyeat's Can the Skeptic Live His Skepticism?...

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

According to Burnyeat:

"A marked passivity in the face of both his sensations and his own thought processes is an important aspect of the skeptic’s detachment from himself."

As per the citation above... passivity in the face of sensations and thought processes and a detachment from oneself..
Sounds just like a mystic on a mountain top meditating doesn't it?

I took your referencing Kuzminski to mean that you had read the book-Pyrrhonism-How The Ancient Greeks Reinvented Buddhism.

[Little Idiot]

BTW.
This forum is now on 'prosilver2' but I still get an issue; when the post is longer than about 12 lines it wont scroll down properly; well it will scroll down but as soon as I type the view box moves up and the part I am working on is no longer visible. Whie I can type without seeing it, this makes it impossible to highlight a selection for example to bold text.

I am worling on windows xp with word 2007.

Any ideas how to stop it?

Try this: Press 'tools'; then tick 'compatability view'. It should now work fine.

O.K. That fixed it.
Obviously I knew that, and just put the question to test that you knew it too.

[FBM]

Sounds a lot like a Buddhist... Although while a Buddhist sets out to end suffering, a pyrrhoist seeks an end to perplexity which is the cause of suffering.

I don't like using the word 'suffering' for dukkha, because that's such a horrible and misleading translation. I hope you don't see this as pedantic nitpicking, but the difference between the connontations of the two words is so big that leaving it unclarified can lead to a huge misunderstanding, in my experience. I just mention this to help avoid that kind of misunderstanding.

I understand the stated difference between the two. I just don't buy into it...a Pyrrhonist would accept a truth even if it were shown to exist.

I think it would be most accurate to say that the Pyrrhonist position on Truth (as certain knowledge) is agnostic, but not committed to agnosticism.

However, I can only talk about my own experience, since I have no idea what others set out to do. Yes, I started out seeking the 'Truth' (a completely accurate metaphysical position on the way things actually are), but every time I thought I had a grip on it, I would run into a contrary position that, when I removed my bias, would be equally convincing. This went on for decades. (I'm a slow learner. ) I gave up in frustration, actually. After reading about things like Godel's Incompleteness Theorum, Hume's problem of induction, etc, and eventually Pyrrhonism, I realized that I could be happy with not having a final answer. Why? Because not only have greater minds than my own been unable to find certainty, there's a pretty good chance that certainty is impossible. I still keep my mind open to evidence for certainty, but so far I just keep running into one unfounded opinion after another. Every serious metaphysical position I've run across has an equally convincing negation. That's why we keep running around in circles in threads like this; there's no more evidence for one position over the other. Just people throwing their favorite opinions at each other.

Have you read, M. Burnyeat's Can the Skeptic Live His Skepticism?...

Only selections from it.

According to Burnyeat:

"A marked passivity in the face of both his sensations and his own thought processes is an important aspect of the skeptic’s detachment from himself."

As per the citation above... passivity in the face of sensations and thought processes and a detachment from oneself..
Sounds just like a mystic on a mountain top meditating doesn't it?

It could, I suppose, but it doesn't necessitate that image, I think. I've never read anything about Pyrrho or his students meditating on a mountaintop.

I took your referencing Kuzminski to mean that you had read the book-Pyrrhonism-How The Ancient Greeks Reinvented Buddhism.

[logical bob]

According to Burnyeat:

"A marked passivity in the face of both his sensations and his own thought processes is an important aspect of the skeptic’s detachment from himself."

As per the citation above... passivity in the face of sensations and thought processes and a detachment from oneself..
Sounds just like a mystic on a mountain top meditating doesn't it?

I don't know about Pyrrhonism as a whole, but for purposes of this discussion: no. A sceptic could be passionately involved in his life and just avoid thinking it conveyed some metaphysical truth.

[Surendra Darathy]

Meaning that there is something ineffable that we ineptly express with 'existence' when used metaphysically, but that it still denotes something.

Some of what gets said by those pressing for a metaphysics seems like an attempt to dissolve the boundary between the inside and the outside. Trying to do this with language seems a bit of a stretch, starting with solipsism. One can talk oneself into thoughts about thought that convince one that she has dissolved that boundary, and so one makes statements to the other voices in the cacophony that place controls on "reality" or "existence", in order to make some verifiable statements about "reality" or "existence".

I mean, I could try to establish a metaphysics purely on my incapacity to bend that spoon without using my fingers, and say that the essence of that spoon is "unbendability without the use of fingers". I just don't want to do all the tedious wibbling that comes before it, as far as the "powers of pure reason". Science lays out a whole framework to account for "unbendability" without pursuing the "essence of unbendability". I can't pluck a dewdrop from yon daffodil purely with the powers of reason, but I can imagine doing it. For some people, it's as good as "doing it".

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

Sounds a lot like a Buddhist... Although while a Buddhist sets out to end suffering, a pyrrhoist [sic] seeks an end to perplexity which is the cause of suffering.

Or, in the case of the contrarian Jerome, conflict is happiness.

Great. Now we have a metaphysics founded on "conflict". Without even defining it. "I feel... less perplexed...." Well, that makes everything OK, then, don't it? The whole "peeling off of the top of the head" thing, y'know...

The "cause" of "suffering", is it? Or is it the "essence"? Just get with "verifiability" (AKA "truth") (or abandon it) and troubles dissolve. Occidentalists like the former, and Orientalists like the latter. Woo-hoo.

[jamest]

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'm aware that science has a methodology and language distinct to those used by philosophers; and when I speak of the meaning of scientific results or "models", clearly, I do so from a/my philosophical perspective. I acknowledge that science has retreated to a neutral position consistent with "shut up and do the math", but I'm not here to do any math.

It is not the job of a scientist to do metaphysics. Indeed, his methodology prevents it and his language is consistent with that understanding (hence your nitpicking about my use of specific words). But his methodology doesn't prevent me from doing it and nor am I constrained to use his language; because, of course, I am not a scientist.

You say that entanglement is a 'model'. What exactly is implied by that statement, SD? Are you entangling yourself in some hidden ontology, again?
What you say is a model, I say is an understanding of what is happening between two apparently separate entities... rendering them 'as one'. Now clearly, shutting up and doing the math isn't going to facilitate any further comment about this understanding, but - having binned my calculator as a rebelious and symbolic act - nothing now prevents me from stating that, clearly, such an understanding is at odds with what we seem to be observing. That is, this understanding, gleaned from entanglement, appears to be telling us something about the reality underlying our observations, which is at-odds with those observations. Or, in a nutshell, there is a strong case for saying that some scientific 'models' facilitate a specific metaphysical conclusion... for philosophers.

[logical bob]

Or, in a nutshell, there is a strong case for saying that some scientific 'models' facilitate a specific metaphysical conclusion... for philosophers.

So science leads to scientific conclusions. Unless of course you're a philosopher, in which case you get special dispensation to draw non-scientific conclusions.

Excuse me Sir, could I see you bullshit licence?

[FBM]

..."I feel... less perplexed...." Well, that makes everything OK, then, don't it?

Should it not?

The whole "peeling off of the top of the head" thing, y'know...

I don't know what you mean by that, but I'm always up for a

The "cause" of "suffering", is it? Or is it the "essence"? Just get with "verifiability" (AKA "truth") (or abandon it) and troubles dissolve. Occidentalists like the former, and Orientalists like the latter. Woo-hoo.

Have you found the Truth? Do you think it's possible? Are you sure it exists? Why? Do you have any evidence for the existence of a Truth? Pyrrhonists haven't abandoned anything; they're keeping alert for evidence, but unwilling to accept metaphysical positions that claim to be the Truth but are unable to demonstrate the 'truthiness' of their assertions.

[jamest]

Or, in a nutshell, there is a strong case for saying that some scientific 'models' facilitate a specific metaphysical conclusion... for philosophers.

So science leads to scientific conclusions. Unless of course you're a philosopher, in which case you get special dispensation to draw non-scientific conclusions.

Excuse me Sir, could I see you bullshit licence?

As I said, I am not constrained to a methodology that prevents meaningful analysis of concepts such as 'entanglement'. Why should I be?

[Luis Dias]

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?

It's not religious salvation you know? It's a small part of life. My stress comes with my own concrete, observable problems, issues I can see and try to cope with, with some difficulty. Sometimes I use this forum to vent, I would love to use it to engage a puzzling debate. It is frustrating that, having produced some english material (my first language isn't english) and having lost some of the time explaining my point of view, that I get red herrings, strawmans and cocksuredeness in return.

IOW, people are people, and that sometimes angers me.

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

It can really be relaxing and informative, in a socratic sense. We definitely learn that we "know nothing", and that's probably the best BS detector you could ever come up with. Because then you learn to detect when people are just making shit up. Sometimes I feel like superman with X-ray piercing through all the poop. It's not the best of views really...

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.

What's mystical about it? It's like calling an atheist a "very religious person". Your paragraph looks silly to my BS-ray vision...

[jamest]

Pyrrhonists haven't abandoned anything; they're keeping alert for evidence, but unwilling to accept metaphysical positions that claim to be the Truth but are unable to demonstrate the 'truthiness' of their assertions.

Theoretically - if a Pyrrhonist is as absolute in his scepticism as you would have me believe - it should never be possible to provide evidence of anything, for him.

[SpeedOfSound]

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.

The conclusion is only as sound as the part in bold, where you say you feel that...
so its an opinion not an argument, right?

I think you could be right for a change. It must be an opinion or a belief. If you posted that you were in direct communication with The Great Bitchin' Blue Bunny From Beyond and you had no valid arguments for the claim I would have the opinion that you were in error. It's kind of that way when people make shit up like metaphysics. How can we argue with your claims when you have not presented any case for them?

You had an opportunity to respond to all of what I said. I mean the other words beside the word 'feel'. But you chose not to. Because you have no ground to stand on. I know you sense that and this is why you don't want to look under the hood but you could have said something. Really dude.