Metaphysics as an Error

[Surendra Darathy]

Hey, gang! Before this all goes too much farther (and we know it will, because the Absolutists never give up, never surrender), maybe we could erect a sticky thread about "Rejoinders to Absolutism". It was just a thought. Let's make it real.

[Surendra Darathy]

Is there a way to hyperlink to a post in this forum?

I want to link to my post earlier where I offered a definition of what metaphysics is, in order to answer the point about using science in relation to metaphysics, and I find that I cant figure linking out.

Look at the syntax for the link to the post when you PM the author of a particular post. It will be there at the top of your PM, above the quoted text for the post you are PMing about. This is empirical shit, man, and very lacking in mystery.

Code: Select all

[url=http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=362633#p362633]Subject: Metaphysics as an Error[/url]

[quote="Surendra Darathy"][quote="Little Idiot"]
Is there a way to hyperlink to a post in this forum?

I want to link to my post earlier where I offered a definition of what metaphysics is, in order to answer the point about using science in relation to metaphysics, and I find that I cant figure linking out.[/quote]

Look at the syntax for the link to the post when you PM the author of a particular post. It will be there at the top of your PM, above the quoted text for the post you are PMing about. This is empirical shit, man, and very lacking in mystery.[/quote]

Look! I can even PM myself about it!

Subject: Metaphysics as an Error

Is there a way to hyperlink to a post in this forum?

I want to link to my post earlier where I offered a definition of what metaphysics is, in order to answer the point about using science in relation to metaphysics, and I find that I cant figure linking out.

Look at the syntax for the link to the post when you PM the author of a particular post. It will be there at the top of your PM, above the quoted text for the post you are PMing about. This is empirical shit, man, and very lacking in mystery.

Code: Select all

[url=http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=362633#p362633]Subject: Metaphysics as an Error[/url]

[quote="Surendra Darathy"][quote="Little Idiot"]
Is there a way to hyperlink to a post in this forum?

I want to link to my post earlier where I offered a definition of what metaphysics is, in order to answer the point about using science in relation to metaphysics, and I find that I cant figure linking out.[/quote]

Look at the syntax for the link to the post when you PM the author of a particular post. It will be there at the top of your PM, above the quoted text for the post you are PMing about. This is empirical shit, man, and very lacking in mystery.[/quote]

[Luis Dias]

Isn't it ironic?

No, it's a symptom.

[jamest]

What is the basis for doubting metaphysics? What can it be?

Previously, I explained why saying anything definite about the empirical world implied an ontology of its own. And so the empirical world cannot be the focus of any rejection of metaphysics.
The retreat from metaphysics has to be absolute! To the point that reason is meaningless and one becomes philosophically lame. Otherwise, if not so extreme, one has to have reasons for not being so extreme and an understanding (more reason) of what would constitute an acceptable metaphysic. Which of course would imply a bias towards something yet to be proven.

I think that metaphysical scepticism is either impossible, or - when taken to its absolute extremity - mind numbing. To such an extent that nothing could ever be proven to such an individual, using reason.

This is not trolling, Luis. This is the death of metaphysical scepticism.

No, it's just self-absorbed drama. If you still don't understand Pyrrhonian skepticism, buy a book. I recommend the Kuzminski mentioned earlier. I don't have time to teach a class on it.

You seem to be under the false impression that my post was about Pyrrhonian scepticism, when in fact it was a summary of scepticism in general. I was just explaining that there's no REASON for being a metaphysical sceptic that is not itself ontologically-tied. Therefore, one must be an absolute sceptic in order to be a sceptic of metaphysics - which entails a philosophical impotence so complete, that it would never be possible to explain anything to such an individual.

I'm not actually interested in Pyrrhonian scepticism, and if "self-absorption" was in evidence here, it was clearly via your response to my post.

You've made it clear that you're deeply entrenched in your views, anyway, so I don't see any purpose in continuing this with you. Adios.

My views are a consequence of reason, Sir... not some dead Greek guy. You are free to challenge that reason and I will listen and try to counter whatever you say - if I can. And I won't leave the thread if you won't change your mind, either.

[Surendra Darathy]

Isn't it ironic?

No, it's a symptom.

Would a symposium on symptoms be a symptosium? An irony board? Pressing matters, these. Never mind.

.

This is not trolling, Luis. This is the death of metaphysical scepticism.

No, it's just self-absorbed drama.

I was just explaining that there's no REASON for being a metaphysical sceptic that is not itself ontologically-tied.

No, James. You were asserting it. You have failed to explain anything. I understand you lapse into using "explain" in its colloquial sense, but as a Bonded Metaphysician, you probably will want to be less colloquial in the colloquium.

This actually gets to the heart of the difference between "reasoning" and "rationalisation", but let's not go there quite yet.

[Comte de Saint-Germain]

Bit of a tangent, I know, but;
Is there a way to hyperlink to a post in this forum?

I want to link to my post earlier where I offered a definition of what metaphysics is, in order to answer the point about using science in relation to metaphysics, and I find that I cant figure linking out. Seems silly to quote the post again, and although I can cut n paste the part want it would be good for me to know how to link to it.

Trigger Warning!!!1! :

Que pointless attack from the Jerome

My response:

As for the claim that I am misrepresenting metaphysics - by little idiot - that is preposterous. Reality is the whole of existence, or at least, reality pertains to what exists. The two are inexorably linked insofar as they are defined in the context of metaphysics. With metaphysical existence discounted within metaphysics, metaphysical reality is rendered inert. This 'error' that I have supposedly made is a red herring.

The only reason I see why an attack would be pointless is when you are convinced of your right to such an extent that no argument will persuade you. If that's what you are saying here, I don't see how it will serve you very well.

Hey, gang! Before this all goes too much farther (and we know it will, because the Absolutists never give up, never surrender), maybe we could erect a sticky thread about "Rejoinders to Absolutism". It was just a thought. Let's make it real.

You mean excerpts from the debate/discussion or something like that? I think it's a good idea, sure.

Isn't it ironic?

No, it's a symptom.

Would a symposium on symptoms be a symptosium? An irony board? Pressing matters, these. Never mind.

We need a chapeau emoticon..

[Luis Dias]

You mean excerpts from the debate/discussion or something like that? I think it's a good idea, sure.

I like that idea too. And we could nitpick the best arguments ...

[jamest]

Apparently, it's a lame attempt of a comeback against the death of god. But god is dead, so the comeback is somewhat ... ahhh.... late?

How does a metaphysical sceptic come to proclaim the death of God, Luis? What are you smoking?

[Luis Dias]

Apparently, it's a lame attempt of a comeback against the death of god. But god is dead, so the comeback is somewhat ... ahhh.... late?

How does a metaphysical sceptic come to proclaim the death of God, Luis?

Who says I was proclaiming any metaphysics? I was talking about the idea of God. As anyone with some history awareness should know.

What are you smoking?

Kryptonite.

[SpeedOfSound]

You mean excerpts from the debate/discussion or something like that? I think it's a good idea, sure.

I like that idea too. And we could nitpick the best arguments ...

I like handy acronyms for the arguments too. Like 'what you see is not what is' WYSINWI- wizzinwee. Has a nice 'take a whiz' sound to it. This of course refers to the tired argument about the frailty of senses which goes round and round in circles. Odd again that this favorite argument of the woo-ly impaired relies on knowledge of the physical to make an attack on the physical.

This homo woolensis is so interesting with all of it's odd little contradictions. I just love these little critters!

[Surendra Darathy]

Apparently, it's a lame attempt of a comeback against the death of god. But god is dead, so the comeback is somewhat ... ahhh.... late?

How does a metaphysical sceptic come to proclaim the death of God, Luis? What are you smoking?

One thing we ain't smokin' is absolutism, which is heavy, heavy fuel. It induces the absolutist to project his own desire for "proclamations" onto others (but we could as easily call them "incantations"). The same mistakes perpetrated by the absolutists in the long thread on "Relativism is Self-Refuting" continue to be perpetrated by the likes of you. It's rhetoric, James, and playing with word-trickery. "The death of God" messes with your head, and not really with anything made out of "stuff".

The idea of the death of God, James, is an acknowledgment of the death of an idea, to wit, the idea of deathlessness. It has not a thing to do with god, per se, or so I take it not to, since god is "the infinite amount of nonsense one can know about nothing", expressed in declamatory terms, and how can you kill something like that off? but rather, one might say, the demise of some words beginning with uppercase letters as referring to "stuff".

[jamest]

Apparently, it's a lame attempt of a comeback against the death of god. But god is dead, so the comeback is somewhat ... ahhh.... late?

How does a metaphysical sceptic come to proclaim the death of God, Luis?

Who says I was proclaiming any metaphysics? I was talking about the idea of God. As anyone with some history awareness should know.

How does one argue for (promote the idea for) God being dead, if one has no metaphysical allegiances (ideas) upon which to base that execution?

Stop digging holes Luis. You have no reason to reject the potential existence of God. Fancy a flutter on Pascal's horse?

[Surendra Darathy]

You mean excerpts from the debate/discussion or something like that? I think it's a good idea, sure.

I like that idea too. And we could nitpick the best arguments ...

Time's a-wasting, back the the Canard Warehouse. There are thousands of posts to review in the "Relativism is self-refuting" threads, and lots of dross for every fleck of gold.

[Surendra Darathy]

How does one argue for (promote the idea for) God being dead, if one has no metaphysical allegiances (ideas) upon which to base that execution?

Well, to sprout this latest canard, James, you have to assume that ideas themselves have ontological status. It's where the people with whom you think you're arguing part company with the idea that you are arguing with them.

You have no reason to reject the potential existence of God.

Why is it always about rejection with you lot? It's as if we're trying not to hurt someone's feelings. Trying to recast skepticism as "rejection" is just another piece of plastic junk from the Canard Warehouse. The WalMart of Wibbling Woo.

[jamest]

Man, I don't understand any of that. I guess that qualifies me as a sceptic, then.