Metaphysics as an Error

[Comte de Saint-Germain]

C: Have you got any proof of this?

R: Perhaps,

And here relies the error of the dialectic. There's no try, there's no perhaps. Either put up or shut up.

Do, not try. Do.

Luis, one step at a time. Let's first savour the fact that metaphysical scepticism is based upon an unfounded and limited view of what the empirical realm IS. Let's acknowledge that it is quite possible to do metaphysics without transgressing the parameters of that realm, as long as we sweep this unwarranted proclamation about said realm into the sewer.

Savour? Kant rebuked that some time ago. I mean, the guy has been dead for some time.

[SpeedOfSound]

All we get from the wibble-heads metaphysicians is the rhetorical question, "What lies out there beyond the empirical?"

Oh, but that is not the question that I have posed to you and the rest of your clan. The question is not about what lies "out there beyond" the empirical, but, what is the totality of the empirical?

There's a significant distinction between the two questions, for this latter question now reflects a scepticism about the empirical realm being defined as nought but "two critters running around the desert", so to speak. And this question digs deep into the heart of metaphysical scepticism, because if the empirical realm is [also] something else than that which can be observed to exist, then metaphysics is free to do its work therein without transgressing beyond the parameters of that realm. Gettit?

We've reached the crux of the debate here; and I don't think that repeatedly calling me a "wibble head" as a counter, suffices as a good response.

Due to the extra-planetary nature of the intelligence that posted the OP I may have this wrong. But, the argument here is not about whether or not you can imagine greater realities or get misty eyed about human endeavors to find them. The argument is that you can not find any evidence or basis in argument from which to embark upon the adventure. In kind, you would not have any way of recognizing or making sense of the place when you got there. If there was a there. Which there probably isn't.

Your three E's looked like a fail to me.

[Comte de Saint-Germain]

All we get from the wibble-heads metaphysicians is the rhetorical question, "What lies out there beyond the empirical?"

Oh, but that is not the question that I have posed to you and the rest of your clan. The question is not about what lies "out there beyond" the empirical, but, what is the totality of the empirical?

There's a significant distinction between the two questions, for this latter question now reflects a scepticism about the empirical realm being defined as nought but "two critters running around the desert", so to speak. And this question digs deep into the heart of metaphysical scepticism, because if the empirical realm is [also] something else than that which can be observed to exist, then metaphysics is free to do its work therein without transgressing beyond the parameters of that realm. Gettit?

We've reached the crux of the debate here; and I don't think that repeatedly calling me a "wibble head" as a counter, suffices as a good response.

Due to the extra-planetary nature of the intelligence that posted the OP I may have this wrong. But, the argument here is not about whether or not you can imagine greater realities or get misty eyed about human endeavors to find them. The argument is that you can not find any evidence or basis in argument from which to embark upon the adventure. In kind, you would not have any way of recognizing or making sense of the place when you got there. If there was a there. Which there probably isn't.

Your three E's looked like a fail to me.

Right on all counts (that includes the speculation about my intelligence).

[Little Idiot]

Which was deal with and how and which remains?

The remaining one is the odd plus even gives an odd for all odds and all evens.

The demonstrated one is "P and Q"
for example frogs are amphibians, if a is a frog, then a is an amphibian.

SO you can't figure this out for yourself using the fishes in the buckets?

It's not a question of figuring it out, the point is trivial it is so simple. The point of the deliberatly simple example is that despite being trivial, it can not be demonstrated by emperical investigation, therefore it must be known in another way, therefore I have demonstrated that there are other ways of knowing in addition to the emperical.
This is a demonstration which stands good without me producing any axions or having to define anything - It is not 'proof of metaphysics' it is dis-proof of the statement 'all we've got in emperical'

That's not what I said. It can easily be demonstrated empirically. I asked why you couldn't figure that out.

Maybe because you don't want to believe that everything we know is based on the PW. Your mind wont let you see some things. Your mind has mentalism, a serious impairment that distorts your vision.

So why has it taken so long? Wht do you still refuse to demonstrate it?
Just demonstrate it already!
Or admit that you can not.
The constant refusal to answer a simple question is not helpful to any potential exchange of ideas.

[SpeedOfSound]

C: Have you got any proof of this?

R: Perhaps,

And here relies the error of the dialectic. There's no try, there's no perhaps. Either put up or shut up.

Do, not try. Do.

Luis, one step at a time. Let's first savour the fact that metaphysical scepticism is based upon an unfounded and limited view of what the empirical realm IS. Let's acknowledge that it is quite possible to do metaphysics without transgressing the parameters of that realm, as long as we sweep this unwarranted proclamation about said realm into the sewer.

Let me remind you of this from the OP:

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. 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.

The problem is with your IS. You can't just pull a big IS out of your ass, in this context, and let it lie there before us. Well. You can but don't expect us to touch it.

[SpeedOfSound]

All we get from the wibble-heads metaphysicians is the rhetorical question, "What lies out there beyond the empirical?"

Oh, but that is not the question that I have posed to you and the rest of your clan. The question is not about what lies "out there beyond" the empirical, but, what is the totality of the empirical?

There's a significant distinction between the two questions, for this latter question now reflects a scepticism about the empirical realm being defined as nought but "two critters running around the desert", so to speak. And this question digs deep into the heart of metaphysical scepticism, because if the empirical realm is [also] something else than that which can be observed to exist, then metaphysics is free to do its work therein without transgressing beyond the parameters of that realm. Gettit?

We've reached the crux of the debate here; and I don't think that repeatedly calling me a "wibble head" as a counter, suffices as a good response.

Due to the extra-planetary nature of the intelligence that posted the OP I may have this wrong. But, the argument here is not about whether or not you can imagine greater realities or get misty eyed about human endeavors to find them. The argument is that you can not find any evidence or basis in argument from which to embark upon the adventure. In kind, you would not have any way of recognizing or making sense of the place when you got there. If there was a there. Which there probably isn't.

Your three E's looked like a fail to me.

Right on all counts (that includes the speculation about my intelligence).

I thought so.

[Little Idiot]

All we get from the wibble-heads metaphysicians is the rhetorical question, "What lies out there beyond the empirical?"

Oh, but that is not the question that I have posed to you and the rest of your clan. The question is not about what lies "out there beyond" the empirical, but, what is the totality of the empirical?

There's a significant distinction between the two questions, for this latter question now reflects a scepticism about the empirical realm being defined as nought but "two critters running around the desert", so to speak. And this question digs deep into the heart of metaphysical scepticism, because if the empirical realm is [also] something else than that which can be observed to exist, then metaphysics is free to do its work therein without transgressing beyond the parameters of that realm. Gettit?

We've reached the crux of the debate here; and I don't think that repeatedly calling me a "wibble head" as a counter, suffices as a good response.

Due to the extra-planetary nature of the intelligence that posted the OP I may have this wrong. But, the argument here is not about whether or not you can imagine greater realities or get misty eyed about human endeavors to find them. The argument is that you can not find any evidence or basis in argument from which to embark upon the adventure. In kind, you would not have any way of recognizing or making sense of the place when you got there. If there was a there. Which there probably isn't.

Your three E's looked like a fail to me.

Right on all counts (that includes the speculation about my intelligence).

Wrong on at least 2 counts.
One of which is the recognition of the end point.
I gave a description of that recently; the contrast of the unchanging reality with everything else, which changes.
Recall how we tell a dream from 'waking reality' by contrast when we wake - in sleep the contrast is not possible because contact with 'waking reality' is not available.

[Comte de Saint-Germain]

I gave a description of that recently; the contrast of the unchanging reality with everything else, which changes.
Recall how we tell a dream from 'waking reality' by contrast when we wake - in sleep the contrast is not possible because contact with 'waking reality' is not available.

Dream versus reality is an analogy, you have no basis on which to make such a comparison - which an analogy essentially is. There is no way of knowing that this analogy is properly or not, since we have no way of knowing what 'out there' looks like, let alone whether it looks like dreaming versus reality. Back to the end point of SoS - that I have made many times in this thread as well, by the way.

[SpeedOfSound]

So why has it taken so long? Wht do you still refuse to demonstrate it?
Just demonstrate it already!
Or admit that you can not.
The constant refusal to answer a simple question is not helpful to any potential exchange of ideas.

You should be familiar with my style of playing chess by now. I like to take a day or two to survey all the possibles. Maybe watch some other players to see what they do.

So. In the easy one that you say you used as bait and Todo solved, you accepted the category example as empirical basis without tearing off into a criticism based on infinite testing? You accepted the standard empirical intuition as sufficient?

[jamest]

To "reason beyond reason" - the question is, why reason is confined to the empirical alone (aka science)? I don't remember seeing you do anything other than assert this.

I've never said that reason was confined to the empirical. Rather, I don't trust reason at all.

You cannot argue against the possibility of metaphysics without employing reason. That is, if there is no reason for your scepticism, then there's no reason to take it seriously in a philosophical discussion.

R: But what is this [cartoon] realm? You are defining it, in its totality, as those things that appear to exist, for us both.

No, he hasn't mentioned existence yet. Roadrunner erroneously believes that the definition of anything necessitates the definition of existence. Clearly, Roadrunner has not read - or at least not understood Kant. Existence, Kant reminds us, is not a necessary property, but a state. Without Kant, Roadrunner - YOUR project - is doomed. I have already directed you to the ontological argument, with Kant's critique.

You're missing the point. The point is that metaphysics can actually be employed to discuss the essence/reality/definition of the empirical realm - and by doing so, has not transgressed the boundaries of that realm.

If Road Runner starts talking about his cartoon realm in terms of its inks and paper, then he is still within the parameters of that realm. He has not transgressed it. The only thing he has transgressed, is a proclamation about his cartoon realm being nought but "two critters in a desert". But, as I say, that is a limiting and ungrounded definition of what that realm is.
But you say that you haven't defined the empirical realm in such a manner. Okay... but then, what is your objection to a metaphysic that is grounded within the parameters of the empirical realm itself?

R: Well, firstly, you have no reason to define it thus. Implicit in your claim, is that this realm is thoroughly defined as those things that appear to exist therein.

C: But what else could it be?

R: At this juncture, that doesn't matter. What matters, is that you cannot thoroughly define a realm as 'those things that appear to interact therein' without excluding the possibility that they are reducible to something else, or that there is some integral aspect of this realm that is not observable. For example, for all you know, you and I might be reducible to a complex usage of inks and paper, by some unobservable artist. That is, in such a case, the empirical realm would have to be thoroughly defined as those things that can be observed as an effect of inks, orchestrated to yield that effect, by some unobservable artist.

Finally, this sort of speculation is all well, but there is no way for C or R to know that the analogy of cartoon applies to them, whether it is a valid mode of thinking about metaphysics. The same goes for the Matrix and other such examples. You choose this as an analogy to metaphysics, but you can not demonstrate how it is analogous to metaphysics. You can't base the analogy on anything. You are claiming that it is 'like' this, but you can't establish that likeness!

Of course I can establish a likeness. As I said in an earlier post, the scientific method can be applied to any ordered realm where "empirical data" is possible. It could even be employed to cartoon realms, or films, to inform us of the relations between empirical constructs therein. All that is needed to produce a statistical analysis, is a field of observation devoid of chaos.

[jamest]

the argument here is not about whether or not you can imagine greater realities or get misty eyed about human endeavors to find them. The argument is that you can not find any evidence or basis in argument from which to embark upon the adventure.

But here again we are faced with the crux of the issue! For I do have evidence/basis from which to embark upon the adventure: the empirical realm!

Repeatedly, I have said that this is the basis of my own metaphysic.

Your three E's looked like a fail to me.

Well, thanks for your in-depth analysis.

[Comte de Saint-Germain]

To "reason beyond reason" - the question is, why reason is confined to the empirical alone (aka science)? I don't remember seeing you do anything other than assert this.

I've never said that reason was confined to the empirical. Rather, I don't trust reason at all.

You cannot argue against the possibility of metaphysics without employing reason. That is, if there is no reason for your scepticism, then there's no reason to take it seriously in a philosophical discussion.

R: But what is this [cartoon] realm? You are defining it, in its totality, as those things that appear to exist, for us both.

No, he hasn't mentioned existence yet. Roadrunner erroneously believes that the definition of anything necessitates the definition of existence. Clearly, Roadrunner has not read - or at least not understood Kant. Existence, Kant reminds us, is not a necessary property, but a state. Without Kant, Roadrunner - YOUR project - is doomed. I have already directed you to the ontological argument, with Kant's critique.

You're missing the point. The point is that metaphysics can actually be employed to discuss the essence/reality/definition of the empirical realm - and by doing so, has not transgressed the boundaries of that realm.

No, I'm not missing the point, I'm addressing your analogy, where it shows the flaw in your argument. You can't say I miss the point simply because I attack you somewhere you don't like. I haven't talked about existence in reference to the empirical, no one has, and yet you suggest we do in your analogy. Moreover, what you add as the actual point is entirely trivial. The 'actual' essence or reality of the empirical realm is beyond the boundaries of the content of that 'realm'. That is to say, since it has nothing to do with empirical data, it is beyond empirical data.
We seem to be operating at different levels here. Considering I know what I'm talking about, it seems obvious who is not.

If Road Runner starts talking about his cartoon realm in terms of its inks and paper, then he is still within the parameters of that realm.

No, he's not. You're missing the point made by me and others. The point is that metaphysics is beyond empirical data, it's the interpretation of empirical data as 'existing' or 'being real' or some sort of thing, these terms these words are imprecise, ambiguous and have nothing going for them. Road Runner has no access to what 'ink' or 'paper' means.

He has not transgressed it. The only thing he has transgressed, is a proclamation about his cartoon realm being nought but "two critters in a desert". But, as I say, that is a limiting and ungrounded definition of what that realm is.
But you say that you haven't defined the empirical realm in such a manner. Okay... but then, what is your objection to a metaphysic that is grounded within the parameters of the empirical realm itself?

It's talking out of your asshole. You have no evidence or argument for speaking in that fashion, that's what we mean by 'beyond the boundaries of the empirical'. You've moved the goalposts, but you moved the wrong goal posts. This was never about confines or realms, this was you not having any basis to claim these sort of metaphysics on.

R: Well, firstly, you have no reason to define it thus. Implicit in your claim, is that this realm is thoroughly defined as those things that appear to exist therein.

C: But what else could it be?

R: At this juncture, that doesn't matter. What matters, is that you cannot thoroughly define a realm as 'those things that appear to interact therein' without excluding the possibility that they are reducible to something else, or that there is some integral aspect of this realm that is not observable. For example, for all you know, you and I might be reducible to a complex usage of inks and paper, by some unobservable artist. That is, in such a case, the empirical realm would have to be thoroughly defined as those things that can be observed as an effect of inks, orchestrated to yield that effect, by some unobservable artist.

Finally, this sort of speculation is all well, but there is no way for C or R to know that the analogy of cartoon applies to them, whether it is a valid mode of thinking about metaphysics. The same goes for the Matrix and other such examples. You choose this as an analogy to metaphysics, but you can not demonstrate how it is analogous to metaphysics. You can't base the analogy on anything. You are claiming that it is 'like' this, but you can't establish that likeness!

Of course I can establish a likeness. As I said in an earlier post, the scientific method can be applied to any ordered realm where "empirical data" is possible. It could even be employed to cartoon realms, or films, to inform us of the relations between empirical constructs therein. All that is needed to produce a statistical analysis, is a field of observation devoid of chaos.

Err.. Yeah. Except of course, we have no access to data about metaphysics, just as Roadrunner has no access to ink or paper. Err.. I think you are missing large parts of what is going on here, to be quite honest.

[SpeedOfSound]

I am a member of the Integer tribe. We only eat fish and we only eat fish served as integral wholes. We have a law that for every fish we bring home we must give one to the tribal elders. I caught only five fish and when I divided them into two piles the piles could not be made even. One was always higher than the other. Throwing away the sacred integral fish is a sin punishable by non-integral bisection.

I pondered this odd problem and along came Bill with two piles of three fish each and the piles were even. I killed Bill (not a crime here if he has fish) and added his 6 to my five hoping that his evenness would be a distributive property.

It was not. I still had an odd fish. Along came Bill 2 with the same problem as I. Five fish and two uneven piles. We threw our lot together and started to divide the fish into one pile for he, one for me. and one for Thee.

Fuckall!! Three uneven piles. But I also noticed that my pile had shrunk significantly with the merger. So I Killed Bill 2 and set out to make piles. Sweet Fucking Jesus it was successful. Two wrongs do indeed make a right and now I also knew why there was not another sequel.

On further analysis in the coming days I noticed that it was always the last fish that made the difference. I named it the odd fish and later on the tribe got to calling all uneven piles odd. (not my idea). Some of them even used this empirical result as a basis for a new thing called Math and pulled something called Induction out of their asses to turn it into something none of us can recognize.

The formula worked so well that we adopted it as a religious ultimate truth though some idiots are still trying to convince us that there is a different reality somewhere in the integers beyond where it fails but they seem to have no evidence or basis for this assertion.

[SpeedOfSound]

the argument here is not about whether or not you can imagine greater realities or get misty eyed about human endeavors to find them. The argument is that you can not find any evidence or basis in argument from which to embark upon the adventure.

But here again we are faced with the crux of the issue! For I do have evidence/basis from which to embark upon the adventure: the empirical realm!

Repeatedly, I have said that this is the basis of my own metaphysic.

Yeah, but what IS it?

[jamest]

the argument here is not about whether or not you can imagine greater realities or get misty eyed about human endeavors to find them. The argument is that you can not find any evidence or basis in argument from which to embark upon the adventure.

But here again we are faced with the crux of the issue! For I do have evidence/basis from which to embark upon the adventure: the empirical realm!

Repeatedly, I have said that this is the basis of my own metaphysic.

Yeah, but what IS it?

That squire, is the conclusion to my metaphysic, not the basis of it.