Again with your garbage assertions, James. You assert that you've proven that something exists. To talk about existence at all, you already need to assume metaphysics, as "existence" is a metaphysical property. You have shown now a couple of dozen times you are not able to discourse about what you want to show without using the word "existence". For someone to try to bootstrap metaphysics by use of the word "existence" is pathetically inane.jamest wrote:That's silly. I've proved that 'something' exists beyond the single umbrella of the empirical realm. And the focus of this proof was the empirical realm itself. I haven't assumed anything, least of all metaphysics. Certainly, metaphysics is the conclusion of that particular proof, as in: and, therefore, there is a grounds for metaphysics to focus upon.Surendra Darathy wrote:No. You're assuming metaphysics to show that you can start on metaphysics.jamest wrote:[quot
Everything I am saying here is just to facilitate the start/possibility/grounds/basis of a metaphysical argument that would eventually identify/define that 'thing' which has been proven to exist, distinct to empirical data. And that's the perfect methodology for a serious metaphysician.
That is, my proof facilitates the onset of metaphysics.
Your fumbling word game is completely amateurish. You call the empirical a "realm" as if it was a metaphysical category. It is not. The empirical is the collection of all observations, written down in such a way as to be communicated. The exchange of communication is an empirical fact. If you doubt that, you are a solipsist, and an amateurish one, at that.
Do not talk about the existence of anything until you have established that metaphysics is viable. Please desist. Your efforts are now in a shambles, except for your persistence in making naked (ex recto) assertions.
The empiricist is under no obligation to declare from what "realm" the recorded observations of empiricism "originate". The observations are what is communicated, and the only founding feature of this empiricism is that observations can be communicated. All it assumes is the possibility of communication, and as communication is defined, by definition, communication is taking place. I get communications which I must assume I did not originate, or else I am a solipsist.
Solipsism is so fucking cowardly that its proponents do not deserve the satisfaction of having their delusion destroyed. Furthermore, lack of solipsism in a communication is not metaphysics. It is "lack of evidence of mental illness" in a communication.
