Metaphysics as an Error

[SpeedOfSound]

I haven't said that the attributes of the 'actual something' are observable through a telescope, have I? If you don't understand my position, then ask questions. Stop trying to hang me from the nearest tree WITHIN YOUR VISION.
Quote:

Ahh. I have been trying to ask you a question for three days now and all I have so far is your editorial about my question. I suspect that this is because my question is not WITHIN YOUR VISION.

[jamest]

I haven't said that the attributes of the 'actual something' are observable through a telescope, have I? If you don't understand my position, then ask questions. Stop trying to hang me from the nearest tree WITHIN YOUR VISION.
Quote:

Ahh. I have been trying to ask you a question for three days now and all I have so far is your editorial about my question. I suspect that this is because my question is not WITHIN YOUR VISION.

Well, I have asked you to elucidate - which you haven't, really - because I don't really understand the question. I also think that the question implies a defence of materialism, which is at-odds with the purpose of this thread.
I don't dodge or evade significant and/or relevant questions. I'm sincere in what I think is true and will always endeavour to respond to such questions. The problem I have, is in finding anything that justifies the tag 'serious' in this thread. I can hardly be blamed for such a disposition, given the evident strategy of some folk, here.

[Surendra Darathy]

There's this:

Regardless, just show that you can be fucking serious and respectful, for a change. Grow up, ffs.

And then there's this:

I don't need to explain anything about 'actual existence' at this juncture, other than that there is one - as opposed to just apparent existence.

You mean you're not obliged to do any work. Other than puffing the usual fragrantly unsupported assertions out of your butthole, whereas others are invited to be "respectful" towards your lack of effort.

My irony meter just pegged.

You shall have to accept that my assignment of attributes for this 'something' will come at some later date.

Cry me a fucking river. Or get busy.

I don't really understand the question.

Understatement of the entire fucking thread. Think about it, James, instead of swimming back into the warm waters of your presuppositions. You might get somewhere, and start to understand the question.

The metaphysician doesn't say jack shit about how the attributes of "actual" metaphysical objects are detected

They are detected by reason - the only available tool to any philosopher.

Yes? Do inform us of how to tell the difference between the application of "reason" and blowing unsupported assertions out of the anus. How do we detect the effectuality of pure reason? Can you bend a spoon with it?

[jamest]

There's this:

Regardless, just show that you can be fucking serious and respectful, for a change. Grow up, ffs.

And then there's this:

I don't need to explain anything about 'actual existence' at this juncture, other than that there is one - as opposed to just apparent existence.

You mean you're not obliged to do any work. Other than puffing the usual fragrantly unsupported assertions out of your butthole.

You've just failed, regards my most recent request. Wtf is wrong with you? I'm currently doing a psychology module, so perhaps we can discuss your evident insecurities?

Btw, the recurrent focus of yours on butts and hindquarters might be an interesting place upon which to focus our discussion.

[SpeedOfSound]

I haven't said that the attributes of the 'actual something' are observable through a telescope, have I? If you don't understand my position, then ask questions. Stop trying to hang me from the nearest tree WITHIN YOUR VISION.
Quote:

Ahh. I have been trying to ask you a question for three days now and all I have so far is your editorial about my question. I suspect that this is because my question is not WITHIN YOUR VISION.

Well, I have asked you to elucidate - which you haven't, really - because I don't really understand the question. I also think that the question implies a defence of materialism, which is at-odds with the purpose of this thread.
I don't dodge or evade significant and/or relevant questions. I'm sincere in what I think is true and will always endeavour to respond to such questions. The problem I have, is in finding anything that justifies the tag 'serious' in this thread. I can hardly be blamed for such a disposition, given the evident strategy of some folk, here.

The question was simple enough for most 6th graders to answer it. Wow. Burbulating rectal outgassing.

Those are the only kinds of thing you seem to respond to.

But this next has been exceedingly obvious from the start and now you said it out loud:

I also think that the question implies a defence of materialism,

You refuse to acknowledge any line of questioning that doesn't have your conclusions in it. On this forum you should count on people disagreeing with you. It's a fucking atheist site. If you are going to refuse to enter into any line of reasoning that you suspect argues against your own position then why the hell are you here?

Why should anyone take you seriously?

[SpeedOfSound]

Here it is again. Though it has been so long in trying to get an answer that I have forgotten why I wanted one. But I will go back and check.


No, No. Too deep. I'm asking you if there are trees. But I am trying to avoid committing to a materialist view of trees. So. Do we have a bunch of information about something that we call trees?

[jamest]

You refuse to acknowledge any line of questioning that doesn't have your conclusions in it. On this forum you should count on people disagreeing with you. It's a fucking atheist site. If you are going to refuse to enter into any line of reasoning that you suspect argues against your own position then why the hell are you here?

Don't be a dork. That's a request, not an accusation.

The fact is that this thread is about the impossibility of metaphysics. It's not about your naive assumptions regarding the actual existence of trees.

Why should anyone take you seriously?

I have no need to answer that question. If you thought that I was 'a dork', you wouldn't have engaged me in conversation for the last 3 years.

[jamest]

I'm asking you if there are trees. But I am trying to avoid committing to a materialist view of trees. So. Do we have a bunch of information about something that we call trees?

Do you not understand the distinction between the information of something, and its reality? Are there trees? Or is there information about trees? Do you know what question you are asking? Do you understand the fuggin difference between each of these questions?

[SpeedOfSound]

BTW jamest. Talking about the observer as you have been attempting could bring the same response form the other team. I think your premises are leading to a defense of idealism. I would expect nothing less from you so I go ahead and try to engage you anyway.

[jamest]

BTW jamest. Talking about the observer as you have been attempting could bring the same response form the other team. I think your premises are leading to a defense of idealism. I would expect nothing less from you so I go ahead and try to engage you anyway.

Idealism rejects the reality of the material. Nothing I have said in this thread rejects the reality of the material.
Your responses continue to show me where your head is at... and it aint 'here'.

[SpeedOfSound]

I'm asking you if there are trees. But I am trying to avoid committing to a materialist view of trees. So. Do we have a bunch of information about something that we call trees?

Do you not understand the distinction between the information of something, and its reality? Are there trees? Or is there information about trees? Do you know what question you are asking? Do you understand the fuggin difference between each of these questions?

Wow. I address the difference in the piece that you quoted. I said originally said treeness instead of 'are there trees'. I said information about trees instead of 'are there trees'. You still refuse to answer the question.

Let the mods take note that I prefer not to be called a dork.

[Surendra Darathy]

I'm currently doing a psychology module, so perhaps we can discuss your evident insecurities?

Oh, James, why don't you toot your horn and flash your headlights, so your rapt audience can discover what the fuck else you got for Christmas last year?

This is how you've gone on record:

I don't need to explain anything about 'actual existence' at this juncture, other than that there is one - as opposed to just apparent existence.

OK? Not only have you not engaged with any hypothesis contrary to your own, but you took the topic in the OP and, rather than showing how metaphysics is possible, simply insist that you have a metaphysics and that you will show it to us if we will show you ours. Then you promptly set about to tell us what metaphysics is implied by empiricism, without making the slightest effort to elucidate "existence".

Yes, James, you do need to explain what you think is entailed in existence, because without an articulation of that, you have no metaphysics, as long as all your distinctions are between "actual" and "apparent" existence. You are implying, in fairly obvious terms, that everything, even pink unicorns, can be said to exist. AKA, idealism raised to the nth power. Sure, unicorns just have "apparent" existence, sort of like my desk. Only God has "actual" existence.

And pure reason has figured this out. The pure fucking reason of a guy with a psych module. Will wonders never cease?

[SpeedOfSound]

BTW jamest. Talking about the observer as you have been attempting could bring the same response form the other team. I think your premises are leading to a defense of idealism. I would expect nothing less from you so I go ahead and try to engage you anyway.

Idealism rejects the reality of the material. Nothing I have said in this thread rejects the reality of the material.
Your responses continue to show me where your head is at... and it aint 'here'.

Still haven't answered the question.

[SpeedOfSound]

E (where E = empirical world).

Now, there are only three possible metaphysics to associate with E:

(i) E is the totality of all that is.
(ii) E is reducible to something else (S) that is different to E. That is, S is the essence of E.
(iii) E is not the totality of all that is, so that S different to E also exists.

Regarding 'causality', logic can generate truisms for each scenario:

(i) Causality exists within E. That is, if E is the totality of all that is, then the constituent parts of E must be interacting with an order commensurate with that understood by science.
(ii) E has been caused by S (which might be a plural, at this juncture). This must be the case, because if E does not exist, except as an appearance reducible to S, there must be a reason (cause) for E.
(iii) Causality exists within E (see (i) for explanation). Alternatively, S is effecting/causing the order discerned within E.

Read the first line. E= the empirical world. My question is about empirical data. I asked it in a way that should have avoided a commitment to materialism. How much clearer can this be?

[Surendra Darathy]

Nothing I have said in this thread rejects the reality of the material.

You've said essentially nothing in this thread besides...

I don't need to explain anything about 'actual existence' at this juncture, other than that there is one - as opposed to just apparent existence.

... and ...

A metaphysical entity is something distinct to an apparent entity. Therefore, all it takes for me to establish that there is a metaphysical entity, is to show that there has to be more than apparent entities (aka 'empirical entities').

Sorry, James. This is utterly incoherent. The failures of metaphysical discourse are full of "perceived entities" and "real entities" and "noumenal entities", and on into a menagerie of nonsense terms.

What do you think it takes to "show" something? Evidently, you are satisfied with blowing the assertion of whatever you want to "show" out of some hole or other. Do some fucking work on this, James, or go back to your fucking psych module.