tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post8912786616244489948..comments2023-10-10T08:02:18.073-04:00Comments on Rationally Speaking: Ah, metaphysics!Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger26125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-31564685394162286282012-01-27T16:17:29.621-05:002012-01-27T16:17:29.621-05:00So let's sum it up:
1. Conjure the usual posi...So let's sum it up:<br /><br />1. Conjure the usual positivistic myths about metaphysics<br />2. Utilize metaphysics in all sorts of ways in your thinking to explicate the denial of metaphysics.<br />3. Mention of your blind faith in atheism via a side-ways reference to the ontological argument <br />4. Pretend what you stated is defensible and intelligible when it's not.<br />5. Assert in a typical knee-jerk fashion the dogma of scientism.<br />6. Collapse into philosophical obscurity just like every other atheist/positivism puppet.<br /><br />Metaphysical issues have not now nor will ever be resolved by science (although science may help inform in some limited way) simply because science as an limited enterprise is inept to address them, not to mention depends upon them to even exist as a social process within the human domain. Not to mention that quantum theory itself is itself a journey into the metaphysical... Ironically a verification of some of its central concepts in fact.<br /><br />Your "argument" (if you can even call it that) is nothing but an argument from ignorance. Well done! :)<br /><br />PS. The most laughable of your assertions was that somehow physics has replaced classical metaphysics.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-61642911188696808222009-09-15T19:37:17.239-04:002009-09-15T19:37:17.239-04:00"Anyone know of a sensitive way to suggest to..."Anyone know of a sensitive way to suggest to a professor that his "Critical Theory" class needs a dose of critical thinking?"<br /><br />No, but I can think of many creative and funny non-sensitive ways. Of course, that would get you into trouble...Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-35581996597385556052009-09-15T16:50:53.342-04:002009-09-15T16:50:53.342-04:00I'm working on my masters in English, and so a...I'm working on my masters in English, and so am taking "Critical Theory." Heidegger, Foucalt, Derrida, Freud--why are these guys still being taught? What's the appeal of purposely opaque prose and Delphic, unfalsifiable pronouncements? Anyone know of a sensitive way to suggest to a professor that his "Critical Theory" class needs a dose of critical thinking?Dennis J. Junkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05826244501737767190noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-29680909100790045442009-09-15T14:52:45.474-04:002009-09-15T14:52:45.474-04:00I have not seen Ontology mentioned here. This is ...I have not seen Ontology mentioned here. This is cofused with metaphysics in the minds of some.<br /><br />To distinguish between <i>things</i> and <i>events</i> seems, to be, a fundamentally important distinction. Likewise, to distinguish between modally distinguishable instances of the same (physical, linguistic, economic, etc).<br /><br />Is this so much passe thinking? Or is it something distinct from metaphysics proper?Largohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15082394436785605297noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-4368760680906322992009-09-14T00:31:52.074-04:002009-09-14T00:31:52.074-04:00Nick B says: If nothing else, we may be able to ru...Nick B says: If nothing else, we may be able to rule out some answers, or lines of reasoning.<br /><br />I wish I had a dime for every time I've heard a philosopher says X is a priori impossible when I had already seen research that does precisely X. Metaphysics starts with the intuitions of philosophers and, treating them as a priviledged source of knowledge, draws the logical conclusions that follow from them. Unfortunately, the intuitions of even full-blown professors are a fairly poor guide to what the world is actually like. That's why we have to pay all that money for expensive colliders and such like. Indeed, it is science that has taught us just how bad a guide to reality intuitions are. All the time, people try to postulate limits as to what science is incapable of doing and while they may be correct at the time of writing, they will ultimately turn out to be false, so long as it is humanly possible to have any knowledge of the matter in hand. This is because science is not a pre-determined set of methods, that have a clearly delineated limit to their applicability, but a constantly growing family of methods that are developed in response to new problems. In short, if it is possible to know something then, sooner or later, science will be the best way to get to know it. This may sound grandiose but it simply acknowledges the basic fact that science constantly adjusts to fit reality, both in terms of the claims it makes but, more importantly, in terms of the methods it uses. Issues in the philosophy of mind such as consciousness are no different. Indeed, it has been science - cognitive science - that has had the running on explaining these phenomena for the last twenty years, at least. That is where we should be looking to for explanations of these phenomena in the near future. Not to the intuitions of members of the homo sapiens species that hold positions in philosophy departments. And I speak as very much a member of that last group.Konrad Talmont-Kaminskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05136133369582249025noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-52134419845472554082009-09-14T00:05:25.334-04:002009-09-14T00:05:25.334-04:00my conclusion doesn't seem (to me) to be as st...<i>my conclusion doesn't seem (to me) to be as strong as you take it to be.</i><br /><br />Massimo, your final paragraph seems to leave little to metaphysics. You suggest that metaphysics only has value (1) from a historical standpoint; (2) as a model for how philosophy and science can interact; and (3) in reminding us about the limits of science.<br /><br />As it happens, your second and third points do open rather wide doors to metaphysics, though you seem to de-emphasize that. You give the example of attempts to understand the nature of time and space, which are closely connected to the issue of causality, a key concern of metaphysics, and one that science cannot answer. You also note that “science can get started only on premises that cannot be justified empirically within science itself” and again causality comes up, along with other metaphysical issues.<br /><br />You say nothing about philosophy of mind. Although neuroscience and cognitive science are making great progress in understanding how the brain works, they are incapable of explaining the subjective experience of consciousness, self, or the enigma of free will. Science can provide hints, but these are not scientific questions. <br /><br />At some level each human faces, or perhaps chooses to turn away from these metaphysical questions, along with what may be the most mysterious question of all: “Why IS there ANYTHING?” I suspect we won’t find the answers, but I do think there is value in carefully thinking about these questions, and untangling our understanding. If nothing else, we may be able to rule out some answers, or lines of reasoning.Nick Barrowmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11224940659269649220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-37858353390572794802009-09-13T23:46:40.624-04:002009-09-13T23:46:40.624-04:00hello Massimo, I just literally Stumble(d)Upon you...hello Massimo, I just literally Stumble(d)Upon your site. I'm someone who goes randomly via SU, lands at times on web sites where the theists & atheists alike lack the scientific, philosophical, or historical perspectives you obviously bring. Complimenti! So, do forgive my leaving an apologia behind. the anti_supernaturalist<br /><br /><b>Natura naturans: atheists restore to nature its "innocence" </b><br /><br /><i>The de-deification of western culture (including the sciences) is our task for the next 100 years.</i><br /><br />1. we free culture from the dead hand of near eastern mythological speculation<br /><br />A mishmash of near eastern magical texts makes spurious claims of being god-given. Their nihilistic dualism and androcentric understanding of the universe and paternalist model of human nature are too damaging to contribute to a humane planet-wide ethos.<br /><br />2. we free culture from a death impulse characterized by "sin" and "guilt"<br /><br />The universe evinces neither affect, nor morality, nor intellect. Neither physical nature nor human nature <i>say</i> anything about a superordinate, supernatural realm populated by creators or law givers. <br /><br />Nature is silent. There is no concept of truth in nature. Indeed, there are no concepts whatsoever in nature. Nature <i>knows</i> nothing. Natura naturans. Nature acts.<br /><br />Nature is neither meaningful nor meaningless. Neither a source of comfort (natural theology) nor a source of despair (existentialism). Both are rooted in the same mistaken presupposition that supernatural <i>meaning</i> can be found by searching “the starry heavens” for gods or by quarrying human inwardness for moral laws.<br /><br />3. we show that religion is a cultural artifact<br /><br />Religions belong to cultures embedded in nature. And <i>cultures</i> are our distinctive human-all-too-human handiwork. Religions are obsolete, replaceable cultural artifacts.<br /><br />Any specific religion reenacts and institutionalizes cultic myth. It gets spread through recruitment, custom and conquest -- financially supported by tax code and state funding -- enforced by indoctrination, intimidation and violence. Too high a price for psycho-social comfort.<br /><br />5. alleged god-given morality is rooted in ancient imperial propaganda<br /><br />Xian mythology, like related big-4 monotheisms zoroastrianism, post-exilic judaism, and islam, posits a moralized universal order which never existed. No more can be found in “the starry heavens” than the ancestors put there. (Theology is fifth-rate fan fiction.)<br /><br />Some pseudo-meaning derives ultimately from Sargon I’s (2334-2279 BCE) imperial propaganda when the very first violent yoking together of disparate Sumerian city-state cultures occurred in what is now Iraq. Sargon I appears on a low relief sculpture as a god receiving a legal and moral code directly from a greater god enthroned above him. <br /><br />The first myth of divine origin of emperor and empire-spanning morality turns out to be ancient <i>political spin</i>. (Still works today, doesn’t it?)<br /><br />6. we present a "way" of knowing superior to world hating monster-theisms<br /><br />Adjust your understanding, adjust your expectations, and you will have a right relationship with the only total reality there is, natura naturans. Nature naturing — acting as it always has without any gods’ assistance.<br /><br />the anti-supernaturalistanti_supernaturalisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09981766498305699425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-86356734078113702662009-09-13T19:34:41.656-04:002009-09-13T19:34:41.656-04:002bsirius, I was having a bit of fun or a bit of a ...2bsirius, I was having a bit of fun or a bit of a dig. I over did it. I apologize. It's quite hard to type and convey the feel that I wanted to convey. Added to that, I'm probably just not funny in any case. <br /><br /> Again sorry, I'll leave it at that.Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12256953909644408214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-57251120647817878572009-09-11T15:19:16.280-04:002009-09-11T15:19:16.280-04:00Oops...swap "latter" and "former&qu...Oops...swap "latter" and "former" in my earlier comment, and it'll be right.perspiciohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04756832342990830938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-2528779878819043822009-09-11T15:09:09.888-04:002009-09-11T15:09:09.888-04:00"on the other hand, it is a constant reminder..."on the other hand, it is a constant reminder that even science can get started only on premises that cannot be justified empirically within science itself (think of causality, or reality)"<br /><br />Is there much to say about what these things are? Could that be a real use for metaphysics and not just a reminder?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04191449585002263476noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-52018071328610366732009-09-11T14:48:14.736-04:002009-09-11T14:48:14.736-04:00Perhaps the metaphysics balloon is inflated within...Perhaps the metaphysics balloon is inflated within the epistemology balloon (metaphorically speaking, of course), and the latter has expanded as far as possible within the boundaries of the former.<br /><br />I do disagree with the idea that there can be no wisdom in asking unanswerable questions. Doing so can challenge us to use our minds in different ways, and keep our mental processes flexible and resilient.<br /><br />Whether or not a question is unanswerable depends quite a bit on the model one is thinking within. Since our most reliable models incorporate the understanding that the answers they provide always include some uncertainty, thinking "outside the balloon" really ought not be ruled out as a useful exercise.perspiciohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04756832342990830938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-2804057661152186452009-09-11T11:01:25.031-04:002009-09-11T11:01:25.031-04:00Your knee jerk criticism of me, Brian, reflected i...Your knee jerk criticism of me, Brian, reflected in your observations that my earlier comment: "presage[ed] woo" and, as you further said, that I'm "a purveyor of said bull dust. No one says that science knows it all or is the elixir that will cure your epistemic syphilis."<br />[I edited out your equivocations to distill your real subtext. I hope you don't mind.]<br /><br />Convince me that you have missed the crux of my point. You will likely disagree with me just as strongly for the point I'm really trying to make, but it is vastly different from the position you're attributing to me. <br /><br />I was talking about the limits of science from a position of Popperian pragmatism, not from some sort of "New Age Speak" or whatever your accusation entails.<br /><br />Actually I was thinking both about what Massimo Pigliucci says in this current blog and some points he included in an article he wrote for the current [July/August] issue of Philosophy Now.<br /><br />In the Philosophy Now piece, he points out that scientific research can really be thought of as trial-and-error and not strictly speaking as abstract hypothesis creation, and he quotes Popper in support of this. Implicit in that, unless I'm over reading him, is the idea that science is not and can't be a search for absolute truths.<br /><br />Nicholas Rescher's new book "Nature and Understanding: The Metaphysics and Method of Science" is an eloquent examination of these and other pragmatic limitations inherent in scientific methodology. In many ways it is a reexamination of Popper's "Conjectures and Refutations." <br /><br />Of course, I guess you can now accuse Popper of committing the error you're referring to in your "Kant's description of Aristotle as dove imagining that by leaving empirical reality it could fly with more ease...." But I think the opposite is actually the case.2bsiriushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07020136673515861936noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-70200989354832339022009-09-11T08:49:35.418-04:002009-09-11T08:49:35.418-04:00There is nothing wrong with saying "I/We don&...There is nothing wrong with saying "I/We don't know the answer".NewEnglandBobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07190715223856189053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-79986836102752141442009-09-11T08:22:26.246-04:002009-09-11T08:22:26.246-04:00We need to admit that there are stubborn areas wit...<i>We need to admit that there are stubborn areas within the sciences which have not yet [and indeed may NEVER] lend themselves to the rigid taxonomy of extreme, over-specialized minutiae, but in order to admit this, we would need to stop hiding behind our false hubris.</i><br /><br /> Comments like this often presage woo. I apoligize if you're not a purveyor of said bull dust. No one says that science knows it all or is the elixir that will cure your epistemic syphilis. What is said is that with science, we at least can test what we hold to be true and conditionally confirm it. In theory at least. Metaphysics of a certain type (I'm ignorant of all that uses that term as an umbrella) is not testable, and thus just a flight of fancy.....Like Kant's description of Aristotle as dove imagining that by leaving empirical reality it could fly with more ease....Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12256953909644408214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-3642695783406412392009-09-11T07:56:47.166-04:002009-09-11T07:56:47.166-04:00Nick,
sorry to disappoint you, but I don't se...Nick,<br /><br />sorry to disappoint you, but I don't see why you are disappointed. You seem to agree with most of what I say, and my conclusion doesn't seem (to me) to be as strong as you take it to be.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-76995050624514005842009-09-11T07:41:01.288-04:002009-09-11T07:41:01.288-04:00I agree with the comments pointing to the fluff wh...I agree with the comments pointing to the fluff which sometimes masquerades as "the new metaphysics." Facile claims like these can short-circuit the rigor of naturalism and of scientific investigation, BUT I also worry that there are areas within the sciences where indeterminacy and even non-computability are glossed over in favor of a dogmatic insistence on coherence where none exists.<br /><br />We need to admit that there are stubborn areas within the sciences which have not yet [and indeed may NEVER] lend themselves to the rigid taxonomy of extreme, over-specialized minutiae, but in order to admit this, we would need to stop hiding behind our false hubris.2bsiriushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07020136673515861936noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-74254973654805974012009-09-11T07:13:13.649-04:002009-09-11T07:13:13.649-04:00I have to agree Massimo. As my recent rant pointed...I have to agree Massimo. As my recent rant pointed out, I don't get philosophers who deny what physics says in favour of the likes of Descartes (i.e. mind is immaterial substance causing an effect in material body/brain). Sometimes I think that metaphysics is what we label our ignorance.Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12256953909644408214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-42004717232666716512009-09-11T05:43:43.762-04:002009-09-11T05:43:43.762-04:00To ask unanswerable questions is not to be wise or...To ask unanswerable questions is not to be wise or insightful. Especially not if the questions are nonsense.Per Edmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07472605187515049340noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-44387678489903340582009-09-11T00:45:37.808-04:002009-09-11T00:45:37.808-04:00Do you think it is possible to "make" go...Do you think it is possible to "make" gold out of say, coffee grounds?Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12470122906255222769noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1436472339418664942009-09-10T23:47:11.811-04:002009-09-10T23:47:11.811-04:00Massimo,
In the past I've found your writing ...Massimo,<br /><br />In the past I've found your writing about philosophy to be very illuminating, but I'm afraid this post "just doesn't cut it". Your main points seem to be:<br /><br />* Metaphysics is out of fashion<br />* A lot of metaphysics has been replaced by science, especially physics<br />* A lot of metaphysics is "fluff"<br /><br />I suspect that much of this is correct. But the conclusions in your final paragraph don't follow from this. The most fundamental questions that metaphysics focuses on have not been answered by science, nor can we expect them to be. Answers to these questions may not be forthcoming, but that doesn't mean we should stop thinking about them.Nick Barrowmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11224940659269649220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-29126705480234706352009-09-10T22:08:35.401-04:002009-09-10T22:08:35.401-04:00Are you familiar with the work of Quentin Smith? ...Are you familiar with the work of Quentin Smith? He has done some work in metaphysics and I'm curious about your opinions on his ideas.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-3957507936529885802009-09-10T20:02:57.319-04:002009-09-10T20:02:57.319-04:00Jose`, actually the speaker is a professional phil...Jose`, actually the speaker is a professional philosopher from Poland, who has been visiting the Graduate Center here in New York for the past year or so.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-40770283837989708992009-09-10T16:25:06.115-04:002009-09-10T16:25:06.115-04:00But as for a satisfactory description and explanat...<em>But as for a satisfactory description and explanation of our basic beliefs about the world, it seems to me that they are much more likely to come from, respectively, the cognitive sciences and evolutionary biology than philosophy.</em><br /><br />This sounds to me like a task for anthropologists, historians, and literary scholars, but then perhaps I focused more on the descriptive part and you focused more on the explanatory part.<br /><br />I think the issue boils down to this: So long as there are people (including professional philosophers) who are unsatisfied with naturalism, there will be people pushing allegedly new ideas in metaphysics <strong>and</strong> epistemelogy.mufihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01818949854678769391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-34831029524509670992009-09-10T16:07:01.782-04:002009-09-10T16:07:01.782-04:00Unfortunately, nonsense is unchangeably persistent...Unfortunately, nonsense is unchangeably persistent.Konrad Talmont-Kaminskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05136133369582249025noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-88186300808804503272009-09-10T15:58:00.682-04:002009-09-10T15:58:00.682-04:00Hi,
(Sorry in advance for my poor English).
I...Hi,<br /><br />(Sorry in advance for my poor English).<br /><br />I'm pretty sure, the speaker at the talk is not a professional philosopher, perhaps not even a student. Because metaphysics enjoys in these days a respectful, healthy, intelligible, and perfectly rational life. Just see some of the introductory works by E. J. Lowe, Jaegwon Kim, John Heil. Another good landscape view of the field is the entry at Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (available in the Internet, see also the one on "categories"). Old "aristotelian" problems remain (the nature of causation, particulars, etc) and genuinely new ones arise (physicalism of several brands compete with each other, new issues on categories, etc).<br />To sum up, we don't have to accept the concept of metaphysics drawn by positivists. Moreover, metaphysical posits of this philosophical school became, at one point in the history, totally unpalatable (the so called sense data theory, for example). <br /><br />Congratulations for the blog.José Mªhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17894409840270691672noreply@blogger.com