PeterJ

Oh dear. You seem to think we are having an argument. I stated his result above. All positive metaphysical positions are logically absurd. This implies that the universe is a unity. I have no intention of talking about the implications for physics here, since it will just become a pointless argument. I will just say that there are some. If you're interested then you can do the research. if you don't believe, that's fine. The point is that you wish to reject these ideas without understanding them, and this is the practice that I am complaining about.

Hi Strange Maybe his point does have something to do with science. There's only one way to find out. His proof would rock the boat because he proves that his description of reality is the only one that is not logically absurd. . . The implications for physics are for physicists to work out. I wish they'd get on with it. We need not argue about this. I'm not making a case for Nagarjuna, and I really don't want to argue as opposed to explore our disagreements. I'm making a case for education, for some exploration of what lies outside the box. You should be able to tell me exactly where Nagarjuna went wrong if he did. If you cannot do this then it perfectly possible that his philosophy and worldview is correct. Surely it would be better practice to falsify a theory than ignore it, It could be argued that this would a job for philosophy and not physics, but I think we should forget all about these artificial barriers to knowledge. Knowledge is not divided up like university departments. The question about implications for physics is a fair one. I explore it informally in the blogosphere. But only a physicist would dare risk saying anything much. I tried to explore the issue a couple times here but it was not a welcome topic of discussion, to put it mildly. There are physicists who work on this, however, if you look around. For Nagarjuna it is more difficult to make a recommendation. I could recommend one or two Buddhist writers, but none that clearly explain simply what Nagarjuna;s work actually means in relation to science or western philosophy. Except me. But for an unaffiliated researcher it's difficult to do the research when it means raising the issues in science forums. It's not a topic anyone wants to discuss, even though it is, in my opinion, the most likely next hot topic for physics. . . , How many physcists understand his proof?. How many know it? How many bother to explore its ramifications? How many have published refutations or falsifications? How many students leave physics and philosophy courses with any knowledge of it? How much do you know about it? His solution is complete. This is obvious from the form of his proof and its conclusion. If you can show that it is not then you should publish. Of course, it may not be obvious that the solution is correct,. although it was to me as soon as I came across it, Your third point seems not worth answering. It would mean that a proof of E=Mc2 almost certainly contains flaws. Its all very simple. N's proof refutes all positive metaphysical positions. That's it. In order to explore the implications for physics this is all we would need to know. How easy is that? But the proof requires the refutation of a long list of theories, and he does not waste words. If we wish to invalidate his proof we would have to do years of work. But for physics all that matters is his result, and this is easy to state. There is not only no evidence that this can be falsified in logic, but it is possible to show that it would be impossible to do so. So it is up to physics to test his result. If it cannotbe tested in physics then it might as well be true, for it works like a dream in philosophy.

This has nothing to do with why Nagarjuna is ignored. He proves his point yet is ignored. A better reason would be that scientists often despise philosophy. . An even better reason is that they aren't interested in what Nagarjuna proves because it would rock the boat rather violently. Yet how can we ever determine the implications of his proof for physics if physicists aren't going to do the work. Actually some of them are, but it's only a handful as yet.

Nagarjuna should be firmly embedded in the curriculum yet is widely ignored. When someone claims to have solved metaphysics and nobody has yet falsified their proof then they should not be ignored. They should be studied in case they succeeded. Students are betrayed by this kind of censorship. The suffering referred to by Buddhists would not be quite what you appear to think it is, Endy. It would not be something that science can solve or eliminate, and nor would it render the world bleak. There would be no unavoidable suffering since suffering would not be truly real. It would be because of this that suffering (unsatisfactoriness) can be transcended. This would be a practical task, not the task of philosophy, but philosophy can describe how and why the cessation of suffering is possible. Whether Nagarjuna's philosophy is a true description or schematic of the world is an interesting question but not the point here. He claims to have solved problems and at least technically-speaking he succeeds. This is not the case with Dan Dennett or indeed more than a handful of currently popular mainstream philosophers. Kant puts forward many of the ideas we would need for N's view, and although he is considered a pillar of the western tradition he is ignored as well. So is Hegel, Bradley, Schopenhauer and all the others who share Nagarjuna's view fully or mostly. In my view scientists should not trust the philosophical establishment to do the work and should undertake it themselves. Otherwise, on the evidence so far, philosophy in academia will never catch up with physics. If I seem anti-science here sometimes, well, I am in some ways, but this is nothing compared to my contempt for academic philosophy. Scientists who do not study it for themselves are at the mercy of self-publicising fools whose only skill is sophistry and who have no idea how the world works. Pardon the rant, but it makes me mad. . ,

Good question, But perhaps this is not quite the way to look at it. The Buddha was concerned primarily with soteriology, and a search of the sutras reveals little overt discussion of philosophical or scientific problems. His soteriology rests on or implies an ontology, however, or metaphysical scheme, or, if you like, 'theory of everything'. As a metaphysical description of Reality it is necessary to rely on Nagarjuna, for he later proves the metaphysical implications of the Buddha's soteriology, or, some would say, proves that it must be correct. Nagarjuna solves all metaphysical problems by adopting a neutral metaphysical position. This would be the position associated with 'nondualism', and it helps explain the phrase 'Middle Way' as it came to be applied to Nagarjuna's form of the doctrine. My teas is cooked so I must stop here, but a lot of this stuff is googlable.

Philosophy discovers that all partial metaphysical theories are logically absurd. It is the claim of the esoteric or mystical religious tradition that all such theories are false. Ergo. philosophy endorses religion. Not any old religion, but the religion that was endorsed by Erwin Schrodinger, viz. the perennial philosophy or doctrine of the Upanishads. This is factual information. There is a mountain of evidence and it is easily accessible. I did not say that atheism is wrong. I'm an atheist. It is a mistake to imagine that religion requires theism, and this is what I'm trying to point out. To criticise religion in a meaningful we have to get past the window dressing. I'd join the critics for many religious ideas, especially in the west. Perhaps you're right Willie, and it was rude to compare you with Dawkins. But I see no greater grasp of the issues. Religion is not beyond scientific study, as you say, but it is beyond the natural sciences. All metaphysical issues are beyond the natural sciences, which is why they are metaphysical. Even consciousness is out of reach. I would say more, but not sure what. Personally I find there to be no disagreement between science and religion, only between certain speculative but unnecessary views that clash, like the religious and scientific views held by some people here. I feel the old 'dismiss religion out of hand' approach is becoming a bit dated and holding back progress. .

First, let my apologise to the OP. I muddled up who posted what and confused you (Willie) with him at one point. Above you've posted a long post that displays no understanding of religion. It seems to be based on an acquaintance with the public face of the Abrahamic religions, but never seems to get past the Dawkins level of research. I won't quote since the whole thing is a bit weird, but this was not a good start... "Religion is way to explain the natural world in the absence of scientific evidence." We may as well say the same of philosophy, and it would just as untrue. I know that many modern theists despise science, but even they get up every day to be confronted by mountains of scientific evidence. Without it there's nothing to explain. Also, dismissing existential realisations by reference to dopamine levels is no better than simply saying that you don't believe in them, even if it looks like a vaguely more scientific thing to say. The real issue is that religion is judged on most shallow and most easily dismissed forms. Try taking the philosophy of the Upanishads as your target and you'll find your comments no longer make any sense. I'm fine with dismissing much of religion as being dumbed-down for didactic reasons or for easy public consumption, or, as the Rig Veda has it, for the recruitment of large numbers of followers. But as the Rig Veda shows, this form of religion has always been criticised from within religion. Let's criticize it, but let's not imagine this is all of religion. I'm all for scientists coming in and sorting out what is true and false within religion. But all that'll be affected is superficial stuff like what revolves around what or corrections to history. For a real attack on religion we'd have to get to know the doctrine of dependent origination, the doctrine of two truths, the ramifications of nondualism, the logic of absolute idealism, the doctrine of Divine Simplicity, the claim that nothing really exists, the claim that there is no personal or 'intentional' God and many other ideas that are endorsed within religion. After all, if it were as obvious as you say that religion is nonsense then no sane person would give it the time of day.

Yes, Imatfaal, I apologise for always sniping. It must be annoying. But really, this stuff is very naïve. Science has not disproved even one important teaching of religion, and it never will. It's a confusion of territories. Philosophy and metaphysics might refute some of its ideas, even all of then in theory, but the physical sciences do not have the tools. And as it happens philosophy endorses a religious view. The trouble is that it's easy to say 'You're wrong', but to explain the mistakes would take weeks. I'd be happy to mention my blog, where I put my money where my mouth is, but I always feel I shouldn't do this here. Meanwhile, I'd just ask the OP to factor into his religious equations more than Popery and Protestant dogmatism. There is also advaita Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Sufism, Theosophy, transcendental idealism and so on, all of whom are doing very nicely thank you. The idea that this worldview has been falsified by science is a mistake. Regardless of whether it is true, correct, accurate, as a description of the world, it makes no claims (and never has) that would be inconsistent with current science. To be dismissive of one narrow approach to religion does not work globally. It just addresses one form of dogmatic religion, a form I'd also be happy to see the back of. I was dismissive of the OP because it is clear he is not a student of comparative religion but has a narrow view based on his local form of religion. Or, that's how it seems from here. It is a problem that where people become opposed to religion they also become disinclined to investigate it. Then their critical arguments tend to become toothless. But yes. You're right. I should stop sniping and learn to live with it.

Willie - I guess that your post took a lot of time and would say it's well put together. Unfortunately it almost completely misses the mark. Why does nobody bother to research religion properly before writing about it? A mystery. This is not an example of a scientific approach but of a lazy approach taken by many amateur detractors and the odd biologist. Sorry, but not impressed. Get to know your topic before risking writing about it.

Lol. Yes, why would you care what the solution to philosophical problems might be. First one would have to know what they are. This is childish and I'm off. It amazes me that there is so little interest in these issues on this forum.

John - Are you saying that you cannot distinguish a philosophical problem from a scientific one? And what has all those PhDs got to do with anything? But no matter. I've said my piece. It seems even Kant is unknown around here and I didn't take that distant possibility into account, so probably pitched my comments all wrong. .

2501 - It would not be possible for science to supersede philosophy. It would like mathematics superseding psychology, They are different areas of study. This is why they have different names. .

Sorry John, but I don't know how to answer your question. Philosophy has not made any progress in the East for centuries. It arrived at the end long ago. So the last fifty years were no different from the previous one thousand and fifty years. But you might notice that Buddhists, Taoists, Sufis, Absolute Idealists, Vedantists and others who hold this view of philosophy are generally pretty happy people, tend to care for other people and do little harm in the word, and that they don't have to spend all their time worrying about philosophy. It's a subtle effect, and not without exceptions, but it can be discerned. If you're asking me what philosophy could do for you then this would be a more interesting question. I predict that it would change your life considerably for the better were you to study it carefully. Just as long as you don't assume that you're bound to fail, which is always a self-fulfilling prophecy, and only if you don't care where ideas originate as long as they work. I'm sure you'd agree that there must be a solution for philosophy even if this is not it. if so, then it would be important to establish that this is not it, and not to simply dismiss it. This solution would explain why western metaphysics does not solve problems. It would be because this is the only solution it refuses to consider. It's refusal to consider this solution is exactly what distinguishes it as 'western'. Really it's a no-brainer. There obviously is a solution it refuses to consider, otherwise a solution would have been found by now. So you've got half the world saying they have the solution, and the other half refusing to believe that there could be a solution. It's a bit weird if you stand back and look at the situation. To be fair to us westerners, lots of western philosophers do find this solution, but once they've found it they are no longer viewed as part of the tradition, and tend to disappear from the curriculum. Kant is clearly on my side as to the solution for philosophy, albeit he never quite sorted it all out, perhaps because he didn't have the internet, and yet he is supposed to be a central pillar of the western philosophical tradition. It is all stranger than fiction. Kant shows us the solution for philosophy if we interpret him sympathetically. I'm only agreeing with him.

It was not solved by science. If you think that science can solve philosophical problems then we'd have to backtrack and start the discussion at a more simple level. Freewill and determinism are not scientifically testable theories. Or not unless we call metaphysics a science of logic, which I'd be okay with. There is a reason that science is not called philosophy. To repeat, the solution would be to 'sublate' the two terms and ideas, such that they can be seen to be two ways of viewing the same phenomenon. We would have to abandon all extreme views. This is a solution because it has explanatory power and it can be generalised, Simply denying freewill gets us nowhere, and in the sciences it cannot be more than a guess. It might be a good guess, but nobody is interested in guesswork stated as fact.

Abandoning Newton was necessary for a solution, but I agree that it was not in itself the solution. I want to stress the necessity of abandoning unworkable positions here, however, since until one has seen the necessity for doing this the remaining position will seem ad hoc and unnecessarily weird. If we cannot understand what the problem with philosophy is then we cannot hope to solve it. I'll start easing myself out of this since I'm just causing trouble. I'd suggest reading about Nagarjuna for more background on what I'm proposing. Or, if you like mathematics, George Spencer Brown or Hermann Weyl. For a more western style refutation of positive theories there is Bradley's Appearance and Reality. For something more relevant to physics there is Ulrich Mohrhoff. Tom MacFarlane is excellent on all these topics and has plenty online. They all adopt the same solution but explain it from different angles. It is a very common view but goes largely unnoticed in scientific circles, at least now that the early QM pioneers, who were often good philosophers, have passed on. Schrodinger got it, and spent forty years arguing for this view. So no need for me to bang on. I'll assume a lack of interest and beat a retreat, just like I always end up doing here. It is a remarkably closed-minded forum, I must say. .

Example: Freewill vs Determinism This is two extreme metaphysical positions. Neither idea works. They form the two horns of an ancient dilemma. The problem is undecidable for the reason Kant gives. The solution would be to reject both. This solution can be seen as a global compatibilism. This approach assumes that the universe is a unity, thus that all distinctions are emergent. Mind/Matter, Externalism/Internalism, Something/Nothing, Beginning/no-Beginning, One/Many, and so forth, the solution would be same in each case. The assumption that the universe is a unity (not a 'One' - which is simple monism) requires that we abandon all partial theories. Now, you may not see much in this, because it needs a book's worth of elaboration. But it is the only solution of philosophy that has ever been proposed and it is irrefutable. So, it is not actually possible to prove that philosophy does not solve problems since we cannot prove that this is not the solution. The solution would be, as I've said a few times above, to abandon all extreme metaphysical theories. How this can be seen as 'not giving a solution' I'm not sure. It would be the solution. These are difficult topics and I am not a genius at communicating, but it must be pretty clear by now what I'm saying by now. If not my apologies, but maybe it's too ambitious to do this on a forum starting from scratch.

You ask me how dismissing whole swathes of philosophy is a solution to anything. This is how we solve problems in the sciences. We solved gravity by dismissing Newton. We can solve philosophy by dismissing all the philosophers who have failed to solve it. You ask me to explain which problems it can solve, and I have said it's all of them. I'm giving a general solution, not a solution to this or that problem. The beginning of the solution would be to abandon the views that do not work. If we cannot do this then there is no way forward. In order to see how this solution works we would have to understand what the problem with philosophy actually is. I've tried to explain but the task is beyond me in a hostile environment. So I'll just say simply yes, philosophy solves problems, once has the trick of it. For further info there is plenty of relevant literature. The trick would be to abandon all extreme theories. Basically, this means taking certain parts of Kant and Hegel seriously. Yes, this is dismissing one whole swathe of philosophy, and this would be why it works as a solution. But it takes time to see this, and time is something we haven't got here. I cannot get past the first part of an explanation. If we cannot understand Kant's comment that all selective conclusions about the world as a whole are undecidable, then we cannot understand how to solve philosophy. So this would be the place to start. The doubt about the effectiveness of philosophy arises from the fact that Kant identifies, but in western thought there is no solution to it. Give this fact a different interpretation and we will have a solution. But first we would have to understand this fact, and I'm not convinced that anyone here has yet grasped it. In this case, there's not much chance that what I'm saying will seem sensible. I'm solving a problem that has not been recognised as a problem, so the solution will make no sense. Yes, philosophy solves problems. But this cannot be understood if we do not study the issues. The first issue is why the problem arise in the first place, which is what I tried to explain. But no matter, I have no wish to browbeat anyone and just wanted to defend philosophy from the charge of being useless. People tend to look at western philosophy and judge the whole subject pointless, forgetting that this is a subset of philosophy based on ideas that are rejected by every philosopher who ever claimed to have solved philosophy. Also, to grasp this approach we would have to be able to talk about mysticism in a calm and balanced way, and I think you'd agree that this would not be the place to do attempt to do this. .

Nothing at all as far as I can see. It is almost a complete waste of time in the West since it can solve no problems. I presume you're excluding any other kind of philosophy from consideration. Otherwise you would have seen the value in it.

Strange - I'm sorry you don't understand what I'm saying,. Probably my fault. I certainly have no idea what your complaint is. John repeats the usual opinion above. He see no use for philosophy. Why? Because nobody listens when someone offers them a solution. They start leaping up and down with indignation and assume, because this is what they believe, that philosophy is so useless that nobody could have a solution, therefore a person which claims otherwise must be talking nonsense, therefore there would be no point in trying to understand what they're saying. Case closed. You ask a question to which you firmly believe you already know the answer. I see no purpose in it. You believe that philosophy cannot solve problems, and I'm trying to explain why you believe this. If you did not believe this then you would not have asked the question. You believe it because you refuse to consider the potential solution that I'm offering. Perhaps you can tell me what's wrong with it. Or perhaps I explained it badly. Who knows. Clearly one person did not see any meaning in it and chooses to bandy insults rather than talk about it.

Surreal, yes. The OP asked, Does philosophy solve any problems? He would not be asking this if he could see it solving any problems. Therefore, his question supports my proposal that the solution does not lie in any of the theories that are considered by stereotypically 'western' thinkers. This is a very simple point. The point is simply that western metaphysics is a failure, and I see no reason for providing any evidence when it is so obvious. Clearly most people here regard it as a failure so I'm not sure why we'd disagree about this. All I'm doing is explaining why it is a failure. I'm not saying 'all science is wrong' like some naïve idiot. I'm stating that one tradition of metaphysics has got it wrong, and that this would be the only reason the OP needs to ask this question. If we are going to stick with this tradition then my answer to the question would be a simple no. It is obviously no. Footnotes to Plato and no progress in many centuries. I was suggesting we should move on.

When the OP asked his question he did not know of my existence, so I have no idea what you're saying here. Philosophy is not useless. It is just that bad workmen blame their tools. . If you cannot grasp what I'm saying then my apologies, but I can't write essays here. To say that philosophy does not solve problems means ignoring a vast swathe of literature. When one mentions this nobody is interested. So philosophy gets the blame for the narrow thinking of some of its practitioners and the western tradition is preserved intact, to continue to fail until the end of time. Yes. western university philosophy is useless and solves no problems. We can at least agree about that.

Strange - This is missing the point. The OP's question was asked because for many people philosophy does not solve problems. I was suggesting that we need to ask why they think this. Clearly it is because all positive theories do not work. If they did work, then nobody would be asking the OP's question. In other words, the OP's question is in itself evidence that what I'm suggesting about metaphysics is correct.

Hi knyazik - What you say seems spot on. Both sides have an antipathy to metaphysics. It is where we are forced to face the logic of our situation. Not many people seem to notice this and your the first I've seen mention it. But it very obvious when you read the anti-science and anti-religion literature. Not a decent discussion of metaphysics in sight. It's difficult to refer you to any decent explanations of metaphysics. I don't know of any book that successfully marries up western and eastern ideas to provide an easy bridge between them. It is a huge chasm to cross. I think my suggestion would depend on whether you would already accept that, in Kant's terminology, 'all selective conclusions about the world as a whole are undecidable', in Nagarjuna's, 'All positive metaphysical theories are logically indefensible', or whether you've not grasped the meaning and seen the equivalence of these statements yet. . What sort of sources are you after exactly? I could PM by blog but this wasn't supposed to be advertising. . . ..

It was full of meaning, more than in many whole text books, but I can accept that it's difficult to see this when it is such a brief statement. Andrew. It didn't take me ten years to reach this conclusion. It took me ten years to learn to to say it this simply. It took three days to reach the conclusion. It was Nagarjuna who most famously proved what I'm saying here about metaphysics, but nearly all metaphysicians prove it. Why has metaphysics has made no progress for so long, and why none is none predicted? Why would someone post a forum thread with this title? It is because all positive metaphysical theories are logically absurd, and this can make it seem that (logical/analytical) metaphysics is a dead end. Nagarjuna's solution would be to abandon all these absurd theories for a neutral metaphysical position. This would be the philosophical foundation of the perennial philosophy, mysticism and Middle Way Buddhism. According to this view .the ethical problem set out by Strange would be solved by assuming the unity of the universe. For the mystic right and wrong would be contextual, relative, non-absolute. It would not always be wrong to kill a person, and this is perhaps why a story is preserved that in a previous life the Buddha committed a murder in order to save a boatload of people. Ethics would be solved by assuming that we share a common identity with all sentient beings. An enlightened person would know this, would be aware of it constantly. In their case there would be do difference between selfish and altruistic behaviour since the ego has departed and the unity of the universe is a living reality. (This would be the solution to altruism given Schopenhauer, when he explains it as the 'break through of a metaphysical truth'. For us this is just a conjectural theory, but as a theory it works in logic. As a metaphysical theory it would be the only one that does work, and this is demonstrable, It is this theory that is always rejected by people who cannot solve philosophical problems. It may not be obvious at first that it is a theory, and not just the absence of one. The logical positivists knew for certain that all positive or extreme theories do not work. This was their entire criticism of metaphysics. The solution that I'm proposing here accepts this fact. But it awards this fact a different interpretation. If all these positive theories do not work, then we must assume that they have to be rejected. This leaves only one theory standing. It is this theory that we would need to understand in order to solve philosophical problems. Note: A 'positive theory is what Kant calls a 'partial' or 'selective' theory. Such theories always have a mirror-image counter-theory. .

Maybe it's too big a topic for a forum. It shows the way philosophy is neglected in our society that what I said above is not already well understood. There's nothing new in it.