Is Philosophy crap?

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Everybody please stop with the insults and owl, it would be rather nice if you could stop the tangential rambling and stick to the topic.

[tar]

A Tripolation,

 

Kant's metaphysics and "categories" and determinations built on the foundations of an a priori intuition of space, and of time, finds some close analogs in modern day linquistics and cognitive sciences.

 

Regards, TAR2

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

owl and ydoaPs (and tar),

I have moved all of your off-topic conversation to this thread. Do not derail this thread again with that line of conversation and stop the bickering.

[PeterJ]

PeterJ,

 

You keep saying that philosophers can not make a positive assertion.

 

And you seem rather positive that this is the case.

 

If you are right, then you are contradicting yourself.

 

If you are wrong, which I think you are, then that leaves me free to both philosophize and assert positive things about objective reality, as they become evident to me.

 

Regards, TAR

 

And of what use would philosophy be, if it did not teach us what it is we can say about the world, in truth?

 

A misunderstanding. Of course philosophy can make positive claims. It makes countless positive claims. Its central claim (or result) is that all positive metaphysical positions are logically indefensible. This is its most useful general result (or most general useful result) . This result is ignored by science and seems to little known to those who prefer to think that philosophy is useless, but ignoring it does not make it go away. It will never go away since it is a philosophical result. It is one of the results that make it worth learning bit about philosophy.

 

It is easy to confirm this result so it's not something we neeed to argue about.

 

A Tripolation,

 

Kant's metaphysics and "categories" and determinations built on the foundations of an a priori intuition of space, and of time, finds some close analogs in modern day linquistics and cognitive sciences.

 

Regards, TAR2

For the most part modern day sciences ignore Kant's metaphysics. If it did not they (and you also) would take seriously his argument that all positive metaphysical theories are undecidable. But philosophy is held in such low regard these days that Kant is ignored. Besides, it is not convenient for the sciences to take any notice of Kant. Best to sweep his arguments under the carpet, call them metaphysics and then argue that metaphysics is useless.

 

It may be that it is only because the sciences makes such poor use of philosophy that some people come to think philosophy is useless. To be useful it must be used.

[immortal]

For the most part modern day sciences ignore Kant's metaphysics. If it did not they (and you also) would take seriously his argument that all positive metaphysical theories are undecidable. But philosophy is held in such low regard these days that Kant is ignored. Besides, it is not convenient for the sciences to take any notice of Kant. Best to sweep his arguments under the carpet, call them metaphysics and then argue that metaphysics is useless.

 

The natural sciences doesn't completely ignore the arguments of Kant though, instead it says all positive metaphysical theories are undecidable unfalsifiable, if they are falsifiable then they are pretty much in the scientific realm itself. The whole Copenhagen Interpretation is based on such thinking.

 

If we take his arguments seriously then no one even the natural sciences cannot make a positive assertion and assert that the world is like this or like that, then do we have to resort into some kind of Kantian transcendentalism? Can you enlighten me on this?

[tar]

PeteJ,

 

I am reading Kant.

 

I don't take what and why he says things in the same manner you do.

 

I am not an authority on the matter, certainly, but there is a difference between you saying that Kant says this or that, and me thinking that Kant is saying this or that.

 

And there are important implications between using words like indefensible, undecidable, and unfalsifiable, as Immortal points out.

 

To screw this around and state it the way you do, is somehow wrong in my mind. You keep saying it is so simple to show that it is not worth arguing about...when in fact, finding simple truths from which one can deduce much, is crucial to the whole operation of thought.

 

I don't think you have a positive outlook on the thing.

 

Perhaps we cannot know the thing in its self, but there is much we can say about it. That we are only working with a representation of the thing, does not mean the thing itself is not real.

 

Regards, TAR2

[PeterJ]

The natural sciences doesn't completely ignore the arguments of Kant though, instead it says all positive metaphysical theories are undecidable unfalsifiable, if they are falsifiable then they are pretty much in the scientific realm itself. The whole Copenhagen Interpretation is based on such thinking.

 

They are undecidable precisely because they are falsifiable, (except that this is a muddled way of saying it). A positive theory is falsifiable, while a pair of such theories formed into a metaphysical question will be undecidable and appear to be a dilemma.

 

For example, the theory that the universe begins from Something is falsifiable in logic, as is the theory that it begins with Nothing. Ergo the question of whether it begins with either is undecidable in logic. The theory that 2 + 2 = 5 or 3 is undecidable for the same reason. Both answers are falsifiable. Thus we can say that positive metaphysical positions are falsifiable, (give rise to contradictions), while the question of which of any pair of such positions is true is undecidable. This is why metaphysics often considered a waste of time - i.e Carnap, Russell et al. Kant an Hegel's view is the only alternative to such pessimism.

 

If we take his arguments seriously then no one even the natural sciences cannot make a positive assertion and assert that the world is like this or

that, then do we have to resort into some kind of Kantian transcendentalism? Can you enlighten me on this?

 

We can make positive claims about the world with no problems. It is only where these claims have metaphysical implications that the problems arise, iow where we make claims about the world as a whole, or about first principles. When we do this we must either adopt a 'via negativa' approach to metaphysics or make claims that can be falsified in logic.

 

If we take Kant seriously then yes, we must end up with something close to his view or Hegel's. This would follow ineluctably from Kant's analysis of the categories of thought and of metaphysics, which analysis gives rise to his claim that there is a real and fundamental phenomenon that is not an instance of a category. This is presumably the reason why Kant is ignored. He felt that this phenomenon ought to be the subject of any rational psychology and would be the axiom required for any rational metaphysics, cosmology or ontology, but this would be a very big step.

 

This is important because Kant gives us a logical argument for religion. Trouble is, it is not an argument for theism, so Kant is ignored just about everywhere. Hegel's 'spiritual unity' is not where most scientists and philosophers want to go.

 

Imho metaphysics is the best formal argument for religion that there is. But only if we have the balls to go wherever logic takes us.

 

There can be no doubt that Kant is right about the undecidablilty of these questions. It would completely explain why in the West metaphysics goes nowhere from one century to the next. There is only one way to go and few people want to go that way.

 

Note that Russell, who dismissed metaphysics as useless, neverthless did get as far as seeing that Kant was right in respect of the Mind-Matter dilemma, and thus endorsed a form of neutral monism. His monism doesn't work but it does suggest he recognised the problem. Wittgenstein and Carnap also saw it very clearly, but preferred to say that metaphysics is useless rather than follow Kant. Few people want to follow Kant and Hegel. Nondualism of some kind is what they endorse and that is religion, heaven forbid.

 

This is why I get so annoyed when people dismiss philosophy as useless. It's extremely useful if we do it honestly, but in academic books on the topics honesty is usually set aside for sophistry. Metaphysics is easy if do fall for this approach.

 

I'm happy to say more to nail this point about undecidabllity, if you like. It is completely crucial to a solution for metaphysics and also to any understanding of the philosophy that grounds 'Eastern' religion and esoteric Christianity, Islam etc. If Russell and Carnap and Kant are wrong about metaphysical questions then Buddhism and Taoism must be nonsense. If we know why this is so then we have a solution for all metaphysical questions even if we don't want to endorse it.

 

PeteJ,

 

I am reading Kant.

 

I don't take what and why he says things in the same manner you do.

 

I am not an authority on the matter, certainly, but there is a difference between you saying that Kant says this or that, and me thinking that Kant is saying this or that.

 

And there are important implications between using words like indefensible, undecidable, and unfalsifiable, as Immortal points out.

 

To screw this around and state it the way you do, is somehow wrong in my mind. You keep saying it is so simple to show that it is not worth arguing about...when in fact, finding simple truths from which one can deduce much, is crucial to the whole operation of thought.

 

I don't think you have a positive outlook on the thing.

 

Perhaps we cannot know the thing in its self, but there is much we can say about it. That we are only working with a representation of the thing, does not mean the thing itself is not real.

 

Regards, TAR2

I'm not sure this constitutes an argument against my view. I am not endorsing all of Kant's philsophy, but referring to his conclusions about metaphysical problems.

 

Here are two quotes that make Kant's view clear in this respect. The first gives the state of play in metaphysics if we ignore him.

 

"Reason in metaphysics, even if it tries, as it professes, only to gain a priori insight into those laws which are confirmed by our most common experience, is constantly being brought to a standstill, and we are obliged again and again to retrace our steps, as they do not lead us where we want to go. As to unanimity among its participants, there is so little of it in metaphysics that it has rather become an arena that would become especially suited for those who wish to exercise themselves in mock fights, and where no combatant has as yet succeeded in gaining even an inch of ground that he could call his permanent possession." (Critique of Pure Reason)

 

Here is Körner summarising Kant’s view of psychology and the categories of thought.

 

"In the Analytic of Concepts Kant has drawn a sharp distinction between the ‘I think which must be capable of all my presentations,’ thereby giving them synthetic unity, and the empirical, introspective, self which is itself a presentation. To be truly a priori rational psychology must have for its subject the former, i.e. the self of pure self-consciousness. This however is not, according to Kant, an object of experience and so of the applicability of the Categories. It is not an instance of any Category."

 

I am extremely careful in my use of the words indefensible, undecidable and falsifiable, although mistakes are always possible, me being human n'all. I do not throw these words around loosely since to do so would be the death of rational thinking.

 

My attitude is more positive than anyone else here as far as I can tell. I am positive that metaphysics is a certain guide to truth.

 

As to the issues being simple, they are from my perspective. But they won't be from any other perspective. From any other perspective metaphysics is a nest of vipers. I can't do anything about this, it's just the way it is.

 

If you want me to explain to you how you can win at metaphysics I can do so. You never need lose another argument about it. Nobody will be able to falsify your view. It may be false, that's for you to test, but there's no way to demonstrate that it is in science or philosophy. All other views must fail to gain or hold an inch of ground.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 29, 2012 by PeterJ

[John Cuthber]

You asked what philosophy gave us and I answered with historical fact.

 

 

Me too.

If philosophy just means thinking about stuff then it's ubiquitous and we hardly need a word for it.

[tar]

PeterJ,

 

Winning or losing a philosophical argument, is not really why I discuss things with people. Noticing the common truth is more important to me. If I thought I was totally right about everything, but nobody agreed, that would be useless. Not a victory of any kind at all. I am neither the first nor the last, nor the smartest nor the dumbest, to consider the nature of their relationship with objective reality. Where the victories are achieved is when the thing is clear and evident to all.

 

When something is true, it simply is. No argument is required.

 

Regards, TAR2

[PeterJ]

PeterJ,

 

Winning or losing a philosophical argument, is not really why I discuss things with people. Noticing the common truth is more important to me.

Yes. But noticing which arguments you win and which you lose is a traditional way of testing the soundness your ideas. And if you do notice the truth then you will not lose any arguments regardless of whether you want to have any or not. I'm not suggesting that winning is the point of talking, but dealing with counter-arguments is a good way to test your theories.

 

If I thought I was totally right about everything, but nobody agreed, that would be useless. Not a victory of any kind at all.

So you don't want to notice the truth unless everyone else does as well? This seems an impractical approach to me, and doomed to certain failure.

 

I am neither the first nor the last, nor the smartest nor the dumbest, to consider the nature of their relationship with objective reality. Where the victories are achieved is when the thing is clear and evident to all.

An admirable sentiment, but I think victory has to be achieved one person at a time starting with me, or you in your case.

 

When something is true, it simply is. No argument is required.

Oh boy. If only this were true. I doubt there is one truth in the whole world that nobody would argue about. I think you have to sort yourself out and then worry about other people. Still, I admire your democratic ideals.

 

The truth will never be defeated in arguments, unless poorly presented, so testing it in argument is important. Philosophy without argument would be like mathematics without proofs. 'Argument' does not mean shouting at each other but exploring the strengths and weakness of ideas from various perspectives.

 

I think you will not notice the truth while you dismiss views that are successful in philosophy just because not every one notices or becasue you don't want to argue. The truth will remain the same regardless of what you think or how widely it is noticed.

 

I could say that my view is true, but this is not a claim I like to make since I cannot prove it. I prefer to say that it is impregnable to objections, or cannot be defeated in philosophy. This would then be an empirical matter. It would not make it necessary to argue about it all the time, but unfortunately any attempt to politely explain this view invariably leads to arguments. If you ever do notice the truth, whatever it is, you will discover that most people will want to argue vehemently that it is not the truth.

 

I don't understand your approach to this, but each to his own.

Edited March 30, 2012 by PeterJ

[tar]

PeterJ,

 

Well here is the layout. You can tell me if you see it the same way or not.

 

I exist in and of objective reality.

 

I am in possesion of subjective representations of objective reality.

 

If I see a pattern in this objective reality that no one else sees, and I cannot show them where to find it, or how to see it, then it is more likely to be without basis in objective reality, than those patterns I notice that are also noticed by other subjective beings who also have internalized representations of objective reality, and find the same pattern to exist as I did. The more the better. If 8 billion sighted humans have the moon in their model of objective reality, there is 100% chance that there is such a thing, that truly exists in objective reality.

 

If however, you know a truth, that everybody else seems to have missed...you best rethink.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

Or point the darn thing out. People, I have found, have no problem adjusting their model of the world to fit the facts, as they become evident. This is quite contrary to how people handle personal gods and personal truths, that they have found, within their own musings. These are stubbornly held and defended, regardless of the facts.

 

Perhaps your infallible metaphysical argument goes something like this...I am rubber, you are glue, anything you say, bounces off me and sticks to you.

 

Not at all like mine, which is best reflected in the speech I have prepared, in the event that human resources calls me to a private meeting. (Spoken loudly with hands covering my ears) La La La La La La La...I can't hear you...LA LA LA LA...

Edited March 31, 2012 by tar

[PeterJ]

Tar - I have no idea how to carry on a conversation with you and it is clear you do not wish to have one with me. I wonder even why you bother to take part, or what the point is of your posts. I mean, what is the above post saying? Anything? It seems to be empty of any meaning at all and perfectly irrelevant to the discussion. Atre you interested in philosophy? It appears not. Your post seems to say, Pete, you are an idiot, please go away, so I will.

[tar]

PeterJ,

 

I don't think you are an idiot.

 

The topic we are discussing is the whether or not philosophy is crap.

 

Central to determining this one way or the other, are two important considerations, which are:

What do we mean when we say "philosophy"?

And is this thing which we mean valuable or crap?

 

You have determined in your own worldview, that the most important, common result of metaphysics is that positive metaphysical statements are falsafiable, and/or lead to a contradiction. And at that point the distinction between which statement is true and which statement is false is undecidable.

 

You seem to be saying, in regards to this thread topic, that philosophy is metaphysical arguments, and they are basically worthless to us. With which one might surmise you believe philosophy to be crap...but you follow up by suggesting that you hold an unassailable metaphysical position? Which is only important and true to you, and has no basis in fact, but instead is an unavoidable path to truth that is followed by the complete and honest application of metaphysical principles that have been gleaned by humankind, down through the ages, from our common struggle to reach such truth, given our common, empirical existence as subjective minds, attempting to objectively validate our understanding. With which, one would surmise, that you believe philosophy is indeed the application of metaphysics to our human condition, and that it is ultimately not only useful, but essential.

 

My schoolyard taunting, was in fun, but a challenge none-the-less, for you to come down, one way or the other.

 

Is philosophy crap, or is it essential?

 

Regards, TAR2

 

A Tripolation,

 

Allow me to back up my statement about Kant's ideas being useful in modern day linguistics and cognitive sciences.

 

Here is a brief snipit from Steven Pinker's "The Stuff of Thought (language as a window into human nature)"

 

pg 158 in the edition on my lap, 8 pages into the chapter entitled "Cleaving the air".

 

This chapter is about space, time, causality, and substance as they are represented in language, in the mind, and in reality. I have framed the chapter with ideas based on Kant because the conceptual scaffolding that he said organizes our experience is also conspicuous in the organization of language. One could imagine a hypothetical language whose constructions were dedicated to kinds of sensory experience, like sights and sounds, to the major players in human ecology, like plants, animals, tools, and kin, or to human obsessions, like food, exhange, or sex. But real languages appear to be organized by Kantian abstract categories. We see them in the basic parts of speech; substance in nouns, space in prepositons, causality in verbs, time in verbs and in markers for tense. We saw them (in chapter 2) in the way that verbs enter constructions, which are selective about how something moves, whether it is a substance or an object, whether an event is instantaneous or protracted, and who or what caused it. And we see them in the everyday metaphors that pervade our language and reasoning, as when we say the price of gas can rise and fall like a ballon, when we try to count the events of 9/11 like sticks of butter, when we say that two cities can be an hour apart as if they were alarm clocks, and when we talk of Sonia forcing Adam to be nice or even forcing herself to be nice as if she were closing a jammed drawer. So even when our thoughts seem to be engaged in pure levitation, we find them cleaving the air, getting their traction from the invisible yet omnipresent conception of space, substance, time and causality. To understand human nature, we need to take a good look at those conceptions.

 

This is not to say that Kant himself is a reliable guide to our current understanding of the nature of thought and its relation to the world. Many philosophers today believe that Kant's rejection of the possibility of knowing the world in itself is obscure, and most physicists dispute his blurring of the mind's experience of time and space with our scientific understanding of time and space. Contrary to everyday experience, our best physics holds that space is not a rigid Euclidean framework, but is warped by objects, may be curved and bounded, is riddled with black holes and possibly wormholes, has eleven or more dimensions, and measures out differently depending on one's reference frame. Time is not the steady dynamic flow of our experience but the fourth dimension of a static space-time, or perhaps the solution to a connect-the-dots game in a multiverse of all possible universes, each linked to the one that "succeeds" it like the next frame in a movie. In all of these cases our best scientific understanding of time and space is wildly out of line with the mind's inclination. Many physicists say that space and time, in the sense of empty media into which objects and events are slotted, don't exist at all, any more than something called "the alphabet" exists above and beyond the twenty-six lettes that make up the alphabet.

Edited March 31, 2012 by tar

[PeterJ]

PeterJ,

 

I don't think you are an idiot.

Okay, sorry, I was in an impatient mood.

 

You have determined in your own worldview, that the most important, common result of metaphysics is that positive metaphysical statements are falsafiable, and/or lead to a contradiction.

Not quite. This has nothing to with my worldview. The logical indefensibility of such statements holds for any worldview. They give rise to contradictions. If this were not so then there would be no argument for Dialethism, or for the view that such statements are meaningless.

 

We usually assume that logically absurd ideas are false, but being absurd is not actually a proof of falsity. It's good enough for me though, and probably for most people. Only Dialethism claims that the universe contains true contradictions, and nobody can prove this. All the eviodence suggest that if a theory can be refuted in logic then it is false. (Although we might always argue about the kind of logic employed).

 

And at that point the distinction between which statement is true and which statement is false is undecidable.

Again, not quite. Metaphysical dilemmas are undecidable and this is why they are dilemmas. Both horns of the dilemma can be refuted in logic, and so if we say there is no third alternative then this is the end of metaphysics. It's an intellectual brick wall.

 

'Undecidable' here would refer not to the two horns of the dilemma, which are each individually refutable. It refers to the the problem of choosing between these two positions. It cannot be done because they are both as bad as each other. This has nothing to do with any particular worldview, it is logic and mathematics.

 

For the stereotypically 'Western' philosophical approach metaphysical problems are interpreted as dilemmas. So we have the problems of Mind-Matter, Internalism-Externalism, Presentism-Eternalism, Dualism-Monism, Something-Nothing, Materialism-Idealism etc etc etc. In all cases these are pairs of positive positions directly opposed to each other. They are dilemmas because neither of these opposed positions work, and, in addition, it is assumed that no third alternative is available. As all these positive (binary, yes/no, dualistic) positions are logically absurd (give rise to contradictions) this kind of metaphysics goes nowhere. It never has, and this is very easy to see. Since the entire edifice of philsosophy rests on metaphysics this cripples the Western tradition of philosophical thought, and physics is badly affected also.

 

My suggestion is that we are right to conclude that these postive positions are unsatisfactory, but wrong to suppose that there is no third alternative. There must be an alternative unless the universe contradicts logic and reason, and there is no evidence that it does.

 

Only if we rule out this potential solution does philosophy become a waste of time. This is inevitable. However, if we do see the alternative then we can solve all such problems at a stroke. As this solution would require adopting the only position which is not demonstrably logically absurd, I think we should not rule it out. And if we do rule it out we have no right to criticise philosophy for its ineffectiveness. We are just criticising our own thinking.

 

You seem to be saying, in regards to this thread topic, that philosophy is metaphysical arguments, and they are basically worthless to us. With which one might surmise you believe philosophy to be crap...

A misunderstanding. I'm saying that all important philosophical problems are at heart metaphysical, and that all metaphysical problems can be solved. I'm suggesting that philosophy is a sure guide to truth. We can turn it into crap if we want, but it is not compulsory.

 

My schoolyard taunting, was in fun, but a challenge none-the-less, for you to come down, one way or the other.

 

Is philosophy crap, or is it essential?

It is neither, I would say. I believe that the truth can be discovered without it by certain practices. But a sceptical person would want to work out that the practice might be worth doing before committing the time, and philosophy allows us to do this.

 

If we do study it then it should be immensely useful as a guide to the truth. Metaphysical problems are not undecidable for no reason. Clearly the world is such that they must be undecidable. So the big question is why they are.

 

The trouble is that logic cannot actually prove anything about reality, as Aristotle notes, so although philosophical analysis can point us at the truth it cannot finally prove that it is the truth. We will end up with a theory, and while it may be exactly correct, and might be the best theory available, or even the only theory available, we cannot know it is true by using logic alone. Empricism is also required. But having formulated our theory we can at least test it and compare it against other theories, and so gain confidence that it is true, or is at least plausible. Because we cannot prove what is true about reality in logic we must proceed by 'abduction', iow by falsifying theories, by arguing against them, and hope that we end up with just one still standing at the end. This was Sherlock Holmes' method and the usual method in metaphysics.

 

Does that make more sense now?

 

In brief, I agree completely with the conclusions of almost all serious philosophers when it comes to metaphysical problems. The facts are the facts. But only about half of them ever find a solution, and I strongly disagree with the half who reject this solution and then argue that philosophy is useless. I would say that metaphysics is conclusive and almost blatant proof of the nature of reality, so obviously cannot agree that it is a waste of time.

Edited March 31, 2012 by PeterJ

[tar]

PeterJ,

 

Ok. Much clearer.

 

But I still don't know what your solution is.

 

You seem to have hinted that the universe, or objective reality itself must have contradictions or they wouldn't keep showing up in our thoughts about it. Generally, I suppose this is so, in the sense that there is plus and minus, up and down, positive and negative, and all the other pairs we think in, that we have derived from the apparent attributes of gravity, charge, eminations and accretions and such that the universe seems to made up of.

 

But that is just opposites, not necessarily contradictions. Both validate the other. Which hints more in the direction that the universe is composed in a symetrical fashion, of enities that both oppose and create each other. Still no contradiction, still true and not false. If the universe were only one thing...there would be nothing to say about it at all. So it must be engaged in a number of activities that each comprise an entity with characteristics, with sub entities, and with each belonging to a greater group of similar entities. All being composed of what happened to them before, and all about to do what they are going to do next. According to the complex interplay of the forces and amounts and distances involved.

 

Plus of course, the emergence of life, and...conciousness. Where an entity can on purpose promote its own pattern, against the flow. Is this a contradiction? Perhaps, but if it is, then perhaps the solution is to recognize consciousness as already having knowledge of the truth. Having already "won". And making it possible for those of our kind to continue in this victorious state, is what we do.

 

Metaphysically, we are sort of constrained to the truth. If it fits with reality, it is right. If it contradicts reality...we rethink.

 

Regards, TAR2

Edited April 1, 2012 by tar

[PeterJ]

I think we're nearly on the same page. But I think you may be muddling up distinctions and contradictions. Up and down is a distinction, not a contradiction.

 

It is distinctions (Kant's categories) that allow us to think, or that form the basis for discriminating or intentional consciousness. Recognising this, Kant saw that this consciousness must be preceeded by a state of no distinctions. He used the same logic to conclude that the universe itself must be preceeded by such a state. (or, that by reduction it is such a state).

 

Just as you say, if the universe is one thing then there is nothing to say about it. With no distinctions to operate on our intellect must simply cease to work. For consciousness we require the subject-object distinction, and if we go beyond this then we go beyond the intellect. Hence empiricism trumps logic when it comes to the search for a final truth. Even if we can work out that Kant's reasoning is right this is not a verification that his conclusion is correrct. It's just a theory.

 

Interesting that you say that nothing can said about the universe if it is viewed as a unity. This is a very profound point, and explains why texts such as the Tao Teh Ching are so elusive when it comes to cosmology.

 

A key point here is that if there are no distinctions then there can be no contradictions. So the view that the universe is ultimately a unity (not quite the same as 'one thing', but close enough) is the view that there are no true contradictions. If there are no true contradictions then all world-theories giving rise to contradictions are false. This would include all positive metaphysical positions.

 

So, take any metaphysical dilemma. Both extreme views will lead to contradictions. If they did not there would be no dilemma. The solution would be compatabilism, the view that the solutution lies somewhere between the extremes. So for instance, the problem of consciousness would be solved by the introduction of an extra ingredient, in addition to mind and matter. Mind-matter would be an emergent distinction, and neither would be fundamental. This would explain why the problem is so difficult to solve in consciousness studies - where the idea of a third ingredient is ruled out as too 'mystical'. The same approach, of assuming that the universe reduces to a distinctionless unity along the lines of Kant and Hegel, solves all such dilemmas. Whether it is the correct solution is a matter of investigation, but it works in any case. The Something-Nothing problem would be solved by assuming that this is not a final distinction, that these states are a broken symmetry, that there is a fundamental phenomenon which cannot be categorised as Something or Nothing.

 

Thus Lao Tsu says the universe can never be correctly characterised as being this or that. In metaphysics his view might be called 'global compatibilism'. It might also be called the 'doctrine of the mean'. It is Buddhism's 'Middle Way' doctrine. It is the view that the world reduces to a unity that lies beyond the 'coincidence of contradictiories', beyond Kant's categories of thought.

 

If we adopt this view then we have adopted the only metaphysical position that is defensible in logic, that cannot be refuted in the dialectic, and have beome invincible in philosophy. Whether it is a true view would be an empirical matter, but it is at least possible to show in logic that all other theories are indefensible. That it can do this is what makes philosophy so incredibly useful.

 

If we do not adopt it, then philosophy ceases to be useful and becomes a dead end.

 

In case you think I'm making this up I'm happy to post some references. None of this is my idea. It's all as old as the hills.

Edited April 1, 2012 by PeterJ

[immortal]

A key point here is that if there are no distinctions then there can be no contradictions. So the view that the universe is ultimately a unity (not quite the same as 'one thing', but close enough) is the view that there are no true contradictions. If there are no true contradictions then all world-theories giving rise to contradictions are false. This would include all positive metaphysical positions.

 

The claim that universe is a unity is itself a positive metaphysical position which leads to the self-evident contradiction to the multiplicity of the universe and hence you cannot assert that the universe is a unity.

 

A neutral metaphysical position is one where you can neither say that universe is an unity nor you can say that universe is not an unity.

 

Hence metaphysics cannot logically say anything about the universe nor it can guide us anywhere. Its absurd. Does it mean nothing exists?

[tar]

PeterJ,

 

Although I think as well that we are on the same page, I think we each are reading in different text between the lines.

 

I am leaning more toward immortal's take. After all we do obiously have distinctions to notice and think about. The universe is not one thing, happening at one place, at one time.

 

Our representations of the universe are not causing this. It is already so.

 

Looking for the ultimate truth in a manner that discounts space and time and distinctions, is somewhat useless.

 

Its the fact that we are able to sense and remember and focus, that gives us knowledge of the universe in the first place.

 

Subtract that and there is nothing to say, no one to say it, and no one to listen.

 

So although we are only in possesion of analog representations or images of the world, as in the shadows on the wall of Plato's cave. They are none-the-less the way the universe looks from here and now. Which assures us that there is indeed something quite like what it appears to be, out there, that we have a nice model of, in here.

 

 

Regards, TAR2

Edited April 1, 2012 by tar

[immortal]

After all we do obiously have distinctions to notice and think about. The universe is not one thing, happening at one place, at one time.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

The solution to such a contradiction is that subjective idealism is true and scientific realism is false which implies the cosmos is an illusion which exists only in the mind. This is how the world is seen in the east.

[tar]

In-form-ation. The universe, or at least a facsimile there-of, held in the synapses and firings of the neurons in our brain. Obviously we have to take a few metaphors and analogies and do a bit of mapping and frame shifting to hold such an image. But there it is, in all its glory, right before our eyes.

 

Good job brain, I say, good job.

 

I don't expect we have the equipment to do better than that. Fill in the blanks, sure. See how things look from a different vantage point, sure. But "all at once"? That doesn't make any sense. Other than in the sense we are already seeing the whole thing from here at once.

[PeterJ]

The claim that universe is a unity is itself a positive metaphysical position which leads to the self-evident contradiction to the multiplicity of the universe and hence you cannot assert that the universe is a unity.

It is not that easy to defeat the perennial philosophy. You are thinking of the term 'unity' as meaning 'one thing'. This is not what it means in this context, as I hinted earlier.

 

Still, in a way you may be right. There are two ways of looking at this, as there always are. The trouble is all the different meanings of 'positive'. You might also argue that what Kant defines as 'not an instance of a category' is, in fact, quite obviously an instance of a category, namely the set of all sets that are not members of a set.

 

But this is to make too much of the language problem. In metaphysics a neutral position would never claim that the universe is this as opposed to that, or that as opposed to this. It is the philosophical version of religion's via negativa. A unity must have all properties and no properties. Yes, this is a definite claim, but it is neither positive or negative in a binary sense. This position is not so much directly opposed to all other positions as offering a way of reconciling them, making them more or less true, or true up to a point, but not fundamental or rigorous. For example, Materialism would be very nearly true and so would Idealism. But the truth would be more subtle, the reduction or 'sublation' (Hegel's term) of these positions would produce a neutral position.

 

A neutral metaphysical position is one where you can neither say that universe is an unity nor you can say that universe is not an unity.

As far as I know I was the first person to make published use of this phrase in reference to the perennial philosophy, and so you cannot tell me what it is and what it is not. But it is a very good objection.

 

A unity is intrinsically paradoxical in ordinary logic, and this is why it is okay to claim the universe is unity. If you try to grasp conceptually what a unity is, you'll find you cannot do it. It cannot be conceived because the intellect has no way to grasp it. This is Kant's point. His 'proper subject of rational psychology' is defined as being unthinkable, beyond all categories.

 

Hence metaphysics cannot logically say anything about the universe nor it can guide us anywhere. Its absurd. Does it mean nothing exists?

Metaphysics very cleary states that all positive metaphysical theories are logically indefensible. I think you might be hard to put to find anyone who argues otherwise. There is no doubt about it, or not unless we dismiss thirty centuries of great thinkers as being not as clever as us.

 

But yes, it does look absurd. This is why it is so often overlooked, the reason why it is dismissed from metaphysics in the West. Also, it is mysticism. Clearly there must be a reason why our metaphysics has failed for so long, and it cannopt be the stupidity of philosophers, and here it is. The solution is staring us in the face, but it looks ridiculous at first glance, and even after quite a lot of analysis. It is as strange as the particle-wave duality, and no easier to understand. Still, it would work. It might even explain how something can be right here one moment and everywhere at once the next.

 

I think it is best to make 'unity' a more or less undefined term in the theory, or let it play that role, and use it as a axiom. Then you can test the idea by seeing how the theory develops. We can ask, if this axiom of unity is true, then what follows? What would follow is the logical absurdity of positive metaphysical positions and a plausible explanation for the stagnation of Western metaphysics since Plato.

 

In-form-ation. The universe, or at least a facsimile there-of, held in the synapses and firings of the neurons in our brain. Obviously we have to take a few metaphors and analogies and do a bit of mapping and frame shifting to hold such an image. But there it is, in all its glory, right before our eyes.

 

Good job brain, I say, good job.

 

I don't expect we have the equipment to do better than that. Fill in the blanks, sure. See how things look from a different vantage point, sure. But "all at once"? That doesn't make any sense. Other than in the sense we are already seeing the whole thing from here at once.

And here I was thinking you were interested in the conversation. Some philosophy forum this is. To the OP, yes, philosophy is crap. Shame, but there it is.

[iNow]

We are now 71 posts in and still don't have an answer. Yep, that sounds like the epitome of philosophy to me.

[immortal]

We are now 71 posts in and still don't have an answer. Yep, that sounds like the epitome of philosophy to me.

 

The answer is there for you to take it if you seriously want it.

 

If Kantian assumptions are true.

 

Then the answer is we must abandon our hope of a successful fundamental theory which can account for the objective nature of reality.

[PeterJ]

Amazing. All my efforts and not a glimmer of understanding. Ho hum. Even a decent objection to my successful fundamental theory would have been something.

 

I must accept defeat. There is no way to convince someone that philosophy is useful if they think it's all a matter of opinion.

 

Over and out.

[iNow]

Has anyone yet defined what we mean by philosophy in this thread, or is everyone using their own arbitrary perspective?