This is why I mentioned Kant's refutation of idealism, which he added to his 2nd edition of CPR. Here is where he makes strange claims in regards to noumena

I am conscious of my existence as determined in time. All time determination presupposes something permanent in perception. But this permanent something cannot be something within me, precisely because my existence can be determined in time only by this permanent something.Therefore perception of this permanent something is possible only through a thing outside me and not through mere presentation of a thing outside me
— CPR, B276, translation of Pluhar (the best)

From this quote, it's clear the ground of our representations, all of phenomena, can't be an object of phenomena. It must be an object in the realm of noumena & it must exist in order for empirical realism to be true. — Sirius

Notice that he starts with "I am conscious of my existence as determined in time." That is phenomenology. He's pointing out that he experiences himself as being in motion through time. If he's in motion, it has to be relative to something stationary. If all he is resides within this thing traveling through time, then there must be something other than himself that is a stationary object.

So when you go to form conclusions from this, keep in mind the nature of the argument. It's phenomenology and its logical (if A is moving, there must be a not-A that's stationary.) There is no transcendental vantage point from which to verify it. It's in the category of "I reckon."

:up:

You don't recognize how Trump is obsessed with oil? "Drill, baby, drill." And, "We will export American energy all over the world." In Trump's mind, oil and power are equivalent. That's why he's mad at Europeans who buy Russian oil. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yea, but if he wanted oil from Venezuela, Trump would just publicly put a gun to Maduro's head and say "Give me a bunch of oil."

I think it's actually about drugs, and I suspect the agenda is coming from Vance. Time will tell which of us is right.

Trump wants more oil. — Metaphysician Undercover

I doubt it.

I think US policy toward South America is to keep it from developing into rival status, so they undermine whatever they can, then when all hell breaks loose, they're like "Why can't you guys manage your affairs correctly?"

Fair enough - my knowledge is roughly the same, except extended over two decades as I've had a family who is a set of friends of my family, 'escape' and return. — AmadeusD

Oh cool. So you know it turned into a kleptocracy, and now it's in failed state territory. Do you know why the US is involved now? I haven't even looked. :cool:

Heidegger redefined metaphysics, or rather replaced the old metaphysics with what he thought was a better use of the word. I think he saw it as rehabilitation.

He said old metaphysics studied Being as if it's a thing, which became identified with God. In his metaphysics, Being is studied through phenomenology, or from the nature of experience. We always find ourselves in a world, and in fact, me and world are inextricably bound (logically speaking). Expanding on that thought is what Heidegger thought of as metaphysics.

For him, this was tied to a eschatological vision. Eschatology is traditionally a part of Abrahamic religions that deals with a final judgment and a profound change in the universe. But this kind of vision outgrew Christianity and took up residence in continental philosophy, starting with Hegel and continuing on through Nietzsche and Heidegger, who thought the great final transformation of humanity would come from the rise of Germans to world power, manifesting their potential to live in authenticity. He also believed all Jews would have to die in order for this grand vision to be realized. That's why you'll find in the book @Mikie referenced a nod to the 'inner greatness of National Socialism.' That book is partly famous because it contains Heidegger's attempt to cover up his attachment to the Nazis.

All of this is a long rabbit hole away from what an anglophone philosopher would mean by metaphysics, which is usually just the nature of reality.

A workmate's husband is from Venezuela, so I've heard all about Chavez and so forth. Apparently, conditions there are horrific. That's all I know about it. :grin:

Yeah.... "how doooo they do it?" is the one question modern people in industrialized nations ask themselves with the most fake ass expression on their face. Comedy at its best. — Christoffer

Indeed. I struggle with it. I can get meat from free range chickens who had a happy life for a chunk of change. When I compare that to the cheap chicken, I get that: "how do they do it?" It's not slavery in this case, it's treating an animal in a way that it's stressed out its whole life, which is immoral.

Thanks for watching it!

Or else it must distinguish the more real from the less real (or something like that). — Leontiskos

Yea. It's about ultimate truth, which is why I brought up gothic cathedrals. Metaphysics is tinged with the idea that we're finding a hidden, but grand truth about what's right under our feet.

Watch to the end of this. It's amazing how he gets this idea across.

https://youtube.com/shorts/Ld8VRPxScM4?si=sBapQwey6hDR5E0W

You left out the most important thing—the “agree with me” part. — T Clark

That goes without saying.

It's interesting to know also that "Metaphysics" isn't even a precise way to label his book, it's terminology after the fact. — ProtagoranSocratist

:up:

The contents of this thread, and all the other metaphysics threads, demonstrate it’s not simple at all — T Clark

So true. Probably the best way to understand metaphysics is to read Otto Von Simpson's book on the philosophy of gothic cathedrals. Ars sine scientia nihil est. Yay! It's complicated!

Sure, but I think sending someone who's asked about metaphysics to read Aristotle is nuts.

Metaphysics is about the nature of reality. It's pretty simple.

That Aristotle's work so named is concerned with similar enough things that starting with Aristotle isn't bad. — Moliere

Maybe so. I started with Bertrand Russell's book on the history of philosophy. He's engaging and really funny.

What is the way to understand what 'metaphysics' means? Listen to Clarendon says on it? — Moliere

That's not what he was suggesting. He was disagreeing with Wayfarer that the best place to start is by reading Aristotle, which is perspective from two thousand, three hundred years ago. He prefers a more contemporary starting point. What's your stance?

That doesn't even make sense...

If nothing else, we agree the notion of solipsism is empty, thus attempts to disprove it are foolish. At least from the perspective of our mutual reference material. — Mww

I agree. I think Kant constructs a system which is incompatible with solipsism. That's not the same as disproving it.

My current position is that I have no choice but to accept the reality I’m in and that humans are sense-making creatures who use language (and other tools) to manage their environment. It's likely we don’t have the capacity to access a Capital-T Truth, and philosophy is perhaps best avoided, as it tends only to lead to 1) convoluted attempts to justify seemingly impossible beliefs or 2) endless confusion and self-reflexivity. :wink: — Tom Storm

:up:

Yes, that's true. Have you come to any metaphysical conclusions yourself? — Tom Storm

I had a reality crisis when I was young where I realized I have no way to determine if what I'm experiencing is real. It wasn't armchair philosophy, it was a psychological crisis. The way I recovered was to adopt a rule: I never deny the content of my own experience. Whatever I experienced, that's it. I experienced that. But explanations for what I experienced will always be in flux. Maybe my brain wasn't working properly, maybe I have a window into other realities, I really don't know. That rule has worked well for me for a long time.

How about you?

You can understand why people find theism attractive in all this, since it seems to effectively provide a grounding that resolves the confusions and tautologies created by anti-foundationalist views. — Tom Storm

I think that's true sometimes. But I wouldn't necessarily line up foundationalism with religion. A naturalist is just as committed to an unjustifiable metaphysical scheme.

I didn't think what you were saying was relativist. :up:

Hilary Lawson, a minor British philosopher, argues that we can’t avoid the problem of self-reflexivity in modern philosophy, our theories and claims inevitably turn back on themselves. His reponse is to say, so what! — Tom Storm

I think Quine did something similar. After explaining that there's no fact of the matter about what anyone is talking about, he was asked to address how that impacted his own theory. He was like "meh." Or something like that.

Nothing we justify ever rises above our own ways of justifying and that includes this statement. — Tom Storm

I understand what you're saying. But the opposing point of view goes back a long way. Plato has Socrates say that all philosophers long for death because they yearn for a vantage point beyond life. In other words, the philosopher wants to be able to say something universal about life, but stuck in the midst of it, there's no way to justify anything we might say. The eye can't see itself.

Yet much of philosophy is that very thing. Even Wittgenstein did: after pointing out that we can't talk about life from an external viewpoint, he went ahead and did it.

Hmm… explain the difference in this case. — T Clark

Well, if you say belief in God and solipsism are metaphysically equivalent, it sounds like you're saying they contain the same metaphysical outlook.

If you say they're epistemically equivalent, it would sound like you're saying the two are the same with regard to what the holder of the belief actually knows.

As I have followed along in this thread, it struck me that solipsism, the simulation argument, and belief in God are equivalent metaphysically. — T Clark

Metaphysically? or do you mean epistemically?

For Kant, in his time, the statement that awareness of self required the existence of "exterior" things was his argument against solipsism. — Paine

That's definitely food for thought. Thanks :up:

I can deal with that challenge tomorrow. I will quote from the text I have been referring to and link it to other sections of the other Critiques. — Paine

Ok. I was just asking you to tell me what you think it means.

Ok. It's just that you posted a passage from Kant in a thread about disproving solipsism. Subsequently, I've been unable to determine how you're reading that passage. Since Kant is known for a persuasive argument that we know about time and space prior to any experience with the world, it seems a little odd to put him forward as disproving solipsism.

I am not going to say more until we deal with your charges about my agenda. — Paine

I'm cool with resolving it with a "fair enough." What else?

But he deserves to be fairly represented. — Paine

Cool. How do you interpret the passage you originally posted? I'm curious.

I've always liked that passage and its metaphors. — Wayfarer

Yes. It's a nice passage.

I have a much broader outlook. — frank

I do. To get my bearings, I try to place the text in its historical context. Like, why is Descartes writing this? What is Kant responding to? I'm not saying my way is superior to anybody else's. It's what I do naturally.

You, on the other hand, take a bit of text and use it as the basis for what ends up being self reflection. You want every philosopher to be something like a materialist, and you take one word and draw out a materialist outlook.

Whose approach is more fruitful? Mine is fruitful for me. Yours is fruitful for you. Ultimately, neither is right or wrong.

Pretty contemptuous last word.

I will leave you with it. — Paine

You're projecting.

I am trying to avoid being cryptic by referencing specific portions of the actual text. I was sincere in my general thumbnail that you asked for. But that generality is cryptic as all general descriptions tend to be. That is why I was so reluctant to offer it.

I am doing the best that I can as I understand effort. — Paine

We've long had this conflict between us (you and Foolos4) where you dissect passages of text, and I have a much broader outlook. No need to try to resolve it. :grin:

I stand corrected but the basic point remains - the re-interpretation of the Greek 'logos' in theological terminology. — Wayfarer

The stoics thought of the logos as a kind of divinity. I don't think it was a re-interpretation.

I continue to have no idea what you're trying to say. I'm sure you're not being purposefully cryptic, but that is the way you're coming across.

A big cultural factor is the absorption of Greek philosophy into Biblical theology and the subsequent identification of 'logos' with 'the word of God' or simply 'the Bible'. — Wayfarer

The Christian Logos isn't the Bible. It's Jesus.

Since the intuitions are separated from the processes of reason a priori, differences of experience are neither what Descartes nor Berkeley described, as outlined in Kant's Refutation of Idealism.

That approach is different from observing there are "differences" of experience that provide a context for a subject as presented in Descartes and Berkeley. It is on the same grounds that Kant resisted Hume describing causality as only a story that is told. — Paine

I'm not sure what you're saying. Kant is basically arguing that consciousness of the self is generated by the mind's organization of experience according to a priori categories. You could put it this way: as the mind goes about organizing experience, it develops the concept of a unified world that allows the disparate elements to become meaningful. Each thing has the potential to be meaningful relative to this cohesive world. It's just part of the mechanics of this process that a proto-subject appears as a kind of logical entity. Who is having these experiences? It's me!

I'm a really non-linear thinker, so I'm struggling to explain this. But Kant is suggesting that when consciousness of the self appears, it's consciousness of a unified grounding to experience. That unity reflects the unity of the world.

In Kant’s conception, by contrast, accounting for our sense of the identity of the conscious subject of different self-attributions requires that this subject be distinct from its representations. — SEP

Consciousness of the self requires a division between the subject and object. The self has to have boundaries, in other words.