its like accusing people for using logic mate......better work on your arguments.

Ayn Rand devotees are cute. — Xtrix

And dangerous. Like libertarians, morally unevolved.

And intellectually unevolved. What's particularly dangerous isn't Rand herself, but the cult-like following of her. She's only somewhat responsible for that, but not entirely. I think she herself would mostly be against the dogmatism and zealotry of her followers. Having once given her due attention, I've since moved beyond her -- although there are still aspects I like. I like that she echoes Aristotelian virtue ethics, for example. But her views on ontology, epistemology, and politics is very limited indeed.

Her devotees on this forum so far have done her legacy no favors.

Hard to believe she's still taken seriously. I mean, I prefer Deepak Chopra, literally.

Stuck up *****.

Sorry. Had to get that out of my system.

magical thinkers just hate those who remind them there are rules in reasoning and philosophy...

First of all your answer doesn't really address any points made in my first paragraph. We don't have a way to be sure whether our feedback of an invisible underlying reality is accurate or not. What we can verify is that in different scales of reality we observe different characteristics that are quantifiable and verifiable.
What Kant or any philosopher says about metaphysical aspects of ontology is IRRELEVANT and an argument from false authority since there aren't any experts or authorities in metaphysical claims! — Nickolasgaspar

I have no idea what this is about. What makes you think Kant talks about metaphysics??

Of course they have. If you talk about mind properties non contingent to natural processes or "post modern Theology" or accept unfalsifiable metaphysical statements as foundations for your philosophical views then both of my labels are justified in this conversation!
Those terms just point out that the promoted ideas do not carry epistemic foundations sot they can not be used as tools for the understanding of the world (not that they are wrong). — Nickolasgaspar

But none of this applies. You are having a discussion with yourself. Mind properties not contingent to natural processes? But of course they are. All I ask you is, what are natural processes? And how can one separate ontology from epistemology? Do do this would require the most egregious metaphysics, as if one could identify something epistemically detached from one. There is nothing metaphysical about asking the simple question: what connects S to P in the equation, "S knows P"? Are you suggesting we should ignore this question? Is this what you call science, ignoring glaring questions contradict your paradigms? I suspect you're heard of Thomas Kuhn? What do you think he would say about this? Do you understand the scientific method? Think this through: it is a method that connects knowledge with the world. How do you think this happens, magically? This has to be explained, and you don't turn away because it is difficult. You engage it because it is difficult, but it is not the job of a scientist. It is the philosopher's job. It is NOT a metaphysical question. It simply accepts that the objects before us cannot be conceived apart from the experience in which they are found.
It is, in its essential justification, that easy. Science is very good at describing objects in the world. This is given. It has no clue at all as to how to describe the intuitive foundation that constitutes that-which-is-being-taken-up by science nor can it speak of epistemic relations, THE foundational relation upon which all science rests. One does not reach into absurdities to do this. One simply observes the relationship and analyses the structure of experience. Nothing metaphysical at all. these are just reflexive responses you have to things unfamiliar.

- Is it? Are they? Maybe you are right.
Two problems.
1. What do you mean by reading philosophy? Chronicling? Finding out who (philosopher) said what?
Do you really think that Chronicling is Philosophy or that it will help you to promote a metaphysical statement to an epistemic degree of value, by knowing about it?
The fact that those conclusions have never being evaluated or used to produce abbitional knowledge or wise claims that we can act upon..... doesn't raise any flags for you?
Sure some great names made some metaphysical claims that you agree with...this is all you have!
The question is What makes you think that they are philosophical or at least meaningful?

2.People in science are generally philosophically clueless....meaning that they are really bad in Chronicling. THis is because they ignore ideas that are not proven Wise and with zero epistemic potential.
They are only familiar with Philosophical ideas that are epistemically and instrumentally valuable. (Naturalism, Objectivism, Humanism, Situational ethics etc etc etc ).
So at least in my case I don't give much attention to philosophical claims that do not achieve the goal set by Philosophy itself....to provide Wise claims about our world on solid epistemic grounds.
Sorry If I sound condescending...that was not my intention. — Nickolasgaspar

Chronicling? You would have to say what you mean. Are you talking about recording history?

There is only one goal set for philosophy--only one: to examine the world at the level of the most basic assumptions. Period.
On condescension: All is forgiven. Sometimes I fail to realize that people simply do not know what philosophy is. The presumption of knowing without, well, knowing, is common.

So never mind, then, and put all this aside. Have a lovely day!

Philosophical exploration in science is known as Scientific hypotheses. Those hypotheses need to be testable in order to be scientific. — Nickolasgaspar

By virtue of them being labeled scientific hypotheses they are testable. Philosophical exploration might be any sort of babble. Quantum mysticism, etc.

I have no idea what this is about. What makes you think Kant talks about metaphysics?? — Constance

-Nothing really except his critique. I only pointed out that no matter how great the name of philosopher, a metaphysical speculation is just that.

Mind properties not contingent to natural processes? But of course they are. All I ask you is, what are natural processes? — Constance

Do you have objective evidence of mind properties rising independent of a functioning biological brain (natural process).
If you do have you then you should make some space on your shelves for a Nobel Prize...
That is a pseudo philosophy.

-" And how can one separate ontology from epistemology?"
-It depends....but basically by studying science.

-"There is nothing metaphysical about asking the simple question: what connects S to P in the equation, "S knows P"?"
I guess we are having two different discussions. I am pointing out that your supernatural and idealistic assumptions render your philosophy pseudo. That's all. What I say has nothing to do with asking simple questions.

-" Is this what you call science, ignoring glaring questions contradict your paradigms? "
-I am talking about failed principles that people believe to be philosophical.

I suspect you're heard of Thomas Kuhn? What do you think he would say about this? — Constance

-You are tap dancing. You are forcing a position I never expressed. Again I am only pointing out that your supernatural beliefs are not philosophical.
Most people don't understand Kuhn. His ideas were far from Popper's opinions but most of you seem to be ignorant about it.

-" Do you understand the scientific method?"
_common mistake. There isn't A scientific method. Science has many methodologies.
(the first link I got)
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/04/opinion/there-is-no-scientific-method.html

-" Think this through: it is a method that connects knowledge with the world. How do you think this happens, magically? This has to be explained, and you don't turn away because it is difficult. "
-weird description. Science offers descriptive frameworks which we as thinking agents use them as knowledge. Knowledge is not an intrinsic feature in a description, but its an observer dependent value.
Any Instrumental value is applied....

This has to be explained, and you don't turn away because it is difficult. You engage it because it is difficult, but it is not the job of a scientist. It is the philosopher's job. It is NOT a metaphysical question. It simply accepts that the objects before us cannot be conceived apart from the experience in which they are found — Constance

-Irrelevant to our discussion though

Chronicling? You would have to say what you mean. Are you talking about recording history? — Constance

Quoting what people said even if what they said have no actual philosophical value.

There is only one goal set for philosophy--only one: to examine the world at the level of the most basic assumptions. Period. — Constance

That is only an approach in philosophy. The main goal is defined in the etymology of the word...to use knowledge as a way to produce wise claims.

Sometimes I fail to realize that people simply do not know what philosophy is. The presumption of knowing without, well, knowing, is common — Constance

Well you insist in using supernatural and idealistic principles in your interpretations ...So I can agree with your realization. People don't understand what philosophy is and how it works.

By virtue of them being labeled scientific hypotheses they are testable. Philosophical exploration might be any sort of babble. Quantum mysticism, etc. — jgill

-No it can't be. Philosophy needs to be based on credible knowledge and produce wise claims that we can use to understand the world around us.
babbles are not good at this.

-Nothing really except his critique. I only pointed out that no matter how great the name of philosopher, a metaphysical speculation is just that. — Nickolasgaspar

Details, Nickolasgaspar, details. What, exactly in his Critique is metaphysical speculation?

Do you have objective evidence of mind properties rising independent of a functioning biological brain (natural process).
If you do have you then you should make some space on your shelves for a Nobel Prize...
That is a pseudo philosophy. — Nickolasgaspar

What makes the case of the brain so unique is that while exterior events are forthcoming for observation, the brain itself is problematic, because the only way to confirm its existence is through its own operations, thus, one would have to establish how the brain can be its own source of verification, and this can only be done through the very brain processes in question. Put clearly: all that experience is, is brain phenomena, and the only way one can confirm the brain's existence is through these very phenomena. How is it that one can stand apart from the brain and observe it apart from the very phenomena that are posited as brain generated? All you ever get is the phenomena; you can never achieve that Archimedean point to truly witness the brain.

This, of course, problematizes all witnessed events, for how does one ever witness what is NOT a phenomenon? You need that perspective from another position that is not phenomenological.

Good luck with this. If you can respond in a way that shows the phenomenon can be bypassed, and an observer can jump into the "real" world that is not conditioned and constructed by thought and experience, not only will you win the Nobel Prize, but you will have discovered God's omniscient providence.

And intellectually unevolved. What's particularly dangerous isn't Rand herself, but the cult-like following of her. She's only somewhat responsible for that, but not entirely. I think she herself would mostly be against the dogmatism and zealotry of her followers. Having once given her due attention, I've since moved beyond her -- although there are still aspects I like. I like that she echoes Aristotelian virtue ethics, for example. But her views on ontology, epistemology, and politics is very limited indeed. — Xtrix

People are pretty clueless about this sort of thing. Back in the 40's, The Fountainhead was made into a movie starring Patricia Neal and Gary Cooper, a kind of celebration of the capitalist ubermensch, the guy whose talent placed him far above the pettiness of normal people's affairs. Everyone else was a parasite on his genius. Rand thought herself like this.

American Christians were so full of themselves and worshiped the corporate gods of capitalism, and so afraid of communism, they never understood that she was telling them all they were just a bunch parasites to the rich and famous, to whom they should all bow low. And Rand was a professed atheist! They bowed anyway.

:lol: :up:

And Rand was a professed atheist! They bowed anyway. — Constance

Indeed. Both the plutocracy and the evangelical community often love her.



Look! He’s doing her greatest hits! How quaint.

Philosophical exploration in science is known as Scientific hypotheses — Nickolasgaspar

How would you categorize the many worlds interpretation of QM? At this stage it is not a scientific hypothesis since testing it is a distant objective. Is it thus excluded from being a "philosophical exploration" in science? Is it metaphysics?

Details, Nickolasgaspar, details. What, exactly in his Critique is metaphysical speculation? — Constance

ITs irrelevant to this topic but you can always google it. Well here is the first link I got.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-metaphysics/

What makes the case of the brain so unique is that while exterior events are forthcoming for observation, the brain itself is problematic, because the only way to confirm its existence is through its own operations, thus, one would have to establish how the brain can be its own source of verification, and this can only be done through the very brain processes in question. — Constance

-And.....? its the same way. We observe people's brains like we observe all environmental phenomena. We gather systematic information for every aspect of that organ and its factions. That is a text book example of special pleading and an argument from ignorance fallacy.
Our ignorance of specialized knowledge on how the brain works doesn't justify to assume supernatural explanations.

How is it that one can stand apart from the brain and observe it apart from the very phenomena that are posited as brain generated? — Constance

-That is not true. Scientists use objective methodologies and criteria to study other people's brains and establish strong correlations between brain functions and specific properties of mind.
If you visit neurosciencenews.com and search papers on "how the brain +(the mind property you are interested) you will learn how we can objectively verify sufficiency and necessity between mechanism and emergent property of the brain.

-" All you ever get is the phenomena; you can never achieve that Archimedean point to truly witness the brain."
-That sounds like an argument from denial (Ignorance). This type of argument is used by flatearthers or creationists who use the absence of absolute certainty as an excuse to sneak in their belief.
We can observe the brain and we can establish Necessity and sufficiency....that's all we need. Absolute truth or certainty is a red herring that is not achievable in any of our frameworks.
The brain is not special. i.e. we can not prove that our digestive track is the source of digestion 100%.
Again by verifying necessity and sufficiency we establish Strong correlations between causes and effects.

What too many fallacies in your reasoning.

This, of course, problematizes all witnessed events, for how does one ever witness what is NOT a phenomenon? You need that perspective from another position that is not phenomenological. — Constance

This is why we don't use "witnesses" in science but we make Observations in order to verify objectively the ontology of a phenomenon.

Good luck with this. If you can respond in a way that shows the phenomenon can be bypassed, and an observer can jump into the "real" world that is not conditioned and constructed by thought and experience, not only will you win the Nobel Prize, but you will have discovered God's omniscient providence. — Constance

-Numerous Nobel prizes have being awarded to scientists that have provided objective observations of Necessary and Sufficient mechanisms responsible for a phenomenon.
Now god concepts do NOT belong to the real world (only anthropologically as ideas) since we are unable to objectively verify supernatural agents.
This is not an issue with our methods but with the nature of god claims themselves.

The keyword is "interpretations". We have more than 10 quantum interpretations competing each other...without any supportive facts.
It is metaphysics and it is a proper hypothesis since it "multiplies" entities that we know they can exist.
We know dimensions exist, we know a world exists, the assumption is just unparsimonious but that doesn't mean it is wrong.
The principles are Naturalistic, so it means that to verify it we will not need to investigate realms that do not interact with our methods.
MW interpretation is not science. its a philosophical take on observations that might help us in the future interpret new evidence that don't fit in all other frameworks of QM.

objectivity has proven its epistemic value. We don't need an argument from false authority to argue in favor of what logic dictates and facts verify. Rand's take on the subject is irrelevant. Science has been enjoying a run away success in epistemology by using Objective standards and independent verification for more than 400 years.
Now since most of you pseudo philosophers are only good in chronicling....check when Rand make her observations on the contribution of objectivity in science....

I understand that you are here to protect the echo chamber of your specific death denying ideology but your dis-likeness of specific philosophers can not change how we evaluate knowledge and the importance of objective verification in epistemology....sorry.

People are pretty clueless about this sort of thing. Back in the 40's, The Fountainhead was made into a movie starring Patricia Neal and Gary Cooper, a kind of celebration of the capitalist ubermensch, the guy whose talent placed him far above the pettiness of normal people's affairs. Everyone else was a parasite on his genius. Rand thought herself like this.

American Christians were so full of themselves and worshiped the corporate gods of capitalism, and so afraid of communism, they never understood that she was telling them all they were just a bunch parasites to the rich and famous, to whom they should all bow low. And Rand was a professed atheist! They bowed anyway. — Constance

-Again chronicling is irrelevant. What Rand believed or not is irrelevant. Objectivity stands on its own merits. Objectivity has been an established criterion way longer than Rand's takes on its importance.

ITs irrelevant to this topic but you can always google it. Well here is the first link I got.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-metaphysics/ — Nickolasgaspar

Nickolasgaspar, just say it. Why do you think Kant is just metaphysical speculation? Proof is in the pudding. Give me a paragraph, your assignment: Write in one paragraph a concise statement on why Kant's CPR is speculative metaphysics.
I'm not going to say up front that it isn't. It's just, if you know it, you can explain it. so explain it. Who knows, maybe you've got something there, but we will never know until you properly say it.
People who have something to say, say it. Spell it out Nickolasgaspar. I'll help you:

In Kant's CPR, he argues.............It is his claim that .......that I argue is merely metaphysical speculation, because........................

-And.....? its the same way. We observe people's brains like we observe all environmental phenomena. We gather systematic information for every aspect of that organ and its factions. That is a text book example of special pleading and an argument from ignorance fallacy.
Our ignorance of specialized knowledge on how the brain works doesn't justify to assume supernatural explanations. — Nickolasgaspar

You have to understand that philosophy's business is necessitated by the real condition in human affairs, which is its foundational indeterminacy. This cannot be ignored since that would mean ignoring a condition in plain sight, and science will not permit this. This would amount to ad hoc dismissal. So we apply the scientific method: What has to be the case, in order for what is the case before us to be what it is. Usually in science, this works out fairly well, no? One's sees mountains' irregular features and asks, why? What caused this? And theory of weathering is born, so to speak.

But what if the question about something has no empirically observable response? As when we ask, what is knowledge? You should see first that this is not a merely speculative question. One encounters the question as one would encounter a any other phenomenon's question. Only here, the question goes to the observer and the act of perceiving, and this is a foundational question, applicable to all things, for all things are first presented as knowledge claims before they are taken up as empirical claims.

If you take up the question of the nature of a knowledge claim, you are thrown into a problem that is unique, for anything you can say is itself the problem, that is, it too presupposes knowledge claims. To think at all presupposes what is inherently part of its own problematic.

Now this is NOT an invented issue. So all that you want to put out there in favor of what science has to say is not even on the table, because, of you will, the putting anything on the table at all is included in the problematic.

Look, at this point, any reasonable person has to see this. So, I don't take issue AT ALL with anything science has to say, any more than science would reasonably take issue itself. So spare me all this endless droning on about what science has to say. Try to put it aside, because after reading your comments, I am truly beginning to suspect you might have a problem, one very unbecoming of a scientist: dogmatism. Consider philosophy a paradigmatic challenge, and you have to switch the mode of your analytical approach. The question presents itself whether or not a knowledge claim

So, sorry for not going tit for tat with you in all you said. It would be pointless. I mean, I read it, but you have to make that fundamental shift away from what an empirical argument would look like; or better: Remember entirely what empirical arguments look like, but ask a question about them, which goes to their basic epidemic indeterminacy. You are invited then to analyze the structure of the epistemic relations, and this is inevitably gogin to be just as question begging as empirical science, but at least here, in the Husserl, Heidegger, and so many others, here one has brought the natter to its most basic analysis, because the work here done is specifically about the revealed features of the knowledge relationship, and this is as far as inquiry can go.

It is because philosophy takes things to this level that you find it disturbingly without content. But this IS the foundation of being human. Underneath the assumptions of all science there are all questions, nothing definitive.

You like to call this an argument from ignorance, but then, all science goes this way! Before there were theories about stellar composition based on spectral analysis, there were questions about what stars were that were unanswered, I.e., ignorance.

No one has mentioned "god" claims. This is your doing.

-Again chronicling is irrelevant. What Rand believed or not is irrelevant. Objectivity stands on its own merits. Objectivity has been an established criterion way longer than Rand's takes on its importance. — Nickolasgaspar

Sorry Nickolasgaspar. I mean no disrespect, but you are starting to sound like a nitwit.

Why do you think Kant is just metaphysical speculation? — Constance

never did....I have pointed out that I only used his name to highlight the issue of a fallacy (argument from false authority).
You seem to be unable to follow this conversation.

:rofl:

Write in one paragraph a concise statement on why Kant's CPR is speculative metaphysics. — Constance

Won’t happen. Because he’s never read a word of Kant. Just like he’s never read a word of Kuhn. He’s just a liar who wants to posture. Who knows why. I assume he’s a teenager or young adult.

It’s glaringly obvious when someone is just bullshitting. No specifics, no citations — just vague generalizations about “metaphysics” and “objectivity.”

It’s psychologically interesting— so I guess there’s some value to it.

:rage: I used to positively hate emojis. Now I see their value.

I find a certain merit in your arguments. By making philosophy equivalent (?) to science hypotheses you have put the subject on a firm foundation, distancing it from the reams of babble that might now be quartered in the bin of metaphysics. If I understand your position. :chin:

I only accept what Aristotle understood to be important. Empirical investigation(physika/science) should always inform our metaphysics...but yes, you get the point.

Emojis are about all that some people are worth.

It’s good to revisit this thread every couple years. My own view hasn’t changed: Philosophy, to me, is questioning — particularly the asking of universal human questions.

Quite apart from a narrow view of academic tenure and professionalism — one more division of labor — this broader view affords me the ability to take equally seriously what’s often claimed as “separate” — religion, art, science, etc. Which has been very useful in my general learning and practical engagement with people in the real world.

:up:

But is a reflection of ones conciousness necessarily philosophy? I could be young and never question anything with my deepest thoughts — Outlander

Isn't by "consciousness" not necessarily my deepest thoughts? Because you're right. But rather, a reflection on that thing, consciousness, and the whats of it ?

what is your (or anyones) thoughts on saying it is the act of questioning the inherent views, conclusions, mechanisms, or observations of ones consciousness in a way that can be logically expressed? — Outlander

Ok, yah, that. Sorry.