Metaphysical
(popularly) abstract, abstruse, or unduly theoretical.
Incorporeal; supernatural. — Collins English dictionary
Seriously, can we have a stab here at defining and describing metaphysics? — Pattern-chaser
Logical positivist used the verificationism principle to regard metaphysical statements as meaningless, would you go along that belief ? Ironically, the principle fails to justify itself and the whole theory falls apart there.I agree with the logical positivists that a priori knowledge about the real, physical world cannot be justified; unlike a priori knowledge about abstract, platonic worlds, as in mathematics.
.... statement is meaningful only if it is either empirically verifiable or else tautological (i.e., such that its truth arises entirely from the meanings of its terms). Thus, the principle discards as meaningless the metaphysical statements of traditional philosophy as well as other kinds of statements—such as ethical, aesthetic, or religious principles
I think the everyday use of "metaphysical" is something like this:
Metaphysical
(popularly) abstract, abstruse, or unduly theoretical.
Incorporeal; supernatural. — Collins English dictionary
But I think we need something better than "stuff that's a bit weird" for our use, don't we? — Pattern-chaser
Well, I believe at least one definition of metaphysics is "what goes beyond physics". Now, what goes beyond physics is not necessarily the supra-natural, but it is, I think, whatever cannot be empirically demonstrated. — Andreas Greifenberger
In my view, a metaphysical assertion is meta-cognitive speech-act whose intention is to influence perception, behavior and values, via a wholesale change of view. — sime
What definition(s) of metaphysics do you find the most useful and meaningful? — Pattern-chaser
To add to the confusion, consider what (if any) difference there is between ontology and metaphysics. Both pertain to what exists. — Relativist
It's bullshit — darthbarracuda
Logical positivist used the verificationism principle to regard metaphysical statements as meaningless, would you go along that belief ? — Wittgenstein
Reasoning from first principles in the context of the real, physical world looks like a serious epistemic mismatch to me. That is why I reject the practice of metaphysics. — alcontali
Reasoning from first principles in the context of the real, physical world looks like a serious epistemic mismatch to me. That is why I reject the practice of metaphysics. — alcontali
For example, the axiomatic method certainly does an excellent job in mathematics; but it also does an excellent job in morality, where axiomatic derivation from basic rules is also the method of choice. — alcontali
But metaphysics is reasoning toward first principles, not reasoning from first principles. — Metaphysician Undercover
But to study morality, as a field of study within philosophy, is a process by which we seek to determine those rules. — Metaphysician Undercover
but the metaphysician reasons toward determining first principles. — Metaphysician Undercover
If you reason toward first principles, you will look for the principles underlying these first principles, and again, ad nauseam. It obviously leads to infinite regress. — alcontali
That is why this particular direction is forbidden in axiomatic systems. — alcontali
The metaphysicist is wasting his time, simply because the direction of reasoning is necessarily incorrect. — alcontali
Justifying the starting-point rules is an exercise in infinite regress and futility. Can you give even one example of where an approach like that has worked? — alcontali
Epistemology really works, while metaphysics is nonsense. We know that for a fact, because after 2500 years of metaphysics, it has never produced anything else but nonsense. — alcontali
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.