Certainly many metaphysicses can be, and are, proposed. ...most of which (such as the one you describe) need various assumptions and brute-facts.

Michael Ossipoff

I have found that interesting metaphysics is a combination of knowledge, personal observations, pattern recognition (finding similarities within differences and differences within similarities), as well as excellent creative intuition. Most philosophers I've studied spent a good part of their life honing these skills each in their own way. It takes much time and patience to begin to develop a completely new way of looking at nature which moves toward a deeper understanding. I really appreciate new ways of looking at life.

I have found that interesting metaphysics is a combination of knowledge, personal observations, pattern recognition (finding similarities within differences and differences within similarities), as well as excellent creative intuition. Most philosophers I've studied spent a good part of their life honing these skills each in their own way. It takes much time and patience to begin to develop a completely new way of looking at nature which moves toward a deeper understanding. I really appreciate new ways of looking at life. — Rich

That's all very nice, but I was just talking about merit.

No doubt there's much creative drama involved, etc. I guess I never doubted that.

But the fact remains that your metaphysics depends on assumptions and brute-facts.

Alright, I accept your answer that I quoted above is your best answer to that statement. Discussion concluded.

Forgive me for emphasizing merit, instead of resorting to invoking the "creative intuition" and "deeper understanding" of someone else..

Invocation of authority is a familiar Internet substitute for answering comments, criticisms or questions regarding your statements.

I've encountered that at another philosophy forum, but, not here, until now.

Anyway, invocation of authority makes little sense, because academics and authors don't even agree.

One person expressed the idea you spoke of, in one of the interviews on Kuhn's "Closer to Truth", but it's not often heard.

Michael Ossipoff

Merit is subjective as is any idea put forth. To penetrate requires many skills that takes time to develop and these skills can come from many, many different sources. A philosopher might study mathematics, physics, psychology, economics, history, literature, different cultures, the arts, music, meditation, sports, philosophy and via this multi-prong approach observe patterns and from these patterns maybe come to a new thought about the nature of nature via creative intuition. It is a long journey and everything that one observes on this journey is useful in creating this new idea.

Well, academics have a saying: "Publish or Perish". So maybe, for that reason, it's necessary for academic philosophers to perpetually proliferate philosophies, elaborate new terminology, etc.

Sorry, but all this invoking of someone else's long-time-acquired skills just doesn't count as an argument, an answer or a justification for a metaphysics. ...or something with any relevance to the comparison of two metaphysicses.

Merit is subjective as is any idea put forth — Rich

Well, Ockham's Principle of Parsimony is pretty-much universally-accepted as a standard for merit.

Say that there are two metaphysicss. One of them makes no assumptions, and posits no brute-facts.

The other one largely consists of assumptions and brute-facts.

Metaphysicses can't be proven, and so your subjective relativism can try to claim that one is as good as the other, even though one of them is assumption-ridden.

I don't expect to convince you about that merit-difference. I'm just pointing this out for the record, for anyone else who encounters this discussion.

As pointed out in another recent discussion-thread, people have their own reasons for believing as they do, and often or usually it's entirely futile to expect to get through to them regarding the merits of their beliefs.

Michael Ossipoff

Well, Ockham's Principle of Parsimony is pretty-much universally-accepted as a standard for merit. — Michael Ossipoff

Let's just say it has no merit. It is just a brute fact. And that others like it equally has no merit (argumentum ad populum).

"Well, Ockham's Principle of Parsimony is pretty-much universally-accepted as a standard for merit". — Michael Ossipoff


Let's just say it has no merit. It is just a brute fact. And that others like it equally has no merit. — Rich

Spoken like a fully true-believing Relativist.

"Any statement, any standard, is no better than any other, and is only a brute fact"

...presumably justifying and supporting a metaphysics that's built upon, consists of, a stack of assumptions and brute-facts.

All right, Rich, I give up. It's completely evident now that nothing that I say will reach you, and I hereby quit that effort.

(As I often say, at this point in a "discussion", when I subsequently don't answer something that Rich says, it doesn't mean that Rich has said something irrefutable. It means only that I've given up trying to communicate with Rich in this "discussion".)

Michael Ossipoff

"Any statement, any standard, is no better than any other, and is only a brute fact" — Michael Ossipoff

I mean we could speak to the masses, but then we would be subjected to argumentum ad populum.

Or, we can agree that you have the final say, but then that would be confronted with argumentum ad verecundiam.

So what is left?

I guess just arguing that the other person's ideas are brute facts while ours aren't.

In any case, I understand you perfectly. It's not a brute fact if you say it isn't. I get it.