However, this also resolves to me the trouble of an "end goal" to a moral system. — Jerry

As I see it, "moral" behavior does not have a goal. Our path is not to "behave as optimally as possible." It's to act in accordance with our authentic selves, from our hearts if you will. That requires that we have faith in your our spontaneous action. In my understanding, the foundation of all this is our nature as social animals with family feeling, community feeling, and empathy. All "rational" moral systems are intellectual and ideological overlays we use to justify our actions after the fact.

Beyond that, I think some of what we call moral actions are behaviors we are socialized to perform as a form of social control - useful in making society run smoothly and to minimize conflict.

Moral systems are very old. They come from humans living together and depending on one another. For the group's and the individual's long-term survival, it is necessary to establish trust among the members of the group. You establish trust by sharing the same values and goals; by being available to help when another member is in trouble; by living up to your obligations and keeping your promises. It's not all that complicated: people need other people, but the only way they count on other people is by proving that other people can count on them. — Vera Mont

A good summary.

Instrumentality is the translation of an abstract into a concrete idea, I think. Ultimately, the instrument does not create the desired outcome so much as it comes to embody it. — Pantagruel

As I was reading this part of your text, it struck me it was similar to Aristotle's ideas about causation - the 3D printer is the efficient cause. Teleology comes in with the final cause.

Then you went on to say:

Aristotle characterizes the soul as the end of this body. So, although it is not so much the concept of function that is at stake here (although entelecheia seems to be associated with energeia and therefore with functioning), in the background teleology still plays a role. — Pantagruel

I think all these ideas are related.

You've never been called a bellicose bumpkin? — Janus

I'm sure that someone must have.

Loser 1's Money Dominos Are Falling! — 180 Proof

Yes. It has come as a surprise to me to recognize the significance.

hurt him in the pocket book, — GRWelsh

I think you're right. As I said, it just had never struck me before.

I hadn't paid much attention to the Trump Organization civil trail in New York. Seeing how it's going now, I think the consequences might be even greater than those potentially coming from the criminal trials. It never struck me before how big a blow this could be, financially, politically, and psychologically.

Welcome to the forum.

The moderators frown on providing links to your own website. Frown with extreme prejudice. They will likely contact you. I suggest you summarize your understanding in a post and give us something to work with.

In that case, your models are not much different from imaginations either. Because you are rejecting metaphysics under the ground of the imperfect knowledge which is beyond your experiences, which you think as imagination. — Corvus

Yes. Well put.

That's fair. I distinguish the two to separate two mindsets: the former being just one who wants to be able to predict experience, and the other thinks they are actually getting at knowledge of the world in-itself. — Bob Ross

As I noted, these discussions of metaphysics generally fall apart on the question of what metaphysics is and what it isn't.

Let's leave it there.

Kant, as can be seen in your quote of CPR, was making most of his arguments from the model that we represent the world; — Bob Ross

Instead, it just notes that we ‘experience’ with two possible forms: space and time. Whether, in our model of reality, we attribute those forms to our representative faculties is irrelevant. — Bob Ross

You say "modeling," I say "ontology."

I would go for a more Kantian view that space and time do not pertain to the world as it is in-itself: there’s no noumenal space and time. — Bob Ross

I do agree with this.

From CPR

Space is not an empirical concept which has been derived from outer experiences. For in order that certain sensations be referred to something outside me (that is, to something in another region of space from that in which I find myself), and similarly in order that I may be able to represent them as outside and alongside one another, and accordingly as not only different but as in different places, the representation of space must already underlie them [dazu muß die Vorstellung des Raumes schon zum Grunde liegen]. Therefore, the representation of space cannot be obtained through experience from the relations of outer appearance; this outer experience is itself possible at all only through that representation...

...Space is a necessary a priori representation that underlies all outer intuitions. One can never forge a representation of the absence of space, though one can quite well think that no things are to be met within it. It must therefore be regarded as the condition of the possibility of appearances, and not as a determination dependent upon them, and it is an a priori representation that necessarily underlies outer appearances. — Kant

He says similar things about time. Is it your position that space and time are illegitimate concepts?

Metaphysics is rational, at best, and itself is never theoretical (i.e. explanatory of nature). E.g. 'interpretations' of QM are metaphysical (re: ontology), not epistemological (i.e. predictive, or conclusive)³ – in Aristotlean terms they 'come after (i.e. categorical generalizations from, or (as per Collingwood) absolute presuppositions of)¹ the physics'. This is why Spinoza's scientia intuitiva¹ follows from common ideas³ which in turn follow from imaginary (inadequate) ideas² (the latter two e.g. as per Peirce/Dewey). Of course, there are other 'interpretations of metaphysics' but I find them less rational (i.e. unsound, anachronistic)² or irrational (i.e. invalid, faith-based / idealist / subjectivist). — 180 Proof

How do people arrive at metaphysical conjectures if not via imagining them? — Janus

The same way they do any other ideas - thinking, using intuition, or reasoning.

On my end, I am using the definition used in the Kantian tradition, as well as Leibniz and many before him. — Bob Ross

I'm not a Kant scholar, but I've read "Critique of Pure Reason." I don't remember it saying anything like "metaphysics is, in fact, indistinguishable from human imagination." I doubt that it did and I doubt that Kant thought it. I can't speak to Leibnitz, but I would be surprised if he felt that way.

If you have a different definition, then let’s hear it: I am more than happy to entertain other definitions. — Bob Ross

I'm not interested in discussing my or anyone else's definition of "metaphysics" except to point out that you are basing your argument on a non-standard definition of the word.

Nuff said.

Really good post. I especially like

And it doesn't make much sense to say "what does the world look like without eyes," or "how would we think about the world without minds." — Count Timothy von Icarus

I hadn't thought of it in those words before. I save that to use when I'm talking about Taoism.

In this view, only the higher, noumenal realm can be causally efficacious, or at least there is only downwards causality from the noumenal onto the phenomenal, not the other way around. To my mind, this creates an arbitrary division in nature that many don't really want to defend, but which it is nonetheless easy to accidentally fall into. — Count Timothy von Icarus

In Taoism, as I see it, the relationship you describe between noumenal and phenomenal is made explicit as the fundamental basis of reality, although rather than "arbitrary" I'd say "human."

Making sense of “what is there” seems to me paramount, and not entirely fruitless. — NOS4A2

Agreed. As I noted, for me, metaphysics, along with epistemology, is what really matters about philosophy.

I think you’re right insofar as metaphysics is an exercise in imagination and intuition. But I also think metaphysical inquiry can help other forms of inquiry by eliminating the inpossible from our questioning, serving to constrain the scope of empirical studies to a reasonable domain of inquiry, and tempering the mind for such a task. — NOS4A2

Thinking some more - I've come to the understanding that talking about metaphysics at all is a fools errand. When I do, I try to be clear about what I mean when I'm talking about it and focus on that while avoiding a more general discussion. Those always degrade into confusion and conflict. Again, not criticism.

I think you’re right insofar as metaphysics is an exercise in imagination and intuition. But I also think metaphysical inquiry can help other forms of inquiry by eliminating the inpossible from our questioning, serving to constrain the scope of empirical studies to a reasonable domain of inquiry, and tempering the mind for such a task. — NOS4A2

I think that just highlights the point I made earlier - that everyone has their own understanding of the meaning of "metaphysics." I don't consider this a criticism of what you've written.

I said it was interesting. I didn't say it was better or that I even liked it. It's mildly interesting in how it kind of lost the plot and confused the 3d impasto technique with the still-life elements.

Should I have expressed fear and loathing to be more in the cool kid camp? :snicker: — praxis

To clarify further, as I noted, it's fun to mess around with this. I can see how a real artist would enjoy it. I enjoy messing with Chat GPT writing.

I said it was interesting. I didn't say it was better or that I even liked it. It's mildly interesting in how it kind of lost the plot and confused the 3d impasto technique with the still-life elements.

Should I have expressed fear and loathing to be more in the cool kid camp? :snicker: — praxis

Sorry, it was intended as a smart-ass remark. I've edited the post to clarify.

the following is interesting. — praxis

[smart-ass remark]Yes, it's clearly a much better version than all those slapdash ones Van Gogh did. He just didn't seem to be able to get it right. [/smart-ass remark]

True, but this is not a conventional definition in philosophy: it is an adequate colloquial rundown. — Bob Ross

For me, metaphysics it's the most important part of philosophy. My objection to your OP is that you attempt to discredit metaphysics using a definition that I, and most philosophers, don't believe is correct.

No need to take this any farther.

Art has been created by nonhuman intelligence for decades (if not centuries). Our local zoo has sold art created by elephants for quite some time. In this scenario, the elephant acts as a "tool" of the "artist", who is the human who set up the scenario. No different from the "artist" who sets up the 3D printer or the AI. — LuckyR

I don't think visual artists are worried much about elephants stealing their jobs or taking over their niche in the aesthetic ecology.

You wait until AI and VR hook up, allowing you to virtually visit any mind- or machine-created realityscape that can be dreamed of. (Why am I inclined to doubt that the 'no pornography' firewall will break down pretty quickly. Glad I'm old. :wink: — Wayfarer

Pornography or not, I wouldn't mind hanging around long enough to take a look. They'd better get cracking though.

Is there a difference between ordinary communication and art ? By some criteria a well articulated piece of writing done so with flare can be artistic in a sense it all depends on how touched or moved the person receiving such a communication is by it that makes it art rather than just another informative blurb of text. — simplyG

I've thought about that. I think there is a difference, at least by convention. On the other hand, it seems like communicating ideas is conveying experience, an intellectual one.

I'm glad we adopted ours when we were in our thirties, not our sixties. — Vera Mont

Yes. My brother had his children when he was in his late 50s. I love my nieces, but the idea of raising kids at this time of my life is daunting. He always really wanted kids. I certainly can understand that.

Substitute "convey something" for communicate. — Vera Mont

I have no objection to saying it that way.

Ok, but then you are saying getting something from art not intended (communicated) by the artist is essentially incorrect.
“Your doing it wrong! Its a happy painting not a calm one you fool!”
This is a very restrictive way to define art isn't it? Im not saying thats bad, just clarifying. — DingoJones

If I were the artist, I guess I would say I had failed to get my point across to that particular person. Again, that happens all the time with communication. If I write a post here on the forum and you don't understand what I'm trying to say, I'll go back and look to see if I could have been clearer. If no one seems to understand, I've probably done a bad job.

I replied in that manner to avoid someone asking "what do you mean by metaphysics?", if I say that sense-data is what remains if you deny metaphysics, then they know I'm talking about the world. — Manuel

Not sure I can agree with that. Wouldnt that mean that getting a different experience from what the artist is communicating is impossible? That is, if art is only communicating experience of the artist then when someone gets a different experience (a different emotion for example) then we couldn't call it art. — DingoJones

No, it would mean that art is subject to misjudgment and misunderstanding just like all other type of human communication.

Also, “communication” might not be the right word. That implies a two way exchange in my mind. Isnt art more provoking a response than communicating something? — DingoJones

Communication can be and often is a back and forth between people, but it doesn't have to be and often isn't. The user's manual for my new CO meter is a one way communication unless I have questions and contact the customer service line.

Either we hold onto some kind of metaphysics or we do not. If we deny that metaphysics is legitimate, then we are left with the view that all there is, is sense data, for us. — Manuel

I agree, although maybe a clearer way of saying this is that we do have a metaphysics, whether or not we recognize it.

Now of course I'm not saying that some significant advancement will certainly not come soon. — Mr Bee

We live in interesting times, for better or worse.

That's a whole other issue. Since retirement, I have had time for creative endeavours that I only dreamed of while I had a family and a full time job. We might all be much happier, tinkering and inventing, exploring and foraging, painting and composing, volunteering and teaching, if it didn't have to be done either on top of a job or as a job. — Vera Mont

Yes, retirement is wonderful. I'm as happy as I've ever been. Yesterday I was talking to a friend with his two children, 4 and 2, standing there. I suggested he retire too, but he felt he should continue to feed his kids.

until there is some work to do clearing up and fixing things. — unenlightened

Robots can do that too.

One person viewing a pretty sunset is like :starstruck: — praxis

You're right. I should have said "artistic experience."

What do you mean by it then? — Bob Ross

I have my own ideas about how to think about metaphysics, but for now, I'll just provide a conventional definition:

Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that studies the fundamental nature of reality. This includes the first principles of: being or existence, identity, change, space and time, cause and effect, necessity, actuality, and possibility. — Wikipedia - Metphysics

That is not at all the same as:

metaphysics is, in fact, indistinguishable from human imagination — Bob Ross

I wonder if aesthetic experience is taken for granted or if it's practically an afterthought in our materialistic society and it is not enough. — praxis

For me, "aesthetic experience" is an act of communication between two people. What happens when there is only one person there?

Reading through this topic you might think there was no such thing as cheap mass produced art before AI came along. :lol: — praxis

But think about all those poor guys who make motel room and doctor's office art. They need to work too.

The issue is art is meant to evoke emotion to the observer by changing the way we look at the world. — simplyG

Yes, this is at the heart of what I have been thinking.