I consider metaphysics core beliefs that all people have that they base their concepts of ‘truth’ and ‘reality’ on, including things like subjectivity, objectivity, self, realism, etc.
Are you saying that you don’t have beliefs of assumed truths to which the universe exists from your perspective?
Maybe my definition of metaphysics is far-removed from yours?
A sign of true wisdom in a philosopher, IMO.
realun - metaphysics requires the assumption, or belief, or position that the phenomenal world is not the seat of reality. That’s just the common definition of the word. You may make up your own, in which case, depending upon just what definition you make up, anyone may fit into that category. But the usual definition, the one used in the textbooks, is the one I use.
I assume that I exist and that the universe does, and that I live in that universe. By itself, that is certainly not metaphysics. I have no epistemic position beyond that what I can sense, and what others can, including with technological means, exists. That is not metaphysics.
To have no systematic or reasoned-out position on epistemology, ontology, teleology or even the origin of the universe is to live without metaphysics.
For me, philosophy begins, conceptually, with biology. It’s an entirely human activity - a socail activity. It’s a study of language alone - it is the method by which we learn the full implications of our statements. It is, in the end, not about reality at all, but about language.
That’s odd, because I would call your stance metaphysical in its core beliefs at some level, maybe much more or less than others…
For example:
“I assume that I exist and that the universe does” - I would argue that even this most simplistic assumption bridges into metaphysics, if only minutely.
“It’s a study of language alone - it is the method by which we learn the full implications of our statements.” - How far do those ‘full implications’ lead. I would say into metaphysics, again, according to my definition.
“It is, in the end, not about reality at all, but about language.” - It depends on how you conceptualize reality interacting with language.
realun - if you would argue that, then why don’t you?
Ok, then I do argue it, now is as good a time as any!
Realun wrote:
“Ok, then I do argue it, now is as good a time as any!”
I am assuming that this is not your actual argument.
What is existence? How does the universe exist by your claim that it does? Even the most practical and pragmatic assumptions, that something is something, that A = A, are at their heart–assumptions. Why does truth need this assumed value? It needs it for a reason, to be credible or sensible, among other reasons. Ultimately, you have a theory about what truth is that will fall under a philosophical idealism. There’s no getting around that.
A ‘full implication’ of language regards the ‘highest possible context’. In other words, the context is most reasonable and true to fit the concepts being talked about. That context is one which is ‘real and true’. All words, language, and concepts fall under this metaphysic to some point. For example, you can only say something and use language based on the history of its usage; if you go back far enough and trace not only the words themselves, but your relationships with them, then you are relating to an ‘existential universe’ that begs the question regarding how these words came into being and how they are meaningful now.
Like my previous point, language is necessarily entwined with ‘reality’ because of how each builds off each other. This relationship is metaphysical strictly based on how a person defines ‘reality’.
Faust, your metaphysics is that there are no metaphysics. My apologies if this has already been said, I wasn’t able to read through all the posts.
I see it more as making as small existential claims as possible and not caring to talk about them impractically. 
That’s fine, but I still don’t see how a person can avoid metaphysics. Religious or non-religious people do it all the time.
southcross - that’s crap. I might as well say that my religion is that I don’t have a religion. That just robs the word “religion” of any meaning. It’s a parlor trick, and not even a good one. Even a child would not fall for that.
realun - “Existence” is a word that has no literal meaning. Period. It’s a figure of speech. Things exist, but that doesn’t mean there is any such thing as existence. It’s a verb dressed like a noun.
I don’t know “how” the universe exists. I assume that it does. I have no idea what “truth” is. Statements are either true or false. By verification through the senses. That this is possible is a rank assumption. There is no justification for it. But “truth” requires an object. To speak of ‘truth’ as if it exists independently of us is to misunderstand the word - it is to be metaphysical.
What I am saying is that philosophy is about statements, about claims, and not about 'reality". The justification for these claims is, in the end, pre-philosophical - or at very least, pre-epistemic. Philosophy is not about philosophy - statements are not about epistemology. Philosophy begins after certain assumptions are made - these assumptions are not philosophical. Philosophy begins with language. Language begins somewhere else.
To what does language apply? That’s another question, and is answered before epistemology begins. To me, as a materialist/perspectivist. A rationalist has a different answer. But to project your own rationalist answers to me says something only about you.
Language does not require the highest possible context. It requires definition. Limits. It requires the lowest possible context. “Ugh” (meaning “look”). That’s all it requires. You are confounding “metaphysical” with “abstract”. At every turn you are doing that. Metaphysics is a second, third, fourth order abstraction. The abstraction required for language is of the first order only. This first order abstraction occurs when we make a discernment - when we separate what we sense into parts. When we delimit, define. It’s something that we do, and must do, so that we don’t eat the plate along with the dinner. But it doesn’t “belong” to the universe at large, it belongs to us.
I think this is above ridiculous, science is a philosophy, and good science poses the question at many angles. Science isn’t about making life easier, its about a self-correcting engine for churning out truths.
The amazing thing about science is that the claims are testable. Take evolutionary psychology, for example. Predictions can be made about human behavior according to the underlying principles behind the evolution of the human brain. They can be tested and confirmed using very thorough scientific investigation.
and claims are always open to question by anyone so long as logic and empirical evidence are the criteria for judgment. Because this process is so grounded in reality, the shared models produced by various fields collide and new correlations and causes become evident, expanding the framework of our understanding. When you seek truth and not justification, you may not find it in the places you’d like it to be… but at least you have a real source of influence and insight, a platform from which to deliberate positive changes in ways you can monitor and understand.
Type-casting science into asking certain ‘types’ of questions is absurd, science is about discovering the truth, and wh en thats the case we have no idea what types of questions or from what angles, will need to be asked and explored.
“Yes” or “No” questions isn’t all science is about.
Thats ‘frozen filosophy’ if i’ve ever heard it.
That’s a very good point. This is the classical meaning of metaphysics brought down to us by Plato and Aristotle, but because we in the modern world understand “metaphysics” to mean “beyond the physical”, a whole slew of other interpretations is open to us.
I, for one, believe in a metaphysical extension to reality that’s “beyond” the physical world, but I don’t take the physical world to be unreal as a consequence. In fact, I don’t even take the physical world to be non-metaphysical. Ultimately, I believe physicality is a special form of a greater class of metaphysical things. In that case, we have a sample of metaphysical things when we have physical things, and what we say about it can be extended (with assumptions) to non-physical metaphysical things.
Uh No, as I took it you suggested that metaphysical propositions can not be true. That in it self is a metaphysical proposition. That is totally different than saying atheism is a religion, which attributes similar general descriptive but not categorical terms to both. So what’s crap and who’s the child again??
And for the record, I see science and philosophy as both being concerned with truth (as it should be) despite what ever limited access we might have to it.
No, it’s not. If I say I am a racist, that is not a racist position. It’s a position about racism. Mine is a position about metaphysics, not a metaphysical position. If I answer a question with “no”, that is a position about “yes”, but it is not a “yes” position.
If it is not possible to deny, which you are claiming, then neither denial nor affirmation is possible. I am not claiming that metaphysical positions cannot be true, but that they have no meaning, which removes their candidacy for truth or falsehood.
You are claiming that everything is either true or false. But even children understand make-believe. Fiction has no truth-value.
Metaphysical propositions are those which are absolute or fundamental. If you are saying that metaphysical propositions can not be true, it is making an absolute claim and therefor is a metaphysical proposition. To remain consistent you would have to remain silent or denounce the validity of your claim(agnostic on the matter). Which is my point at hand.
I will accept no meaning, because its a subjective term that would not qualify it as a metaphysical claim. However, my original response stands if you claim it as a truth value.
I did not claim that at all. I claimed your proposition as a I took it fundamentally negated itself. Although I do believe all questions that properly address the universe will either be true or false. Though I believe knowledge is inherently limited and validation impossible. I aslo believe that all your actions fundamentally make metaphsyical proclamations, yours are just assumed and not as actively addressed by your conscious as mine.
Southie wrote:
“Metaphysical propositions are those which are absolute or fundamental.”
That metaphysical propopsitons are the only ones that are fundamental is just plain false. Metaphysical propositions are those that require that the phenomenal world is not the seat of reality. I am not making an absolute claim - and I am tired of seeing this trick. My view is not meant to apply to the entire universe, and for all time. It is not a claim about the universe at all. That would be epistemology, or ontology. It applies to my philosophical view. My claim is that metaphysical statements have no meaning - this is not a view of the universe, but is a view about language. Human language. That falls far short of an absolute. It is a defintive statement. My view is that “absolute” also has no meaning. It is a false abstraction. Abstraction can be taken to a limit, and not beyond. Before this limit, abstraction creates meaning. Beyond it, it removes meaning. Metaphysics is the art of making abstractions that have no meaning. It’s a view about language.
And so everything you say is ultimately worthless. Just abstraction like everything else.
The worth of any statement is another topic.
But to repeat myself - it is abstraction itself that creates meaning. That does not mean that every abstraction creates meaning. Some abstractions are better than others. Like everything else in language, they can be misused.
I think everything you are saying is either contradictory or statementless.