who says what’s possible or not? Do you realize how many science terms are temporary names for holes in knowledge that nobody knows about?
Why might metaphysics be such a dirty word to some? Because it’s a threat to what they see as reality. And what exactly seems to make up ‘reality’ as every average person assumes it is?
the usual
established facts ( which are only highy developed theories as far as 100% guarantees go)
what you’re comfortable with
subjective opinions
past experiences (only living in the memory)
and you must be right, right?
because if you’re wrong then you’re whole world falls apart. Everything you thought was true isn’t and everything you thought existed doesn’t or never existed at all. I guess if you find that possibility threatening then metaphysics could be a dirty word.
Hallelujah and amen!
( Metaphysics doesn’t just belong with the brothers grimm as there is other fictions I can think of too that it could find some company with like that of the torah, koran or bible for example.) 
I’ve always had a metaphysical mind, and I think there’s a lot of good that comes out of metaphysics, but I don’t think that metaphysics is properly an area of knowledge, as Kant seemed to argue against pretty forcefully. I do, though, with Kant, agree that dismantling the idea that we can know a metaphysics is good because it makes way for belief. And, as a side note on belief, I think many try to downplay its role in our lives because they haven’t had a strong experience of it. For example, I was skateboarding and had a strong conviction that I could do something I hadn’t done before. Consequently, I did it, whereas otherwise as in the past I had not gotten anywhere close. I think some of our metaphysical beliefs result in concrete everyday action, and wonderfully expand our imagination to what’s possible in the universe.
I think the only value to metaphysics is that in trying to prove something beyond the physical as a cause you actually expand your ability to measure the physical with more precission. The true divison of our world is not between the physical and the meta physical, but is between the physical and the moral. We live in a moral world full of meanings without being, and values beyond calculation or measure. Peece.
I have no idea what you mean by “having a metaphysic”. If you mean science reaches into the unkown, I’ll buy it. If you think science must entail the unknowable, well. back to Grimm.
I’m open to pretty much anything.
Grirmm brothers? Why not? I wouldn’t read it as a science book, though.
Metaphysic, Myth, Mystics, UFO, Psychic, aliens, God, so called “super natural” things, whatever.
Although I may not see much “probability” based on my personal experiences or information I got up to now, I won’t deny the “possibility” without due examination.
I’d rather remain “uncertain” and “open” about things I don’t really know than pretending to know the “existence” or “non-existence”.
Limiting ourselves to “current” scientific theories is as stupid as confining oneself in old obsolete religious beliefs.
Who knows? We might find out the scientific evidence that snow white and 7 dwarfs actually existed.
An open mind is like a pickup truck in the city. If you turn your attention away from it for a moment some one will fill it with trash.
Re. Grimm brothers
Not metaphysical?
Then a closed mind is useless, for it can’t be filled at all.
I see human being as stupid and insane. So, I would listen/read anything with lots of skepticism, including what you’ve just said. 
But I don’t close my mind because I know we don’t know much and this is a strange world.
A closed house isn’t useless if you have the key, but if it were open night and day it would be torn down by the city as a drug house. The ideal situation is to think about everything going in compared to everything else you know. People do contain a lot of contradictions at times, but it is acceptible very often for people to entertain the most outrageous ideas of luck and supernatural grace on Sunday, and live six days out of seven in the rational world. People should guard their minds as well as they guard their houses. When I say that people should think about what they learn as they learn it, and put new knowledge in relation to old knowledge, it is because I do not learn quickly or easily, am uneducated, perhaps uneducable, and the method I suggest is the only one that works for me. I am not advertizing for idiot savants inc. here. I am saying that it is the open minds that are quick, and nimble with thought that are actually the most useless in terms of scholarship.
I have had some formal education. I did okay, not great. The biggest problem it presented other than cost was that it was actually of short duration, so one must learn without the time required to really digest it, and put everything in perspective. I was a little older going to university, am much older now; but then, very often I would ask smart, quick, and able people about a class they had had only to find out that they would forget it as fast as they finished it. Every new bit of education would evict the old education. And it is a joke between myself and my wife, that “you got something wrong with your head”. I do, but something right as well. Knowledge sticks to me, but I have to pound it into my skull with a maul. And the basis of good and accurate reasoning is a lot of facts, knowledge one can draw upon in an instant.
Metaphysical can be used as a dirty word if you have a dirty mind. Haha.
But on a serious note I think everything is possible, yes even the Grimm’s world or Greek mythos, but the real question a philosopher ought to ask is the description offered by such sources probable or accurate?
WE ought not to dismiss a certain proposal because only of our predisposition. Let’s say I’m an atheist and I find the concept of god as silly as a pink unicorn prancing on the streets of Brooklyn but if I am really after the truth and I wish to discover the actual reality exist per se I would be open enough to consider the possibility and check the probability and accuracy of the proposal within its framework (i.e. not self-defeating). Remember we are finite so we cannot really decide if a proposed actuality on another plane of reality actually exist, but if someone proposed a particular reality outside our plane of reality intersecting with us (i.e. the Christian proposal) then I think we can check if the descriptions are probable and accurate.
For those who still think Kant was able to reconcile physics and metaphysics, please read Nietzsche’s “Twilight of the Idols” or Kaufman’s “Discovering the Mind”. Kant can’t. He wrote under the onus of religion as primary authority.
Grimm as metaphysics? You’ve got to be kidding. I’m unconvinced, even though I like Jung. Might as well say that metaphysics includes anything and everything. “Do not eat beans!” commanded Pythagoras. Is that metaphysics or fear of farts? 
Can we in any way simplify the definitions we have of metaphysics?
I can simplify the definition: 99% nonsense. Here’s the fart, all children are metaphysicists, and some people never grow out of it. It is the natural beginning of all philosophy, which begins in magic, desire, wish, and religion, because, for the child, long before he can think coherently or express himself plainly, things happen that they desire, so they do not understand that desire is not a cause, and that the event is not caused by the desire. Reality proves false to the child.
It seriously does not matter if another plane of reality exists since we can only live on one at a time. People should avoid the opportunity to reexamine all that science has discredited. We only have one life on this earth, and little actual time, and all the time we spend examining the impossible as though it might be possible because of faith based upon authority and revelation -is wasted. Truth has a survival benefit that we deny ourselves at our own peril. While we think about nonsense if we choose to, some guy is working night and day to evict us from our country or eliminate us completely. Faith may move mountains but we don’t need mountains moved. We need the facts, because reason requires bedrock to support it.
I agree with what you say for the most part but only insofar as metaphysics and science conflict with each other - when that happens, I say science should win out. But there are other applications towards which metaphysics can be put, applications that can benefit man. You have to keep in mind that whether or not metaphysics sheds any light on truth and falsehood, it has effects on people’s attitudes, values, and most importantly their behavior. Insofar as these effects are concerned, the usefulness of metaphysics can’t be determined unless we can somehow induce and assess those attitudes, values, and behaviors as either helpful to mankind or detrimental. In the past, especially in religious contexts, metaphysics has a poor track record, but this reflects more the way religious leaders and ideologues have applied it, not so much what potentials it has. For example, militant Islamists believe in the metaphysical notion that Allah condones violence and terrorism towards infidels, rewarding those who partake in it for His sake. But there are other applications of the principles and values of Islam that promote peace and kindness towards others - infidels included. There are passages from the Quran that these principles and values can be directly attributed to. And I’ll bet my bottom dollar that if the leading clergy of the middle east were to focus exclusively on these passages and teachings (not holding my breath on that), there would be far less war and violence issuing from that region of the world. Note the crucial factor here: it’s what the people believe that has this effect, not whether they are correct, not whether it’s true.
May I suggest that the proper division of philosophy is not into physics and metaphysics; but physics and morals. Moral reality cannot be proved, measured, or ruled by logic; but that is where we live and we still have to find ways of talking about all our many concepts with meaning sans being.
I have read in the Holy Qu’ran, and read about Dar es Islam, and I trust the leading clergy do not call for war or violence; but it is the people themselves, frustrated with their lives, and dominated by people like our selves who put all manor of material things before our God, between ourselves and God, and who seem to want the same for the people of God. We are very different from these people. It is as though they are from the past. If we want to protect ourselves, we will have to protect them from ourselves. We have to find a way of isolating them without injuring them, and I do mean at all levels; and giving them Palestine would help. If you think of it, they are all like a religious order of monks, and it would be rude if the monks watched t.v. to beam a lot of lewd pictures into their homes in order to advertize; when to do so tends to devalue all of their relationships. Do you see my point? I trust that the Holy Qu’ran says to spank the girls if they are lewd. I guess here, that we want our girls lewd so we have a reason to spank them, even if we don’t. If they want their girl virtuous we should applaud their efforts, and not try to corrupt them, boys or girls.What do you think.
I see your point exactly. I couldn’t agree more. The most frequently used epithet for God in the Qu’ran is “the merciful”, I read last night at 6:120 “Avoid committing sin…” (as opposed to ‘do not sin’) and one-hundred other places where some very reasonable negotiation is made; if you can’t keep the fast; then do such and such instead, don’t eat ‘road-kill’ --unless you are starving, and so on and so on. The peoples of the past description and the monk analogy seem very apt.
Ya; and it must work some good since there is no shortage of Muslims. In so many senses Islam is a cul de sak for the mind, but for those who accept, there is infinte strength and support. It is different from Christianity, and the part of it I think we most find problematic is that they consider that they have an absolute right to justice, while we consider a right to justice so long as a person keeps the peace. Justice always does not quite work, thus the need for mercy; and peace before justice goes to hell in a hurry.