I am sure everyone has heard of the phenonemon of asking “why” often enough, the respondent will eventually run out of answers.
The obvious conclusion to draw from that is that metaphysics are not based on reason. If one has reason, then the question “why” can be by definition satisfied. So, if it can’t be satisfied, then the proposition is not based on reason.
In fact, if we say “being nice is wrong” or “being nice is right”. And I proceed by asking, “why” is it right or wrong. I doubt anyone can come up with an answer that satisfies reason.
I think the question “why” brings an end to the entire philosophy of metaphysics. The question “why” reveals the true nature of all metaphysical propositions, that they are based not on reason.
I was just reading a book on philosophy that contains Plato’s theory of justice, virtue. I ask, “why” is that a virtue? Why is temperance a virtue? (Because temperance brings a good outcome). Why should I go after a good outcome? Indeed, why should I do anything?
The crude answer to all metaphysics propositions, I think is “because I feel like it”.
Because that would mean that the entire philosophy would also not be based on reason. Has anyone settled the question of objective reality, perception, the whole existence, the question of god, and the popular philosophy of the purpose in life?
How about the nature/nurture controversy? Death penalty? Please don’t tell me that the arguments that have been presented so far in an attempt to answer these questions have been devoid of reason.
who is that? anyway, I stumbled upon that thought independantly of whoever that is.
“anyone settled the question of objective reality, perception, the whole existence, the question of god, and the popular philosophy of the purpose in life?” - notions like that are just human inventions. I’ve answered the meaning of life, objective reality, just search the forum. Wittgenstein answered the philosophical problems, he said they are all play on language. “For what we can not speak of, we must pass over in silence.”
“How about the nature/nurture controversy? Death penalty? Please don’t tell me that the arguments that have been presented so far in an attempt to answer these questions have been devoid of reason.” - nature/nurture belongs to the field of science, not metaphysics. Death penalty - why/why not? no reason for or against death penalty. Yes, all metaphysical questions are devoid of reason. My advice, just keep on asking “why” and “why not”.
PoR im not sure if your refering directly to the meaning of life, “why is all this stuff here that we ever see”, but if you are, then obviously there is no final definitive answer. same goes for all things for which there is no final evidence, or else these things would not be being discussed today.
there are some fabrications that fit all of the evidence. even though confirmation wont come until a time when we are unable to talk about it here, i think that its worthwhile to identify all scenarios that fit the evidence.
i just dont like the thought that i will head into an unknown area and it could be anything. id rather it be one of four or five things. theres no real regular rational reason ‘why’ id want to know this though…
Pinnacle, metaphysics is a “superior” science to the field that examines nature/nurture problems, id est the latter takes some of it’s first principles from the former. No metaphysics, no physics. So you can’t do science either.
Enjoying the reductios ad absurdum, Pinnacle? It seems either we are knowers, or we are not.
I have not read the actual book “Republic”. I find all books boring and pointless, after I read Nietzsche (in summary) and Wittgenstein (Tractus). But I will give the actual book a go, when I get real bored.
my real name
What are you talking about? no metaphysics, no science? Since when are the two related? reductio? do you actually know the meaning of the term? no, I am not enjoying it, cuz I don’t know what you are on about.
Let me get this right. You don’t read books except for the most pernicious. (Nietzsche, Wittgenstein) Won’t read Plato. Then you ask me to define some common terms. I should ask you to check out a philosophy dictionary!
Anyway, here we go with the cultural exchange:
““Since when is metaphysics related to physics (by which i mean the study of natures).””
Since it’s start. It’s like optics being dependant on geometry; only metaphysics, being the “science of being” has elements needed as presuppositions in all other sciences. How else would you establish that empiricism “works” without knowing how a science works?
““reductio ad absurdum””
Isn’t it absurd to know that you cannot know? Don’t you experience that you know?
So, did you and Wittgenstein stop the philosophical discourse? No. The point is, you may have an answer, and Wittgenstein may have an answer himself, but still many more philosophers are bringing up the questions, raising objections, doubts, and putting forth better arguments. But it doesn’t mean that reason hasn’t been used if an issue, topic, problem is still raising doubts. And just because you’ve answered it doesn’t mean you are right either.
I am drawing an analogous argument. You said metaphysics is not based on reason because no one can satisfy the metaphysical questions. I say, if this is your reason for believing that a metaphysical question, or any metaphysical issue is devoid of reason, then you are mistaken because there are many social, political, psychological issues that haven’t been completely settled as well—meaning experts are still raising objections, doubts, questions and coming up with new information. Does this mean that these issues are also not based on reason?
By the same reasoning you follow, science then would also be not based on reason since scientific theories have been known to be disproved, and new discoveries falsify previously held scientific belief. Does this mean then that science is not based on reason?
you really have to be kidding ? you never read a book, you read Nietzsche in SUMMARY ?! you know, for a pinnacle of reason that really is a very sad intellectual performance.
let me give you an example. the average parent has to drop a line of conversation with his or her five year old at about the 9th exchange. the kid just keeps on going “why ?” and the parent’s logical and intellectual sofistication is eventually exhausted. studies have been done to show that average length is connected with parent’s education, ie college drop outs last for less in a session with their own kids than phd’s with theirs. however, phd’s last for a very longer lot more with kids of college drop outs than college drop outs with kids of phd’s. the data is not however extremely coherent.
i am willing to make a bet with you however. start a new theread, ask a why question at a time, i will answer and keeep answering. hows that ?
I am still confused by your explanation of the relationship between science and metaphysics. For me, science is about physics, geometry, chemistry, while metaphysics is about good, evil, right, wrong, noble, death. Metaphysical means beyond the physical. I do not see how, right/wrong has anything to do with the acuteness of an angle? maybe we are referring to different things, please clarify your position.
guys, I really do not think it is neccessary to read all those books, for one thing, they are far too thick. waste of time. they offer no right or wrong answer for everything is a human invention. I mean, what does one expect to receive from reading Karl Marx’s Das Capital, or Hegel’s thick book? when you have summaries. (actually, I ususally read the first line of every paragraph). I believe Wittgenstein is right. And I believe my first post in this thread is also right. The reason I have no read plato’s republic is because the summary explained all. He failed to explain the concept of justice because justice is just that, a concept defined by man. Can anybody tell me where I have gone wrong?
to say the very least (and i am tempted to be alot more insulting) we have very different reasons to interact with culture.
while you seem to only be interested in culture for an entirely non-cultural reason, ie to “offer a right or wrong answer for everything is a human invention” ( i presume that is what you mean when you say that the absence of that is a good reason to avoid books) i enjoy, in a most emotional way, both the reading of books and the discussing of ideas.
just like art is not the conveying of morally compelling statements, but a pleasure, philosophy is not the conveying of normatives, but a pleasure.
i can prove to you there is no way a summary can contain all of the text it summarizes, expanding a fact well known in informatics, ie that compression can not be arbitrary, there is no guarantee that you can compress n bytes of data without loss so they fit in n-1 bytes.
further more, by reading just the summary you can not be in a position to asses wether the sumary is complete or partial, or if in fact it has anything to do even with the work it summarizes.
just the fact that the summary is internally coherent and doesnt upset any ideas you might have a priori about the original texts is particularly no proof.
as you can see, i have used only one sentence per paragraph, to give myself a chance. next time i will either not use full stops when talking to you, or build phrases that spawn the entirety of a paragraph. ha ! see ? i made you read this far, in spite of all the .'s. considering the effort it takes to talk things with you, i am entirely unsure anyone should even bother. my offer about the why bet still stands tho.
the effort of talking? what are you doing on this forum anyway, you seem to have the intelligence of an ape.
philosophy about pleasure? are you saying, you only take the easy route?
this is the first time you spoke with me. and you are speaking with effort? since i am not giving you pleasure, please stop talking to me.
why “bet”?
I don’t think everyone is as ill educated as you are. go back to your home-shopping forum if you can’t talk difficult philosophy. remember, thinking is hard. (idiot)
so to get this straight, albeit you never actually read an entire book, by your own admission, still you consider you are not only in a possition to judge books, other people’s education and their relative intelligence, but you also think you are in a possition to be dismissive about the same ?
I should probably keep my mouth shut here but, I have a thought and I may as well share it.
It seems like the more books a person has read the more ‘worth’ they appear to have here. “I have read more books than you so my opinion holds more value.” “you haven’t read blarblar, then you shouldn’t be allowed an opinion here!†Etc.
We’ve already got a few thousand years worth of books to read up on, eventually there will come a time when there are so many books to read that we will die before we even get to read half of them! Knowing every detail of every book CAN’T be of ultimate importance. Eventually you’ll be able to download a book instantly into your mind (actually that’s all we do when we read anyway) Books are just physicalised thoughts. Frozen mind. The words are there to explain the original creative thought. Sometimes a summary is all that is needed. Like a picture that speaks a thousand words.
I can’t help feeling that this forum is a place where people come to show off their intelligence and brain capacity for storing and retrieving data. Wow you can emulate a computer. Very clever… but come on - where’s the wisdom?
When you were kids you had small brains and big minds.
Now it seems you have big brains and small minds.
Are you asking a specific question? To me, it seems more like you are stating several insightfull observations.
IMHO, why is one of the few most important (although often dreaded or simply unanswerable) questions the human can ask. Philosophy rests upon the question of “Why?”. However, everytime we ask the question “Why?”, we are constantly displaying to both ourselves and others that we simply do not know everything that can be known.
A good friend of mine who had gotton his Doctrit(sp?) in Psychology from Princeton once told me, “Questions are often more important than their answers.”. When I asked him why, he did not reply, but smiled smuggly.
Turns out he did this for a reason. By not answering my “why?” question, he was forcing me to use my brain to think of possible answers. If he had simply given me an answer, I would not have used my mind to ponder whether his answer was correct or not. He could have given me a false answer, and I would have probably passed it off as being true, since I trusted him. My point is: one can never ask “why?” too often. It keeps us thinking, and advances us.
Zenofeller, the reason I was annoyed with you was because 1) your reply had no content, 2) it was very rude. Maybe that’s how you speak, and understand.
Read books if you like, as I said, they often contain unclear jargons that the author does not explain clearly in plain English.
I have read books, alot in fact, that in the end I can not be bothered reading them. You read a philosophical work to learn the central ideas not to get entertained. The central ideas appear in the summaries. Short and concise.
I hope this post put an end to metaphysics for good.
I mean, stop reading other’s work, write your own for a change.
