Metaphysics: Knowledge for the Privileged

@Michel,

Michel;103497 wrote:

I just don't see why that the difference is relevant to my point. It's not enough to argue for a mere difference; it has to be a difference which somehow impacts my point. In other words, it has to be a relevant difference.

If metaphysics is really really important, and the stakes are high, then it should be the domain of people who can undertake it responsibly.

If metaphysics is NOT really really important, then what's the problem with anyone undertaking it?

In Guide for the Perplexed, Maimonides SPECIFICALLY addresses the relationship between Jewish belief and practice, how reason leads to belief, and its metaphysical underpinnings. To him, metaphysics was part of spiritual leadership.

To me and to much of modern society, metaphysics is NOT important, it's not requisite to spiritual leadership, and it's therefore something that won't cause harm if undertaken by someone uneducated or unprivileged -- though as we've discussed I also doubt that it's useful to someone unprivileged.

@Michel,

Aedes;103509 wrote:

If metaphysics is really really important, and the stakes are high, then it should be the domain of people who can undertake it responsibly.If metaphysics is NOT really really important, then what's the problem with anyone undertaking it?In Guide for the Perplexed, Maimonides SPECIFICALLY addresses the relationship between Jewish belief and practice, how reason leads to belief, and its metaphysical underpinnings. To him, metaphysics was part of spiritual leadership.[/To [I]me[/I] and to much of modern society, metaphysics is NOT important, it's not requisite to spiritual leadership, and it's therefore something that won't cause harm if undertaken by someone uneducated or unprivileged -- though as we've discussed I also doubt that it's useful to someone unprivileged.[/[/QUOTE]

But this post has no relevance to my point. For it would still be the case that metaphysics would be a privileged knowledge. And that's all I'm stating! Well, that and scorning the social conditions that help ensure it is a privileged knowledge.

What exactly do you think my argument is?

@Michel,

Well, I think metaphysics is not knowledge at all it is rational speculation.
It expands your thinking about the realm of possiblities most of which are not provable.
It is a useful exercise in viewing the world from different vantage points.
We all employ some metaphysical assumptions in constructing a worldview.
Metaphysics should cause you to more closely examine your assumptions.
A useful exercise for all.

@Michel,

In traditional circles, it was understood that certain topics are only useful to those who are equipped for them by virtue of attitude, aptitude and motivation. Many of the esoteric schools have been limited to initiates because the knowledge itself requires certain pre-requisites and in traditional settings, ritual purity and observance of the normative ethical codes. (The term 'Upanisad' means 'sitting at the feet' or 'sitting up close'.) In the case of esoteric or symbolic knowledge, it was thought that if such knowledge is misinterpreted or misapplied, those pursuing it can miss the mark by a very wide margin indeed. (It was also often the case in traditional societies that certain kinds of teachings were actually politically proscribed, much as the Falun Dafa have become in Communist China, due to ecclesiastical politics and the like.)

There are many examples of the missappropriation, misuse or misunderstanding of esoteric knowledge systems in this century, for example, various guru scandals, lawsuits over the ownership of the 'intellectual property' of Yoga in the US, ongoing litigation sourrounding the well-known Hollywood celebrity pseudo-religion (I dare not name it). The fact is that, consciously or otherwise, people are fascinated by metaphysics, or maybe just by mystery, or intrigue, or thinking that there is A Secret, and they might get to know it and find eternal bliss, or at least, a lot of whatever it is they want.

So for every person who really might be able to tackle the real questions of metaphysic, it is a fair bet there will be many others who take it the wrong way, basically because of 'what is in it for me'. I would think the first and foremost traditional virtue required in the pursuit of such an understanding would actually be 'disinterest', in the sense of a motivation beyond the purely personal. However none of this sits particularly well with modernism, because it is basically somewhat undemocratic in its implications. It seems elitist, and may indeed be. For a reason. Anyway, that is my take of what the old sages, such as Miamonedes, (with whom, I might add, I am not overly familiar) might have been on about.

---------- Post added 11-16-2009 at 09:40 PM ----------

I should add, I rather like the idea that metaphysical knowledge is actually hard to get, that it requires a kind of trial, and a kind of sacrifice. It might sound a bit eccentric, but then, knowledge of how to play the piano also takes a lot of effort and sacrifice, and at the end of it, you have a new skill. The analogy is not exact, however, because in metaphysics, one is to some extent the subject of the discipline. On the other hand, it is a subject where it is possible to know the arguments without really grasping the import, and indeed one might argue that this is very much what metaphysics had become, and why it has been abandoned in so many places.

@Michel,

Michel;103334 wrote:

Maimonides comments on why studies should not begin with metaphysics and why metaphysics should not be taught to the common man:
Guide for the Perplexed: Part I: Chapter XXXIV
Emp is mine.
I'm a formally trained feminist and so it should be no surprise what I'm thinking when I read this. If metaphysical knowledge is limited to the privileged class, that is, those people that can donate sufficient time to study it, then metaphysical knowledge is privileged knowledge. It is privileged knowledge because the privileged are primarily the people who have autonomy from the hardships and demands of the common life. Presuming that such people are divided by social class, then we have exclusive divisions of knowledge for the rich and the non-rich.

Some Lessons in Metaphysics, Norton, 1969, p. 15)

@Michel,

Hi. Im going to object to Michel's early assertation that metaphysics takes 'immense amounts of preparatory study' if it can be comprehended properly. Coming from a sociological perspective (i am a first year undergraduate), the new age chicago realms of ethnographical studies, symbolic interactionism and human pragmatism teach us that these range of 'higher' disciplines, from a metaphysical comprehension of the world in its nexus, to a grounded and sociological understanding of what it means to create a community out of our individualities, we can see that the inaccessable lies before our very doorsteps if we only open our eyes, so to speak.

I also have a certain limited amount of martial arts training in Judo and Aikido, and would like to add this to the discussion in as much as these physical realities impinge and influence our mental, or 'spiritual' worlds at the same time. I realise that there is alot to be going on here, but i think that it is high time that we as philosophers, try to open up our understandings of the world into 'laymens' terms, and not reject people as a result of semantic paddies, or epistemological discrepancies. Any feedback will be much appreciated.

John.

@john2054,

john2054;104473 wrote:

Hi. Im going to object to Michel's early assertation that metaphysics takes 'immense amounts of preparatory study' if it can be comprehended properly. Coming from a sociological perspective (i am a first year undergraduate), the new age chicago realms of ethnographical studies, symbolic interactionism and human pragmatism teach us that these range of 'higher' disciplines, from a metaphysical comprehension of the world in its nexus, to a grounded and sociological understanding of what it means to create a community out of our individualities, we can see that the inaccessable lies before our very doorsteps if we only open our eyes, so to speak.

what? :perplexed:

Have you ever studied serious metaphysics? There's good reason why it's known to be a tough subject, john.

@Michel,

Hi Michel

yeah i studied it as part of my access to a degree certificate a couple of years back. b4 i went into hospital.

meta physics means that it is beyond physics. kind of what philosophy is to the sciences, it is to knowledge of everything in general. I know that it is complicated. we have to take into account everything we know, and then some, to even begin to get a taste of the meaning of the damn thing. but it is through conversstion and subsequent analysis that we as philosophers must begin to unravel this great mystery. oh yeah and id like to say something else, in my opinion this is very much a virgin territory, in as that there is alot to be said about it that has yet to been.

Sure the classical greek philosphers, aristotle and plato what not gave us some insight into this complicated subject. but in breaking it down we would do good to find truth in the nexus, from the subjective to the object in hand. Get back to me on this would ya :-)

@Michel,

I never met a physics I liked better.

@john2054,

john2054;104473 wrote:

Hi. Im going to object to Michel's early assertation that metaphysics takes 'immense amounts of preparatory study' if it can be comprehended properly. Coming from a sociological perspective (i am a first year undergraduate), the new age chicago realms of ethnographical studies, symbolic interactionism and human pragmatism teach us that these range of 'higher' disciplines, from a metaphysical comprehension of the world in its nexus, to a grounded and sociological understanding of what it means to create a community out of our individualities, we can see that the inaccessable lies before our very doorsteps if we only open our eyes, so to speak.

I also have a certain limited amount of martial arts training in Judo and Aikido, and would like to add this to the discussion in as much as these physical realities impinge and influence our mental, or 'spiritual' worlds at the same time. I realise that there is alot to be going on here, but i think that it is high time that we as philosophers, try to open up our understandings of the world into 'laymens' terms, and not reject people as a result of semantic paddies, or epistemological discrepancies. Any feedback will be much appreciated.

John.

You're so right. What people need to realize is that metaphysical assumptions are at the basis of our everyday actions. As my favorite philosopher Jose Ortega y Gasset points out, each one of us creates a "world" that consists of our beliefs and ideas about "all that is," and then we act according to those beliefs and ideas. Beliefs are nothing but ideas that have been thought of by someone in the past and have been found to be useful when confronting a specific situation. If these ideas are found to be useful to others who are confronting the same situation, then they are adopted by the society as a whole and passed on to future generations as unquestioned assumptions or beliefs.

As time passes, either the situation for which these ideas were found to be useful changes or no longer exists, or someone discovers a new idea that is more useful in the same situation. However, in either case, the original ideas may linger on as unquestioned beliefs because they have become habitual ways of thinking about the "world" or "all there is," and these habitual ways of thinking are, like other habits, resistant to change.

Metaphysics, then, is a psychological phenomenon for each individual and a sociological phenomenon for a society of people as a whole. All individuals in a society accept most of the beliefs they are taught and behave accordingly. A few individuals either question the applicability of the beliefs to their own situation, or discover a new belief that is better than the old one for the same situation. This is true for the physicist as well as the metaphysician (metaphysicist?).

Every person their own metaphysician!

@Michel,

Every person their own meta-physician, and every person their own pope. But not everyone is eager for this heroic responsibility.

But I agree with longknowledge.

And "metaphysicist" is a nice neologism...

Philosophy Forum

Metaphysics: Knowledge for the Privileged

Quick Links

My Account

able2know