OK then, the example I gave of Kurt Godel was to show that, in this case, you would be inclined to believe a mathematical proof attested by Godel, because of his reputation, even though you couldn't understand (or 'see') the proof.

In the case of a metaphysical claim, would you consider it possible that an expert might possess the discriminative ability to see a metaphysical proof that is beyond our ability to understand?

I would suggest that for most of us, an 'etic' account of metaphysical knowledge is about all that is possible, as the culture within which the knowledge was situated is now to all intents and purposes extinct. We will guess what it might have signified but it is very hard to understand what it meant, I think.

It seems to me that: If the metaphysical is not transcendental, then it is nothing but metaphor. If it is transcendental, it can be accessed by the same logical/rhetorical inference that made it possible in the first place. A culturally-contingent metaphysics is nothing but literature, and this would be a Nietzschean take on it. But Nietzsche was wrong. Or half wrong. He stressed the contingent and ignored transcendental deduction.....which Wittgenstein achieved. Metaphysics is ontology which is the fundamental logic (of being). For me this is now crystal clear. I don't know what it will mean to others.
:bigsmile:

So, does that mean that we have metaphysical knowledge or don't we?

We have just a tiny core of metaphysical knowledge, which Wittgenstein made explicit in the TLP.

So, W. thinks we do. How about you?

I rather thought that metaphysics was a philosophy that delved into places science could not reach, that the metaphysician must content himself with logic and conjecture but never hope for knowledge in the garb of certainty. In fact I thought that philosophy, even in a more general sense, is prone to wander off the maps of science into the frontiers of human curiosity about the unknown and often unknowable. If you want knowledge, you should turn to science or religion, both of whom are pretty damn sure they know all there is to be known. Here is the path of uncertainty and those who do not fear to walk it, or even to extend it. Samm

I rather thought that metaphysics was a philosophy that delved into places science could not reach, that the metaphysician must content himself with logic and conjecture but never hope for knowledge in the garb of certainty. In fact I thought that philosophy, even in a more general sense, is prone to wander off the maps of science into the frontiers of human curiosity about the unknown and often unknowable. If you want knowledge, you should turn to science or religion, both of whom are pretty damn sure they know all there is to be known. Here is the path of uncertainty and those who do not fear to walk it, or even to extend it.

Samm

Here's a quote on Metaphysical Knowledge as 'noesis' from Wikipedia:
As I have said above, apart from the vague sense in which metaphysical is used to describe 'anything of a spiritual or transcendent nature', the word itself has a very specific meaning in Western philosophy, and the above quotation gives a pretty good indication, in my view, of what that meaning is.

As I have said above, apart from the vague sense in which metaphysical is used to describe 'anything of a spiritual or transcendent nature', the word itself has a very specific meaning in Western philosophy, and the above quotation gives a pretty good indication, in my view, of what that meaning is.

The problem with intuitive knowledge in the realm of any area except sicence is how does one "confirm" or "verify" the "truth" of "knowledge" which lies outside the realm of science and can not be empirically verified.

There is an answer to that question. This knowledge can be verified within a community of discourse, a group of people which share a common cognitive framework within which the terms are meaningful.

You know what they will say, Jeeprs, that it is just a bunch of like minded people sharing their delusions or speculations together.

But when I hear that, I just hear a bunch of like-minded people sharing their delusions or speculations together.

Materialism is a speculation. Atheism is a speculation. Determinism is a speculation.

I will add something else here. I think Western metaphysics could be best understood within a monastic order. It is basically incompatible with individualism, existentialism, and most other modern outlooks.

You know what they will say, Jeeprs, that it is just a bunch of like minded people sharing their delusions or speculations together.

I happen to think that flashes of intuition are the source of most of our greatest advances in science and in all forms of the arts, That empirical experience can not explain creative advance.

I also think that scientific knowledge gives us only a very limited and partial view picture of the totality of reality and human experience. That everyone supplements the scientifc view of the world with aesthetic and values that involve metaphysical assumptions and philosophical specualtations.

The problem is that some just fail to see how much of their worldview is philosophical speculations and metaphysical assumptions. They can see how everyone elses views are just speculatons but not their own.