and that, furthermore, the reason we don't 'get it' is because we have divided the world up into these dualistic categories of 'religion' vs 'science' and 'belief' vs 'knowledge' and so on. All of these divisions are rooted in the most fundamental division at the bottom of the ego, that is, what I believe versus 'the other'. And within this landscape, it is certainly true that there is no higher knowledge, no noesis, and we are therefore quite correct in declaring it non-existent.

---------- Post added 03-06-2010 at 09:13 AM ----------



Actually I don't want to get into the dynamic of evangelizing this viewpoint. The argument I am trying to advance is that 'metaphysical knowledge is best understood in the context of pre-modern Western philosophy, where it was an important part, or even the lynchpin, of a universe of discourse.' Even though I believe there is such a thing, I would like to have the discipline to consider it from the position of a disinterested observer. Because, otherwise, it becomes another 'believer vs non-believer' debate, and I really don't want to go there. It is a fine line, and I might have already crossed it, but that is a statement of intent.

R - you have such a magnificently flamboyant style of expression. You remind me of a...hang on, wait for an image to come to mind...I know! Philosophy as the Pinball Machine!! Can't you see it! Marvelously lurid Nietzsche on the backboard with spiral eyes..the pinball wizards MERGES with the machine....BING it's derrida BING BING it is the numinosity of number...(OK you get the picture. I'm loving it.)
..

I thought I already gave an example of metaphysical knowledge: that what is actual is also possible.

I am assuming that metaphysical knowledge must be of necessary truths (along with Kant). And that necessary truths cannot be empirical truths. (Kant also believed that metaphysical knowledge would have to be not only necessary, but also universal. Of the form all S is P, and No S is P).

This is quite a piece of poetry itself. I think your statement is pretty sharp, jeeprs. yes, merging with the machine. But only that aspect of self that doesn't need groceries. i've been reading a great math book, about the aesthetic nature of math....yes, the number is numinous. thanks for your also lurid & poetic comment

---------- Post added 03-05-2010 at 06:59 PM ----------



I agree, with the twist that what is possible is not always yet actual.

---------- Post added 03-05-2010 at 07:01 PM ----------



I agree. But it's arguable that the structure of empirical truths have a a metaphysical core, as Wittgenstein suggests. Identity and contradiction seem to be the core logical movements.

I have no idea what that bit about a metaphysical core means. Nor do I know that a "logical movement" is. Do you? If anything, identity and contradiction seem pretty stationary to me .

This is close to the "great chain of being" concept. I guess I believe more in Metaphysical Truth than in Metaphysical Knowledge. All human knowledge of such Truth being only partial, contingent and incomplete.


Not so much. I believe quite strongly in metaphysical, transcendent or eternal Truth. This notion does depend in some way on the notion of rational intelligence in nature. It is a question of our "knowledge"; our ability to know or comprehend these truths except through the "veil of perception" or "through a glass darkly". So I guess my position comes down to "I believe in Metaphysical truth" but doubt that we can claim to "know" it.

Don't you know that whatever is actual is possible? Really? .

I guess that statement strikes me as some sort of language game, which according to the "defintions" of actual and possible becomes a sort of tautology, true by defintion of the terms. Not what I would call a metaphysical truth but a human language truth. Of course the capitol of Ecuador is Quinto, strikes me the same way; true but trivial because it is merely a human defintion or convention.

No, it's just not prudent to mix the terms. By possible we mean what could be, not what is. If you wanted you could include the idea of the possible as an actuality, but that doesn't seem to be what was suggested.

Those who see only the actual as possible are hardly the movers and shakers of humanity, which dreams beyond its means.

We see corporeal things pass from non-being to being, and from this to non-being again. They come to be, remain for a while, and then pass away. Thus, these things do not have to exist. Something in their nature leaves them open to destruction. Even the heavenly bodies, which appear indestructible, do not retain the same mode of being. They do not always exist in the same way. Whatever kind of being each may have, this does not belong to it of necessity; its nature is open to other possibilities. Corporeal things, then, do not explain their own being. Since they are open to contrary possibilities, something other than themselves must explain why they are determined to one of these possibilities, rather than another. Something else must determine them to be.

The Secular is Sacred: Platonism and Thomism in Marsilio Ficino's Platonic Theology

By Ardis B. Collins, Marsilio Ficino, Saint Thomas (Aquinas)

p23.

I suppose that the statement that 'whatever is actual is possible' is a metaphysical truth, although it can also be seen as simply an analytical a priori proposition, can it not? So, while true, it is not a particularly profound example.

Consider this a somewhat more thought-provoking argument from the Renaissance humanist, Ficino, as a typical example of metaphysical reasoning in the grand tradition of Western philosophy:

(The argument then goes on to show that if this 'something else' is also subject to being and to non-being, it too will be dependent....thus an infinite regress.)

This is, of course, a very well known traditional argument. I seem to recall that Russell believed that he had a simple defeater for arguments of this type.

However, consider this proposition which could be understood as belonging to the same class of argument:

"That the universe does not contain its own explanation".

This means, that there is nothing in the universe, that has been revealed by science, on the basis of which the universe itself can be explained.

I think this is still something very much alive within Eastern Orthodox monasticism. I have done some readings in it, for example, A Different Christianity, by Robin [Amis].

Spinoza thought only the actual is possible. And I would have thought that Spinoza was what you said.

Lost Christianity: A Journey of Rediscovery to the Centre of Christian Experience Element Classic Editions: Amazon.co.uk: Jacob Needleman: Books

Do you know that book, and of so, do you have any comments on it, or on any other of Needleman's books?

As for "the universe not containing its own explanation" I suppose that is profound. Of course, that sentence assumes that it makes sense to talk about an explanation of the universe, and it it doesn't then it is true, and profound. But, I agree, that is a good example of a metaphysical statement, but not necessarily, a metaphysical truth. It is universal, and it is necessary. Only I would put it more strongly as, it is impossible for the universe to contain its own explanation, in order for it to be a metaphysical truth. Since all metaphysical truth must be necessary truths. (I suppose that is a profound meta-metaphysical truth).

That book is quite hard to get hold of in the UK.

---------- Post added 03-07-2010 at 09:42 AM ----------




So - a lot of big words, big ideas and very large equations there. But Ficino's simple argument, which nobody has commented on, which was originally articulated by Plato before the time of Christ, still cuts to the heart of the matter. It is the cosmological argument and I think it is a very hard argument to defeat.

What I am thinking about is what we think is fundamentally real since the demise of philosophical atomism. Philosophical atomism, and/or materialism, used to understand the universe as consisting of eternal and imperishable units of matter, namely, atoms. It has been clear for many years that this is no longer possible. The accepted picture is now that of the Big Bang cosmology, although physical cosmology is now acknowledged to be in crisis, as is fundamental ontology. We no longer know what atoms are, and in any case cannot account for the mass of the universe in terms of what we understand about matter.

... there is nothing, nothing in heaven, or in nature or in mind or anywhere else which does not equally contain both immediacy and mediation, so that these two determinations reveal themselves to be unseparated and inseparable and the opposition between them to be a nullity.

Consider this a somewhat more thought-provoking argument from the Renaissance humanist, Ficino, as a typical example of metaphysical reasoning in the grand tradition of Western philosophy:

(The argument then goes on to show that if this 'something else' is also subject to being and to non-being, it too will be dependent....thus an infinite regress.)
"That the universe does not contain its own explanation".

This means, that there is nothing in the universe, that has been revealed by science, on the basis of which the universe itself can be explained.

Thus the Prime Mover, the First Cause, The Ground of All Being, The Essence of Existence. The Universe as the Product of Mind or Thought.
It is a reasonable argument and a rational speculation.
The Big Bang offers no superior explanation to God as creator.
The Mindless Universe offers no better speculation then Reason and Intelligence behind the universe.
In fact in many ways the causeless, mindless universe is less rational, less pragmatic and less in keeping with experience and with intuition and some respects science.

3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751058209749445923078164062862089986280348253421170679
8214808651328230664709384460955058223172535940812848111745028410270193852110555964462294895493038196
4428810975665933446128475648233786783165271201909145648566923460348610454326648213393607260249141273
724587006606315588174881520920962829254091715364367892590360011330530548820466521384146951941511609...