Metaphysical Knowledge

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

jeeprs
 
Reply Sat 6 Mar, 2010 04:59 pm
@kennethamy,
I am sure Hegel was one of the last in the line to appreciate any of this. The rest have thrown in their lot with David Hume and given up on it. I have watched debates on the cosmological argument on various sites. I think very few appreciate what a strong argument it is.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Sat 6 Mar, 2010 05:37 pm
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;137009 wrote:
I am sure Hegel was one of the last in the line to appreciate any of this. The rest have thrown in their lot with David Hume and given up on it. I have watched debates on the cosmological argument on various sites. I think very few appreciate what a strong argument it is.



Yes, at some point they all went pragmatist. Truth was equated with utility. Hegel defined the real as spirit, a concept which subsumed all contingent distinctions...and this was beautifully open..

And Wittgenstein is a revival of this, except in much clearer terms. But a materialistic pragmatism has most everyone hypnotized into thinking that merely useful distinctions (mind-matter, self-other) are logically true. But they are not logically true. Useful fictions, as Nietzsche knew, but Wittgenstein went to the trouble of proving, as much as proving is possible within a contingent language. :sarcastic:
 
Twirlip
 
Reply Sat 6 Mar, 2010 06:31 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;136994 wrote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Twirlip http://www.philosophyforum.com/images/PHBlue/buttons/viewpost.gif
That book is quite hard to get hold of in the UK.
Yes, I heard there was quite a rush on it, and it ran out of several printings. Like those Harry Potter books. (Much the same readership too).

When you sneer at people like that in a forum intended for philosophical discussion, what sort of response do you expect to get, and what sort of response do you think you ought to get?

---------- Post added 03-07-2010 at 12:36 AM ----------

Reconstructo;137005 wrote:
Humans cannot know the irrational. Humans are ratio intersecting qualia. Diameter in relation to circumference. Pi.

I simply cannot see the point of your quoting a whole lot of the decimal digits of pi here. Or rather (because I don't expect to see the point of everything right away, therefore my failure to see the point of something written here is not usually worth mentioning), I think it was pointless to do so. Am I wrong?
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 6 Mar, 2010 07:15 pm
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;137009 wrote:
I am sure Hegel was one of the last in the line to appreciate any of this. The rest have thrown in their lot with David Hume and given up on it. I have watched debates on the cosmological argument on various sites. I think very few appreciate what a strong argument it is.


A strong argument for what conclusion?
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Sat 6 Mar, 2010 08:20 pm
@Twirlip,
Twirlip;137039 wrote:
When you sneer at people like that in a forum intended for philosophical discussion, what sort of response do you expect to get, and what sort of response do you think you ought to get?

\


Attention, I think, so best not to take the bait.:bigsmile:
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 6 Mar, 2010 11:54 pm
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;137009 wrote:
I am sure Hegel was one of the last in the line to appreciate any of this. The rest have thrown in their lot with David Hume and given up on it. I have watched debates on the cosmological argument on various sites. I think very few appreciate what a strong argument it is.


Ah yes, old Friedrich, that lonely fighter for Truth (not even truth) against the forces of fashion. Only Hollywood could do it justice!
What makes you, or anyone, think that Hume held that it makes sense to ask for an explanation of the Universe? (If that is what you are saying).
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Sun 7 Mar, 2010 12:27 am
@Twirlip,
Twirlip;137039 wrote:
When you sneer at people like that in a forum intended for philosophical discussion, what sort of response do you expect to get, and what sort of response do you think you ought to get?

---------- Post added 03-07-2010 at 12:36 AM ----------


I simply cannot see the point of your quoting a whole lot of the decimal digits of pi here. Or rather (because I don't expect to see the point of everything right away, therefore my failure to see the point of something written here is not usually worth mentioning), I think it was pointless to do so. Am I wrong?



I did have a point there, T. I envision "it"(us) as the collision of transcendental faculties. These are the digital & the continuous. Pi is an excellent metaphor for this. Pi is the ration penetrating the spatial, quasi-unsuccessfully. As much as we know about pi, there
s more than that still waiting for us. But to know this about pi (metaphor for logos/humanity) is significant.
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Sun 7 Mar, 2010 01:51 am
@hue-man,
By gosh this train has well and truly come off the tracks.

What I was trying to do was to provide an illustration of Platonic metaphysics from Ficino, who wrote extensively on Platonic theology in the Italian Renaissance. I know very little about him, but he strikes me as being well worth reading. My main argument in this thread is the metaphysics basically should be understood in terms of Platonism, Aristotleanism, and its derivates as distinct from what you or I might think it is. There is a whole realm of knowledge and argument in these traditions, which is pretty well unknown in this day and age.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Sun 7 Mar, 2010 02:56 am
@hue-man,
Granted. The question is priority. A historian will want to be a mirror of the past. But a transcendental foolosopher wants the eternal human, ergo history is another dot to connect, not the focus. Anagogic interpretation is job #1.
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Sun 7 Mar, 2010 04:11 am
@hue-man,
For anyone interested in a first-rate annotated reading list of platonic metaphysics and philosophy, visit Amazon.com: Profile for Johannes Platonicus

I am going to discontinue discussion of metaphysics, as I have nothing worthwhile to contribute on the topic.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Sun 7 Mar, 2010 08:53 am
@hue-man,
hue-man;135716 wrote:
What is the epistemological status of the field of metaphysics if indeed metaphysical questions or claims are not subject to empirical testing or logical argumentation?


I think metaphysics is grounded logically. The further from logic/dialectic, then generally the further from philosophy. But it should be noted that myth is not necessarily inferior to reason. I'm only suggesting a useful way to distinguish between myth and metaphysics.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 07/10/2020 at 04:27:16