To know the thing in itself demands not only an absolute grasp of what the thing is in its most fundamental essence, but how that thing exists in relation to everything else that affects its existence. Such understanding implies an omniscience that transcends finite human capabilities

I think metaphysics is a place where science and the supernatural can converge to discuss mysteries yet unresolved by both.

A lot of yesterdays magic is today's science . If you could hypothetically take a cell phone back in time with you to the dark ages, you would be burned as a wizard or witch.

Classical scientists would like to burn those of us that dare to go the metaphysical road, unless it can be explained by empirical scientific method it is false

Isaac Newton would have said Albert Einstein was missing a few grey marbles by stating that time is relative and not universal, like any good physicist knew it must be

I think Kant was wrong. It would not be simply that we can't know the thing-in-itself, but that there's no such thing. When he concludes that all phenomena depend on a phenomena which is not an instance of any category he more or less concedes this.



I think this is too pessimistic. I think we are are all able to grasp the essential nature of phenomena and their relationship, and this is because we are one of them. 'Know Thyself' is the Oracle's timeless advice, and then you know everyone else. As the Upanishads put it, the voidness of one thing is the voidness of all. This is a first person report.

(Won't be around for a few days to reply again.)

I'd agree about Hegel but find Wittgenstein hopelessly muddled. He is often accused of mysticism but never understood it, or never demonstrated that he did.

But back to the topic. Heidegger's 'What is Metaphysics?' is worth a read. It was his inaugural lecture at the U. of Freiberg. In it he makes an important distinction between traditional metaphysics and mysticism, accusing metaphysics of dealing only with beings and never with Being. This, he says, is 'no mere mistake,' by which I presume he means that Being is a can of worms that metaphysicians are reluctant to open.

Just to lend some clarity to this discussion, When Heidegger accuses metaphysics of dealing with being he accuses them of dealing with a thing called being. In his later writings he changes "being" to be-ing where appropriate. In essence he is saying that while you are making the distinction between "being" and "be-ing" you are still be-ing and there is nothing you can do about it. He basically accuses us of spending way too much time on "being" because it gives us some "thing" to hold on to. "Be-ing" gives you nothing to hold on to, nothing to prove, and most of all nothing to stamp with your own brand. There are such a small amount of people asking the question about "be-ing" that you might meet 10 million people before you "bump" into one.
Dasein

... 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.

It is a matter of doing, not thinking, a philosophy of action. Thought itself is an obstacle and a hindrance. Use it when it is useful, for the things for which it is useful. As soon as thought starts to think about itself, it is lost in a hall of mirrors.

Be-ing is also no-thing in the sense understood by Zen. Hence - theimportance of nothing. :bigsmile:

This thread has officially spun out of control. I wish you all the best. Good bye.

Aristotle, I believe, said that God spent His time thinking about thinking. And Flew entitled his book on critical thinking, "Thinking About Thinking".

being is concept, a thing. no matter how you spell it. we only think in terms of things, distinctions, numbers. all thought is digital. from this we can infer that which is prior, the transcendental function that imposes unity on qualia, and also on other concepts, in order to further abstract them.

---------- Post added 03-07-2010 at 03:51 AM ----------

God is the self-unthinking or rethinking thought.

being is concept, a thing. no matter how you spell it. we only think in terms of things, distinctions, numbers. all thought is digital. from this we can infer that which is prior, the transcendental function that imposes unity on qualia, and also on other concepts, in order to further abstract them.

---------- Post added 03-07-2010 at 03:51 AM ----------

God is the self-unthinking or rethinking thought.