The search for an ultimate conception of reality would give us a view on the world as a whole, which would be a view from outside the first-person perspective, showing the structure of reality as it is in itself, from no particular point of view. If we cannot obtain this, then we remain locked within our own point of view, unable either to transcend or truly to understand its limits. In which case, how can we assert that the way we conceive the world is the way it really is?

Important point. Few people get this idea. Meister Eckhardt said that chief amongst the virtues praised by the wise was disinterestedness, or detachment (this could also be read as 'renunciation'). Why? Because the disinterested intelligence is able to see things from outside the scheme of self interest. But I think it must also be animated by compassion. It is not a clinical detachment in the sense of being apathetic or uncaring.

The traditional discourse of metaphysics is taboo in a great deal of academic philosophy. And the reason is because it becomes detached from the cultural matrix within which it is meaningful. Plato's metaphysic was articulated within the context of an entire view of life - a complete philosophy - which laid considerable emphasis on virtue, askesis, introspection, and the like. These kinds of attitudes and practises are generally regarded with suspicion in the secular world. They are too religious, as is the idea that there can be any kind of higher reality or greater truth.

So you have to be a brave and independent thinker to consider these ideas, and I salute you for it.

One would think the pursuit of a timeless philosophy would be tempting to all, but I think there is often a wall placed between "timeless" and "practical".

I think there's a deep desire for both. What I don't like is the attitude that only the practical is valid. The practical is obviously valid. It's one thing to lean on the practical/pragmatic when dealing with fanatics. It's another thing to cross one's self when the scientific method itself is examined as one method among others.

"Thou shalt not zoom out." Thus spake Newton. Amen.

The search for an ultimate conception of reality would give us a view on the world as a whole, which would be a view from outside the first-person perspective, showing the structure of reality as it is in itself, from no particular point of view.

If you cannot view the world as a whole, then you cannot really know your own place in it and thus cannot prove that you really do see and conceive things as they truly are.

"The assumption is, of course, that one cannot explain things satisfactorily if one remains within the world of common sense, or even if one advances from that world to embrace the concepts of science."

I am not sure that "science" embraces concepts that are not somehow "common sense" or studies unperceived data or truths, but I might be misreading the sentence.

I might also suggest that even though we may be mislead by appearances (or perhaps perceptions), we are able to "correct" these mistakes without any reference to anything other than appearances.

I might also suggest that even though we may be mislead by appearances (or perhaps perceptions), we are able to "correct" these mistakes without any reference to anything other than appearances.

I'd really like to know: do you think this sounds vague?



It seems to me it's one of those sentences that sounds like it means something, but it actually means nothing. Maybe you really do know what you're talking about, but I would recommend using clearer language to articulate your thoughts. Perhaps we should start with what an "ultimate conception of reality" means. And then from there you could explain to me what the "structure of reality as it is in itself" means.



But I can see things as they really are. In fact, I have pretty good vision. And how in the world would I view the world as a whole? Wow, that would be a lot to see at once.

Philosophers have never proved the non-existence of the thing-in-itself, they have only said that such a subject is not worth discussion. And that is a prejudice not a philosophical argument.

--

Neither have they proved the non-existence of The Flying Spaghetti Monster. They have only said that such a subject is not worth discussing. And that is a prejudice, not a philosophical argument.

Neither have they proved the non-existence of The Flying Spaghetti Monster. They have only said that such a subject is not worth discussing. And that is a prejudice, not a philosophical argument.

The larger point here is that Plato, Aristotle, and the early modern rationalist philosopher's arguments as well as Berkeley's arguments are no longer seen as valid in the minds of the post-modern nihilist philosophers (language and logic positivists).

So your comparison of metaphysical theory with the Flying Spaghetti monster is a failure.

Just because some so-called monster doesn't 'exist' does not entail that metaphysics is a meaningless branch of philosophy.

The larger point here is that Plato, Aristotle, and the early modern rationalist philosopher's arguments as well as Berkeley's arguments are no longer seen as valid in the minds of the post-modern nihilist philosophers (language and logic positivists). Plato, for example, never bellieved in the Flying Spaghetti monster. But he did believe in the search for truth and the possibility of metaphysics.

So your comparison of metaphysical theory with the Flying Spaghetti monster is a failure. It is a (well documented) historical and cultural bias against metaphysics.

Just because some so-called monster doesn't 'exist' does not entail that metaphysics is a meaningless branch of philosophy.

--

The larger point is that no one has to prove either the non-existence of the thing-in-itself, or the non-existence of The Spaghetti Monster, because it is those who assert that they exist who have to prove it. The burden of proof is not on those who do not believe those things exist. You said the SM exists, so now it is up to you to prove it. In the same way, you said the TII exists, so now it is up to you to prove it. It is not up to me to disprove anything. Why should it be?

Look up the fallacy, the argument from ignorance. That is the fallacy you are committing. A little logic goes a long way. Try it.

I stated that the refusal to allow metaphysical argument was based not upon an actual case being made, but rather upon refusal to make a case at all.