The task of the metaphysician is to challenge all assumptions.

The ultimate realities that the metaphysician seeks to know are precisely things as they are--simple and not variegated, exempt from change and therefore stable objects of knowledge.

The opening post is about the difference between appearance and reality. We are far afield but of course one implication of the OP is "what is reality". Whether nature is deterministic or not is fundamental to a view of reality. Before you decide there is no freedom in nature that everything is a function of casual necessity you should review QM, fractals and chaos theory as a minimum.

I am starting to realise that this is practically impossible nowadays. If someone calling themselves 'a metaphysician' presumed to say 'I am here to challenge all your assumptions' he or she would be laughed off the stage. As Terry Eagleton commented in his reviewof The God Delusion 'These days, theology is the queen of the sciences in a rather less august sense of the word than in its medieval heyday.'

Provided we understand the world within the framework provided by the modern-secular-scientific outlook, metaphysics in the sense that it was depicted in the Classics, really is a 'dead science'. So interpreting it requires an act of sympathetic imagination.

Now, personally, I am starting to come to terms with this. I think what is required is that we need to sympathetically interpret the terminology of the Western metaphysical tradition. This takes quite a bit of study, I would suspect. For example, in the quote from Plato I would be very interested in hear how Plato himself describes, or alludes to these 'realities', as distinct from what we ('this rabble') might think of them. I am starting to learn that there was a great tradition of 'Platonic theology' where matters such as these were discussed. I am quite interested in learning more of the details.

the task of the metaphysician is to challenge all assumptions and finally arrive at an account of the nature of things that is fully coherent and fully thought-out.

If the task is to challenge all assumptions, how will the metaphysician ever come to a fully coherent and fully thought-out account? Consistently playing Devil's Advocate doesn't make you a better philosopher.

I disagree. That's Hegel whole point of tarrying w/ the negative. You have to engage the antithesis until there are no more antitheses to engage.. That's how you know you have the Truth...(but the Truth can only be had concerning the absolute...the rest is pragmatism, imperfect knowledge, "truth."

Hi prothero! I do think they are related. A fundamental ontology is connected to randomness or determinism, because a fundamental ontology addresses whether numbers are transcendental or really in being. I think that we cannot know whether being is numerical.. I do know number is transcendental...I can argue this... but I don't think that being in itself is. This is a trickier issue.

I disagree. That's Hegel whole point of tarrying w/ the negative. You have to engage the antithesis until there are no more antitheses to engage.. That's how you know you have the Truth...(but the Truth can only be had concerning the absolute...the rest is pragmatism, imperfect knowledge, "truth."

Often people oppose a view just for the sake of opposing it. And even more often, they have no other view which is more reasonable. This isn't philosophy.

True, this would be trifling.... I agree this happens...and is not worth engaging...

Numbers seem to bridge the gap between the two realms and I do not know where to put them.

But look where imperfect knowledge has got you. You are able to transmit this silliness to so many people. Where do you think computers come from?

Often people oppose a view just for the sake of opposing it. And even more often, they have no other view which is more reasonable. This isn't philosophy.

What does "engaging the antithesis" mean?

What does "engaging the antithesis" mean?

Stop! Don't ask that question, I warn you!

A philosopher has an idea that he thinks is truth. But then he is presented with another idea that shows the limitations of this first idea. So he must synthesize the two, negating or trashing what was wrong in the first.

This creates a new thesis, better than the first. But yet another antithesis will come along....and the process repeats again. Until finally, there is no true antithesis to the thesis...And this is the only way to know that one has Truth. And this truth can only be had concerning the fundamental structure of the human mind. It's not Truth in regards to Nature, but only the structure by which man understands nature. That's why I salute natural science and pragmatism. We need them. Trancendental Truth is beautiful but doesn't get the bills paid, or put a shuttle on Mars, or tell us the Sun is a fusion engine.

However, math/logic is transcendental. So it does apply to this degree. It also resolves the contradictions that Wittgenstein struggled with, as it reveals the nature of logos or language....

---------- Post added 03-02-2010 at 03:54 PM ----------




Don't ask questions! That would be philosophy!

The real, the acutal, the consequential, the material, (again I do not know which term to use) appear to be digital and quantitized.

Numbers seem to bridge the gap between the two realms and I do not know where to put them.

Humans can discover the truth? Well, yes, that is certainly true. I'm glad we agree.

Please tell me why you capitalized "truth" sometimes and other times not, though?

Humans can discover the truth? Well, yes, that is certainly true. I'm glad we agree.

But look where imperfect knowledge has got you. You are able to transmit this silliness to so many people. Where do you think computers come from?

If the task is to challenge all assumptions, how will the metaphysician ever come to a fully coherent and fully thought-out account? Doesn't the metaphysician eventually have to stand on some ground? You know, assume something to be true. .

In the flatland of scientific secularism, there is no higher ground.

yeah but it is already tendentious on my part, isn't it? The man in the street will say 'there is no way you can prove that there is such a thing as a "higher ground" '. And he would be correct. For this reason, I think civilization itself depends on a certain tacit understanding, which I think is being dissolved now.....