Yes, metaphysics is only meaningless in the sense that it is impossible to verify. But it is also the very ground we stand upon!

"Philosophy is an activity, not a study" Wittgenstein. I suppose it is a case of two great minds with a single thought.

If it is possible to know that the moon was made of rocky substances rather than cheese how would you go about verifying that fact? Most (read pretty much all) have no means of getting to the moon, and experts are often wrong. So, how are we safe to assume that the moon is not cheese, but instead can say that the moon is a kind of rocky substance?

To which I might add that metaphysics always had a practical application in the classical traditions, namely, the cultivation of wisdom and the discernment of Universals, Forms, and so on; what was known as 'praxis'. It was around the time of Hume and Locke that this practical application had begun to sink from view - one could argue that it had been appropriated by the Scholastics and was lost in the general secular revolution against religion that constituted the Enlightnment. By contrast, in Eastern philosophy to this day, the subject of metaphysics has a practical correlate, specifically, disciplined meditation and the observation of the ethical restraints, without which it is indeed meaningless. Hence the interest in the West in yoga and Buddhism.

Jeeprs -- the practical expressions of metaphysics don't address whether metaphysics actually has any meaning. I'll stipulate that it can be used as a mental exercise, but it doesn't have to be meaningful to do so.

Everything has meaning that has value

Well, that's such a generic conceptualization of the idea "meaning" that the word itself fails to be meaningful as you've stated.

And it's besides the point. The question about meaning in metaphysics is not whether it has cultural value, personal value, historical value, and therein has meaning. No. The question is whether it actually amounts to something that contains information and gets us an inch closer to "truth" (whatever that is) -- or if it's rather just tortured speculative systems that illustrate nothing but our own imaginative flights of fancy.

My world is my life...It just about has ultimate subjective value...

But it came from a point in time when knowledge was very scarce, so it did have some value in providing a theory, and a coherent theory at that which could then be tested gradually as the means became available... Considering how many people still believe in essential metaphysics, we must wonder why...

Jeeprs -- the practical expressions of metaphysics don't address whether metaphysics actually has any meaning.

It was inconceivable to their minds accustomed to accept a creator God

Aedes wrote:

Fine, true for all of us.

But there's no point in having conversations if the topic is always reduced to an individual's subjective valuation. If it means x to you, y to me, and z to someone else, any possibility of a useful discussion is abrogated unless we discuss where x, y, and z overlap.

Were it not for subjective evaluations we would have no need of conversation...It is because the most seamingly objective facts, like the sun and the moon and the world are experianced by all through separate lives... We have no other means but conversation to resolve our different perspectives...

Quote:

Fine, it has historical influence. But that has nothing to do with whether it contains meaningful words or concepts.

I hear your arguments about relativity and context, I really do.

But you're not answering the question in a way that has any specificity for metaphysics.

Most of us, I would imagine, are familiar with Hume's proposition that we 'commit to the flames' all metaphysical claims.

The modern verificationists take this as a starting point and carry out saying that all metaphysical claims are utterly meaningless. Note that they do not say they are right or wrong but just meaningless, it is like saying "Dog mountain humble blah chuckle.", a meaningless statement.

The reason is that they are not verifiable (hence the name), unlike science which is empirically verifibale. Therefore, they argue, we have no way of saying this metaphysical argument is any more or less right than this one. Thus, it becomes, Rudolf Carnap says, more like an art, like poetry where a person chooses which metaphysical "theory" he or she likes depending on their persona. He says a optimist is therefore likely to say we have freewill, for example.

Wittgenstein started this whole shebang off. I am just wondering, what do you think?

If you disagree, why? Can anyone forumulate an argument againt the verificationists?

Quick question: What about the verificationists claim is meaningful by their own criteria?

Most of us, I would imagine, are familiar with Hume's proposition that we 'commit to the flames' all metaphysical claims.

The modern verificationists take this as a starting point and carry out saying that all metaphysical claims are utterly meaningless. Note that they do not say they are right or wrong but just meaningless, it is like saying "Dog mountain humble blah chuckle.", a meaningless statement.

The reason is that they are not verifiable (hence the name), unlike science which is empirically verifibale. Therefore, they argue, we have no way of saying this metaphysical argument is any more or less right than this one. Thus, it becomes, Rudolf Carnap says, more like an art, like poetry where a person chooses which metaphysical "theory" he or she likes depending on their persona. He says a optimist is therefore likely to say we have freewill, for example.

Wittgenstein started this whole shebang off. I am just wondering, what do you think?

If you disagree, why? Can anyone forumulate an argument againt the verificationists?

So if a metaphysical claim, even a convincing logical proof, has no reference at all outside of the human imagination, then how might we decide whether it's true, false, or at all meaningful?

It's not the verificationists who make the most damning arguments against metaphysics. It's linguists like Wittgenstein and Russell who do, by showing how metaphysical claims are essentially content-free and are built upon unconventional twists of language.

According to Bertrand Russell, "It would appear that knowledge concerning the universe as a whole is not to be obtained by metaphysics, and that the supposed proofs that, in virtue of the laws of logic, such and such things must exist and such and such others cannot, are not capable of capable of surviving a critical scrutiny"

An 'only' logical or local mind is linear and therefore restrictive. Adopting the attitude 'anything is possible' has lead to experiments in nonlocal interactions that show that the past is not fixed but can alter according to present conditions and that the effects of empathic bonding transcend space and time.

Maybe that description fits Wittgenstein (in some way). But it doesn't fit Russell, who never was a logical positivist, and never claimed that metaphysics was meaningless. In fact, Russell engaged in a lot of metaphysics.
What does it mean to say that metaphysical claims are "content free"?