A Non-Metaphysical Theory

@ughaibu,

ughaibu;149899 wrote:

Thanks, but it's about as simple as matters, discussed by philosophers, get. So, work on it, or read up. As far as I can see, you dont lack the intellectual capacity to understand this.You've had several elucidations over, at least, a three year period, on at least three sites. Apparently you have psychological reasons for deluding yourself about determinism, that make your stance irrational. I'm not your shrink, so, it's up to you to deal with it yourself.

I see what you mean, of course. You really have no argument. Macro-events are determined, but micro-events are not determined, is obviously not a self-contradiction. Just as jungles are fertile, but deserts are not fertile, is not a contradiction.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;149917 wrote:

You really have no argument.

On your ******* bike with this bullshit. You have been pointed to all relevant sources and consistently provided with piss simple arguments for years. There are two possibilities:
1) you are too thick to get this
2) you are self deluded.
The choice is yours.

@ughaibu,

ughaibu;149922 wrote:

On your ******* bike with this bullshit. You have been pointed to all relevant sources and consistently provided with piss simple arguments for years. There are two possibilities:
1) you are too thick to get this
2) you are self deluded.
The choice is yours.

Do I really have to choose? I am afraid I am not acquainted with the arguments you are alluding to. So, why cannot determinism be true in one area, and not in another; or, to placate your wrath, why can't determinism be true enough in one area, and not true in another area?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;149924 wrote:

Do I really have to choose?

You could choose not to choose, depends on the choice: YouTube - Diamanda Galas - You Must Be Certain Of The Devil

@ughaibu,

ughaibu;149933 wrote:

You could choose not to choose, depends on the choice: YouTube - Diamanda Galas - You Must Be Certain Of The Devil

But what if my view is that although determinism is indivisible, its effect on free will is divisible? So that the indeterminism that seeps over from micro-events to macro-events is so negligible that it does not affect freedom of the will. (Insofar, of course, as determinism affects freedom of the will at all).

---------- Post added 04-09-2010 at 11:36 AM ----------

ughaibu;149933 wrote:

You could choose not to choose, depends on the choice: YouTube - Diamanda Galas - You Must Be Certain Of The Devil

But what if my view is that although determinism is indivisible, its effect on free will is divisible? So that the indeterminism that seeps over from micro-events to macro-events is so negligible that it does not affect freedom of the will. (Insofar, of course, as determinism affects freedom of the will at all).

Thanks for the link. Is that really you when you are not philosophizing?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;149937 wrote:

Is that really you when you are not philosophizing?

I am never not philosophising.

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;149895 wrote:

I find 'spirit' not a very satisfactory word. This is maybe because the English language is so bereft in this matter, in which Sanskrit has a richer lexicon. Anyway the whole idea of 'spirit' still seems to be some incorporeal substance, something which is spread out through space. This is a very poor representation. I much prefer 'gist' which is like 'geist' or 'meaning'. 'Gist' is like 'the meaning of something' or 'the spirit of Christmas' or 'a way of being'. This is much closer to the meaning I seek than the idea of spirit as some kind of ethereal vapour, substance, or ghostly thing.

It is a way of being, not a kind of thing. It is the spirit of compassion, the spirit of love, the spirit of giving. It is only disclosed by these qualities, not by imagining what it must be like.

I think you may be looking out to the word 'essence';....... would it than be correct to say that your spirit, is:
Like in the case of soul - is the 'essence' or 'spirit', which is seperate from the body and mind. The spiritualist say that 'Soul is the principle of life'; so also you seem to suggest that 1) your 'spirit' is the principle of universal matter. Or as i gather, you are also saying 2) that the law of a becoming 'object' constitutes the spirit,

or perhaps i am way off the mark. Let me know.

jeeprs;149895 wrote:

Actually it is not confusion, it is ignorance. It has come from believing that 'Spirit'; or 'The One'; or 'The Ground of Being'; can be designated and spoken of as something. Whereas, 'the way that can be spoken is not the real way', says Lao Tze. They say 'familiarity breeds contempt'; never more so than here. This is also why Socrates was wise to say that he knew nothing. Ignorance in this matter, surpasses knowledge in all others.

Oh!, you are more direct, confusion is quite a mild term, yes!
'The ground of being' concept seems very interesting. I just think it is something to a concept i have heard before, but it would be great if you can further elaborate on that a little more.

jeeprs;149895 wrote:

As for materialism and naturalism: 'naturalism' is a more polite expression, but it really amounts to the same. But even so, it still conveys the blatant falsehood that 'nature' is something we really understand. We certainly understand many things about nature, but nature has a great deal in reserve. The things which seem so trifling to her, are completely baffling to us. We assume we know her, at our peril.

Thats very much true, all that you said about naturalism, but when we compare it with materialism, you may also remember that naturalism is also about spiritualism. The religion of tribals, animists, and voodoos were based on the awe and power of nature, and that power, theoretically cannot come about without a spirit in action. the elan vitale. Whereas materialism rejects or deny outright any kind of spirits. Doesn't matter if it is the popular spirit - a substance or something, or the new spirit - the non-substance one which you propose.

jeeprs;149895 wrote:

Energy is the capacity to do work, though, whereas this is also 'knowing'. It is like 'knowing energy', if there were such a thing.

Here i beg to differ,. Of course, it is not your fault, i did not define the energy which i was referring to. This often happens, the capacity to do work is the school book definition or what science makes us believe it equates to. The Energy i was talking about is the all pervading energy that seems to exists, and as told by various accounts, and as can be deducted by reason, in all manifest forms, objects, corporeal or non corporeal. This Energy is always in the capital.

@Jackofalltrades phil,

Jackofalltrades;150006 wrote:

I think you may be looking out to the word 'essence';....... would it than be correct to say that your spirit, is:
Like in the case of soul - is the 'essence' or 'spirit', which is seperate from the body and mind. The spiritualist say that 'Soul is the principle of life'; so also you seem to suggest that 1) your 'spirit' is the principle of universal matter. Or as i gather, you are also saying 2) that the law of a becoming 'object' constitutes the spirit....

.....The Energy i was talking about is the all pervading energy that seems to exists, and as told by various accounts, and as can be deducted by reason, in all manifest forms, objects, corporeal or non corporeal. This Energy is always in the capital.

Many people have beliefs about metaphysical issues, and spiritual beliefs, but frequently, or nearly always, they are not effective. They don't really make any difference to them and don't refer to anything real. I am wishing to avoid that tendency.

Aha. That energy you refer to, I think, is Chi. I see what you mean now.

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;150059 wrote:

Many people have beliefs about metaphysical issues, and spiritual beliefs, but frequently, or nearly always, they are not effective. They don't really make any difference to them and don't refer to anything real. I am wishing to avoid that tendency.

Aha. That energy you refer to, I think, is Chi. I see what you mean now.

Leibniz believed that indiscernible objects must be identical, but a number of people have disputed that. Now, that is considered a metaphysical issue by philosophers. Do you think they are wrong to concern themselves about that issue? (There are many papers written about it).

@jeeprs,

I am trying to navigate the middle path between worldly skepticism, which says that only material objects and relations exist, and unworldly metaphysics, which says that only the ideal realms are real. Within this endeavour, metaphysics has a place, but if it becomes the ground for argument, then it looses its usefulness. I can see how that argument of Liebniz could be interminable.

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;150131 wrote:

I am trying to navigate the middle path between worldly skepticism, which says that only material objects and relations exist, and unworldly metaphysics, which says that only the ideal realms are real. Within this endeavour, metaphysics has a place, but if it becomes the ground for argument, then it looses its usefulness. I can see how that argument of Liebniz could be interminable.

But is that the point? Leibniz thought the issue had profound implications for understanding the world, and its relation to God, something that may not be obvious at first glance, or even second glance. But the point is that if a person's interest in philosophy extends only to its usefulness (whatever that comes to) most of philosophy will be by-passed by him. There are other enterprises with far more potential for utility.

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;150059 wrote:

Many people have beliefs about metaphysical issues, and spiritual beliefs, but frequently, or nearly always, they are not effective. They don't really make any difference to them and don't refer to anything real. I am wishing to avoid that tendency.

I venture out a bit more to irritate you, but my good reason being your asking for a critical review of your sypnosis of your theory.

The classical definition of meta-physics being 'beyond' or 'after' physics. They are not effective or real because they have always been speculative in nature, a result of contemplation or reflections. This is where th religionists, spiritualists, and their likes face resistance from the modern thinkers (like you, and less possibly yours humbly).

Your quote from OP:

Quote:

And it is not actually a metaphysical idea because it does not propose the idea of 'substance'. Material things all exist, but they only exist by virtue of being expressions of the law.

Yes, its one thing that makes it difficult to accurately define what reality or existence is all about. If it is not substance, and is universal, and IS what makes objects happen, than such an entity might exist, is your proposition. If, you may agree, than Chi or Brahman or Universal Energy, with its possible variables, best describes your observations.

But than to say or claim it is non-metaphysical is a bold initiative. I see the problem as follows;
If one says that all the effects (substance in nature) are due to the causes (again substances), but the main or principal cause is non-substance, than it may violate the principle of non-contradiction. But the principle is under challenge with the super-positions in quantum theory.
So, even if we leave the principle aside, and than say, that a non-substance is the cause, than the non-substance becomes a meta-physical body or thing, entity or being (TEB). One can argue that laws are non-substantive, it does not fill up spaces, but laws are also abstract. The expressions of law should be abstarct too. Or is it not?

The Non-metaphysical nature of the theory can hold good, if it can be explained why 'laws' are not abstract. The theory by itslef may hold good. Infact very good.

jeeprs;150059 wrote:

Aha. That energy you refer to, I think, is Chi. I see what you mean now.

And, whats a 'Ground of Being'?

@jeeprs,

Perhaps I should say a few words about Buddhist philosophy by way of background.

The Buddhist approach to metaphysics is to avoid speculation about questions which cannot be determined. There are traditionally ten questions which are regarded as 'undetermined' (avyakaarta). It is not inferred that these questions cannot be answered by the Buddha, but that pursuing the answer to them is not conducive to liberation, to unbinding, to the cessation of suffering.

These ten questions are:

Whether the world is eternal
or not eternal
Whether the world is finite
or infinite
Whether the soul and body are identical
or different
Whether the enlightened one exists after death,
or does not exist after death,
or both exists and does not exist after death,
or neither exists nor does not exist after death

Even a cursory inspection of this list will reveal that a considerable amount of what is known in Western philosophy as the subject of metaphysics is either included or can be inferred from this list. (1)

Accordingly, such an approach naturally leads to a skeptical position. But the exact meaning of such skepticism is different to how we usually understand skepticism.

The modern skeptic basically has a naturalistic outlook. This means she is skeptical about any claims for which scientific or empirical evidence cannot be forthcoming.

Ancient skepticism was considerably different to that. It was born of an essentially religious view of the world. So it was skeptical about all kinds of 'worldly knowledge'. It was very much a renunciate philosophy. The Buddhist view of the world, as is well known, is that existence is 'dukkha', usually translated as 'suffering' or 'sorrowful'. This is the gist of the First Noble Truth. All beings are bound in 'samsara' which is the endless cycle of birth-and-death, due to their craving and ignorance. The remaining three Noble Truths, however, affirm that suffering, dukkha, has a cause, and that it can be ended, done away with, finished, the burden laid down, to put it in the traditional vernacular. It is important to state this, because many people have said that the Buddhist teaching is pessimistic. But it is not.

In Buddhist teaching, the proximate cause of suffering are greed, hatred and delusion. Basically these arise out of like, dislike, and indifference, magnified a thousandfold because of our attachment to what is essentially transitory. This is the state of the 'uninformed worldling', i.e. all of us.

But, unlike Platonism, and other forms of Idealist philosophy, Buddhism does not posit an ideal realm or a heaven realm as the result of the cessation of suffering. Instead it engenders a deep psychological transformation through attaining insight into the causes of suffering which arise from one's attachment to the transitory and empty objects of sensory experience.

In the Mahayana (or Northern) schools of Buddhism, however, this process of liberation does not mean leaving this world for a higher realm. In fact, the radical realization of the Mahayana is that Samsara and Nirvana are not different. 'Samsara is Nirvana grasped, and Nirvana is Samsara released', is the very succinct way of putting it. So it is more like a matter of transforming our view of this world, rather than realising an ideal or higher realm of experience. If you are familiar with the teachings of Zen Buddhism, this will not come as a surprise.

In practice, this results in an orientation towards action in the world, and engagement with the world, albeit with a radically different understanding of that same world. So in one sense it is a religious view, in that it takes seriously a religious discipline, ethics, and meditation, but on the other hand, it avoids the dichotomies and dualities that are so characteristic of the 'spiritual religions'. Instead it gives rise to what is known as 'the realization of emptiness' which arises when the practitioners sees the conditioned nature of all existence. Hence also the aversion to metaphysics in the Western sense which are felt to be grounds for 'dogmatic views'. (2)

It is also interesting to reflect that there is such thing as a skeptical faith. It seems a complete contradiction in Christian terms, but this only shows how conditioned we have become to a particular understanding of the meaning of religion in the western world.

Now, as for 'ground of being': this is an expression which is characteristic of various mystical teachings and also modern theologian Paul Tillich. I have found a nice quote on the idea, but it needs much reading to really get the idea.

Quote:

God is not 'out there'. He is in Bonhoeffer's words ' the "beyond" in the midst of our life', a depth of reality reached 'not on the borders of life but at its centre', not by any flight of the alone to the alone, but, in Kierkegaard's fine phrase, by ' a deeper immersion in existence'. For the word 'God' denotes the ultimate depth of all our being, the creative ground and meaning of all our existence. ...Tillich warns us that to make the necessary transposition, 'you must forget everything traditional that you have learned about God, perhaps even that word itself.'

Source

This kind of understanding is characteristic of the understanding of monastics and practitioners. But it is a state of being. You have to walk the walk, and it is a tough thing to learn.

---------------------------------------------------

(1) In fact it is interesting to compare some of the items on this list with Kant's 'antinomies of reason'. Some scholars believe that the Buddhist approach to metaphysics is similar to Kant's in these respects, with the caveat that they are derived from vastly different historical and cultural backgrounds. See The Central Philosophy of Buddhism by T R V Murti.

(2) In fact, there are strong grounds for saying that Mahayana Buddhism directly informed the Greek Skeptics, particularly Pyrrho, who travelled to India and subsequently exhibited a very Buddhist style of argumentation. These themes are explored in the excellent The Shape of Ancient Thought, by Thomas McEvilly.

@jeeprs,

I should say you have nicely woven the issues of skepticism, naturalism, and spiritualism with the matter of metaphysicism which we were discussing. However, by this detour, and as its been a preference, you have again brought Buddhism and its thought process to the fore of this discussion.

your quote:

Quote:

The modern skeptic basically has a naturalistic outlook. This means she is skeptical about any claims for which scientific or empirical evidence cannot be forthcoming.

It is true. This skeptic also wants an acceptable logical, believable version of metaphysical entities which cannot be rejected outrightly. For example, the Chi or Ki or Brahman are very powerful ideas which even if there is no scientific or empirical proofs are still considered plausible and logical conclusions of thought experiments.

Now on some smaller matters of importance's.
Pyrrho definitely did visit India, while accompanying Alexander. It is also true that during Alexander's attempt to penetrate India, the buddhists were at the top of affairs in India. But, acoounts suggests that he saw nude ascetics and those are speculated to be the Jaina muni's or monks. Howsoever, the details cannot mire the fact that skepticism was a style prevalent in India, and many Indian, as well as persian philosophies were carried forward into Greek. Many Buddhist contentions were taken from Jain agnosticism and atheism. While jains propagated a uncompromising and strict disciplinary life even from its lay communities, Buddhism appealed to the masses and Kings - more importantly, for an more accommodative approach towards the persons way of life.

Anyway, the meta-physics of Buddhism, is not encouraged by Buddha nor by tradition as it took up matters of the individual and society more as a priority than cosmogony. Probably, your phrase of 'Non-Metaphysical' theory is an attempt to soften the impact of your propositions of non-substance spirits viz-e-viz Buddhist teachings against any kind of comprehensible cosmological creator.

It is true that the faiths which revel on revelations exhibit a narrow understandings of meta-physics, and thus western philosophical mind-sets follows an idealistic, systematic and ordained pattern of the external world. Thus they seems to be underprepared for concepts such a spirits or souls in knowledge.

The ground of being concept as referred earlier is similar to the concept of God which is time and space itself. Which, in short, would mean, that all beings exists because it exists. Now, this God in spirit form is Omniscient and Omni present. This concept leads us to deitifying the alleged Being, which i suppose is contraindicative to your Non-metaphysical being.

But here again we see that the essence is a kind of substance. I think, socrates was more clear than Plato, who confused substance with ideas and forms. Plato, tried to make us believe that ideas and forms were substances, and not just an abstraction.
Thats how today, as you rightly pointed out, the modern naturalists or materialist ask 'where' is such a substance.

I am not so wholly clear of these ideas but i gather from modern commentaries, that Plato's God wanted the good to happen over the bad, order out of chaos. He thus created time and heaven. The buddhists as you pointed out introduces th econcept of emptiness out of which matter arose or arises. And I think thats clever.

@jeeprs,

It is all an ongoing study. In the words of Edward Conze, the Buddha's teaching:

Quote:

is essentially a doctrine of salvation, and that all its philosophical statements are subordinate to its soteriological purpose. This implies, not only that many philosophical problems are dismissed as idle speculations, but that each and every proposition must be considered in reference to its spiritual intention and as a formulation of meditational experiences acquired in the course of the process of winning salvation.

From Buddhist Philosophy and Its European parallels

This focus is what has allowed Buddhism to retain its practicality over the centuries. But I can't help but be interested in Western idealism as it is represented in Western philosophy, particularly when Buddhist pragmatism is used to counter-balance its speculative tendencies. I am sure that Greek philosophy contains ideas that are not even in scope for Buddhism. So there are kinds of interesting ways to synthesize these great traditions, to which end I am reading about mathematical realism and practicing meditation. Which is what gave rise to this thread.:bigsmile:

@jeeprs,

I got you. Thanks

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;146422 wrote:

There is an idea that I am trying to spell out which I think is important. But before I go down the track of trying to fully elaborate it, I would like to present a brief summary of it, to see if it stands up to criticism.

Reality and Existence

This has got to do with the difference between between reality and existence. I am working on the idea that what is real, and what exists, are not the same. I already know this is controversial and unconventional but I will try and provide a bit more detail at this point to see if it has any future.

What I propose exists, consists mainly of objects. Objects are the kinds of things we see, from the subatomic, to the galactic, in size. (I won't list them:bigsmile:)

Now I would like to say that this category of items called 'objects' comprises 'everything that exists', or every material thing. (I suppose this leaves out a very important particular, which is energy. I will put that aside for now.)

In this definition, all existing things are compounded, or made of parts (leaving aside the constituents of atoms e.g. quarks, leptons etc). Objects are also temporal - they begin and end in time.

Now I want to consider the idea of number. I regard numbers as being a type of universal. In other words, here I am proposing some kind of mathematical realism. I believe numbers are real, although they are not real in the same way as objects are. Some refer to them as abstract objects, but I don't think there is any such thing, for reasons that will become clear. Universals also include the various attributes of an object such as roundness, red-ness and so on, as per the traditional description.

Now I don't regard numbers as existing things. They are real, but they don't exist. Instead, mathematical relations, universals, and the like, are inherent, or implicit, in the way things exist. The universe exhibits tendencies to behave a certain way - in other words, it is lawful. Lawfulness consists of predictable regularities, the tendency for certain things to happen. The Pythagorean insight that 'all is number' is profoundly true, because number describes the ratio of all things to each other.

What I am considering is that the relationship between existing things - the lawful manner in which things exists - is of a different order of reality to the things themselves. In this depiction, the material objects are given form by the lawful operations of the Universe which are of course implicit everywhere.

But putting it like this, you can see that 'the lawfulness of the universe' cannot be objectified. It is not anything in particular - it is simply the way that everything is related or comes to exist. In other words, in itself it does not exist. It is not any particular thing. Nevertheless, without it, nothing would exist. Furthermore, it underlies not only all material particulars, but also the way that the mind itself works. So again, it cannot be objectified or considered.

Universal Mind

Now in some respects, this could be understood as a theistic idea, but really it is much more like Neo-platonism. In this understanding, 'the universal mind' can be understood as the origin of this order, but this too is not something that exists. There really is no universal mind. But wherever mind exists, there is a certain way that it operates. It will always develop along certain lines and operate in certain ways, in the same way that planets go around in elliptical orbits, and so on. In other words, it is lawful. So in this way there is a universal mind - not because this or that mind is universal, but because wherever mind appears, it always operates this way. The tendecy is real, but it does not exist until it is 'instantiated' in the specific instance of this or that mind.

It seems to me that a lot of the philosophical difficulties we have in relation to the idea of 'the lawfulness of the universe' come from trying to imagine 'where' these laws exist. We can't imagine what such a 'place' would be like, of course. A lot of the problem with Platonism is wondering 'where' the forms exist. Now in this understanding, that problem is solved by the answer that 'they don't exist anywhere. They are simply the way in which things tend to exist. So they are kind of implicit within the fabric of the cosmos, but can never (of course) be apprehended'.

Now I realise this is very sketchy. It is an idea I have been working on since I joined the Forum. And it is not actually a metaphysical idea because it does not propose the idea of 'substance'. Material things all exist, but they only exist by virtue of being expressions of the law. So I will throw it out there and watch what comes back.

thanks.

How is any of this supposed to be a "Non-metaphysical theory"?

It simply doesn't matter that someone construes "existence" and "the real" differently. That, in itself, is a metaphysical theory. And whichever things you think have existence like physical objects, and which things like numbers and concepts only have a kind of lesser "subsistence," but nonexistent "realness,"--all of this is still a very much a substantive metaphysical theory.

(1) You are telling us which things you think really exist, and which things you think don't.
(2) You divide ontology right down the center, thus giving "existence" two interpretations--"really existent" and "non-existent, but real existence".

(...which is contradictory from the start anyway.)

The western philosopher, Meinong, fits right in here....you might check him out.

Whatever the scenario, nevertheless, this is a Robust Metaphysical Theory whether you like it or not.

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;150369 wrote:

I can't help but be interested in Western idealism as it is represented in Western philosophy,

What is "Western Idealism" in philosophy?

jeeprs;150369 wrote:

particularly when Buddhist pragmatism is used to counter-balance its speculative tendencies.

What is wrong with Greek philosophy having "speculative tendencies"?

jeeprs;150369 wrote:

So there are kinds of interesting ways to synthesize these great traditions,

Why do you want to "synthesize" these two traditions?
What things, exactly, are you going to synthesize?
Why do these traditions need to be "synthesized"?

jeeprs;150369 wrote:

to which end I am reading about mathematical realism and practicing meditation. Which is what gave rise to this thread.:bigsmile:

What is "mathematical realism" if numbers don't exist?

@Extrain,

Extrain;150658 wrote:

How is any of this supposed to be a "Non-metaphysical theory"?

It simply doesn't matter that someone construes "existence" and "the real" differently. That, in itself, is a metaphysical theory. And whichever things you think have existence like physical objects, and which things like numbers and concepts only have a kind of lesser "subsistence," but nonexistent "realness,"--all of this is still a very much a substantive metaphysical theory.

(1) You are telling us which things you think really exist, and which things you think don't.
(2) You divide ontology right down the center, thus giving "existence" two interpretations--"really existent" and "non-existent, but real existence".

(...which is contradictory from the start anyway.)

The western philosopher, Meinong, fits right in here....you might check him out.

Whatever the scenario, nevertheless, this is a Robust Metaphysical Theory whether you like it or not.

What jeepers "really" should be saying is that it is a "non-Aristotelian theory," because it does not involve the concept of "substance." As you say, it's still metaphysics.

:flowers:

@longknowledge,

longknowledge;150729 wrote:

What jeepers "really" should be saying is that it is a "non-Aristotelian theory," because it does not involve the concept of "substance." As you say, it's still metaphysics.

:flowers:

It's still metaphysical, regardless. It is also contradictory. No theory can sustain a contradiction. So it's doomed from the start.

Philosophy Forum

A Non-Metaphysical Theory

Quick Links

My Account

able2know