@Scottydamion,
Scottydamion;130492 wrote: After all, those thoughts you're coming up with are the result of synapses in your brain, right?
At the same time, it seems, those synapses are just thoughts organized by means of sensation and cultural processing. It's a moebius strip. The brain is an object of consciousness which appears to be produced by the brain. Which is inside of which? Or to quote the Smiths: "who will swallow who?"
---------- Post added 02-20-2010 at 11:54 PM ----------
Scottydamion;130492 wrote:
The second part is people denying evolution, the earth is round, atoms have protons, protons are made of quarks, age of the universe, etc... Stuff that if you understand it usually makes sense to you not just because someone else said it. So that is a good reason to call it metaphilosophy, because people like to play the "metaphysics card" when talking about god.
Yes, the metaphysics card is used by theists. The smarter theists don't strike me as ridiculous. But the more Biblical theists do not convince me in the least.
I suppose it still could be described as a matter of taste and persuasion. You and I have similar tastes as far as science is concerned. Do you know much of Kant? He tried to limit what metaphysics could assert. He wanted to swat down the scientific pretensions of metaphysics. He showed the absurdity of the usual proofs of God's existence. I'm not saying I agree with everything he says. He has been well criticized. But he does seem like a centrally important philosopher to me.
Here's an example of a theologian that's no idiot. Even if it's "just poetry," it's good poetry. It's good
conceptual poetry.
Nicholas of Kues - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
---------- Post added 02-20-2010 at 11:59 PM ----------
Scottydamion;130492 wrote:Well, if one sees reality as only being the physical, and one assumes it possible to understand the world completely, then it is possible that all "meta" physical language is truly in the realm of the physical.
Are you familiar with non-dual? The mind-body dichotomy is a tough one. Here's an interesting tackling of it:
Many traditions (generally originating in
Asia) state that the true
condition or
nature of reality is nondualistic, and that these dichotomies are either unreal or (at best) inaccurate conveniences. The American philosopher
William James saw nondualism as the culmination of the British Empirical tradition, and coined a word for it,
sciousness, or consciousness without consciousness of self. But few of his contemporaries accepted his premise that nondualism was prime reality. While attitudes towards the experience of duality and self may vary, nondual traditions converge on the view that the
ego, or sense of personal being, doer-ship and control, is ultimately said to be an
illusion. As such many nondual traditions have significant overlap with
mysticism.