What if my grandmother had wheels? She would be a bicycle. But there is absolutely no reason to think that my grandmother has wheels, and every reason to think she does not. And there is absolutely no reason to think that the people of Quito are wrong, and every reason to think they are right. A crazy man might be right (I think you mean) but there is no reason to think he is, and every reason to think he isn't.

I do think that your position and any position is questionable. I think that our method is always ultimately itself grounded on faith, on unprovable axioms.

I agree, we seem to need an unlogical base in order to achieve any logical conclusions. Even though computers have the capacity to solve logical problems, they wont do so unless told. I believe we work in the same manner: A human being without emotions would be like a computer and do nothing.

If we survive childhood we probably have absorbed more unconscious/implicit prejudices than we will ever manage to become conscious of.

Is the "pursuit of truth" a bluff, then?

How do you know that this statement isn't one of those silly prejudices?

---------- Post added 02-19-2010 at 01:03 AM ----------



Is this question a bluff? Are you really so doubtful after all? What truths do you live by? I assume you steer away from oncoming traffic?

Is philosophy, for you, just mental-masturbation?

Most people see such "doubling back" or third level questions as pointless... but I see them as doubling back to metareasoning, maybe the reasoning of reasoning is more appropriate a term, introducing a third level reasoning which considers the grounds of reasoning and the limitations we ascribe to it.

How do you know that this statement isn't one of those silly prejudices?

You dont =)

I wonder if I should be very happy or very sad about it... will stick for very happy =)

As I've said before, I should have entitled this thread First Philosophy, but First Science is perhaps close enough. I note that metaphysics and first philosophy are synonymous.
I can't help but suggest that human life is impossible without metaphysics or first philosophy. Those who haven't studied it have simply adopted it from their local culture and interaction with other human beings. Or so it seems to me. To practice philosophy in the deep sense means for me to practice first philosophy.

First philosophy also seems to me like the most exciting aspect of philosophy. But tastes vary.

Metaphysics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Metaphysics is called the "first philosophy" by Aristotle.

Meh, metaphilosophy is necessary, but metaphysics is not.

Have you looked into what constitutes metaphysics? I suggest that your assertion that metaphysics is unnecessary is a metaphysical statement.
Metaphysics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I also suggest that we can't help but pick up our culture's implicit metaphysics as children. Metaphysics is first-philosophy. One doesn't have to intentionally practice it, but I can't see how a human can live without the most basic assumptions that would seem to fall under first-philosophy, ontology, etc.

To differentiate between the social real and the imaginary seems to me like a practicing of informal metaphysics. The scientific method seems itself to be metaphysical, even if the fruits of this method are not.

Yeah, I guess you're right, but at the very least people tend to think science can do less than it already has, the "god of the gaps"... even if the gaps have been filled, lol.

Could you elaborate on this? I'm not sure what you mean but it sounds promising.

After all, those thoughts you're coming up with are the result of synapses in your brain, right?

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.

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.

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?"

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

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.

My problem is that even if control is an illusion, it is still a useful construct. It's like how skepticism is useful but if taken on its own all beliefs ultimately fall down forever.

You might call me a merchant philosopher (hope that isn't a real term), I like to take the best from different philosophies and get rid of the rotten tomatoes.

I am often amazed at how different we feel we are from other animals as far as language is concerned. I mean sure there's a ton of extra potential for us, but language is basically, IMO, linked with the unconscious desire to survive.

Smarter theists don't strike me as ridiculous either, but there are all sorts of sorts unfortunately, and it seems like the loudest ones are usually the most dogmatic.

I agree. We developed this neocortex and its functions presumably as a tool for survival. But the thing is potent enough to allow us to commit suicide, use contraception, invent anti-human biological warfare. I do think there is a significant leap from the other animals to man. As Korzibski says, man is the time-binding animal. Our achieved is cumulative. Whereas beavers are building the same old damns, we are planning to visit f-ing Mars.

It's as if this tool we developed for survival slipped out of the tool-belt. Language allows us to store personality, to stand on the shoulders of giants who are standing on the shoulders of other giants, limitlessly. We were born into a world full of skyscrapers and electronics.

Yes, this is true. "The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity." I'm not saying that's 100% true, but it's a good line. (Yeats --The Second Coming)

However, I think ultimately it still falls back to survival. If a population is too large suicide or odd sexual behavior in animals helps the species along (made a point of not saying homosexuality, don't want any hate mail!). If the most aggressive go to war, the most aggressive die, and eventually a more peaceful world emerges from the survivors. The biggest issue here is the ability of one person to do so much damage, and that I think is a bad thing but is random in evolutionary terms. Whoever dies as a result of that damage will most likely be a random sampling of the gene pool, even if only a certain nation's gene pool.

I'm passionate about my lack of conviction, because it helps drive my more sympathetic and compassionate thoughts. The more I can see things from another person's view, the more I can care about what happens to them.

In many cases the more aggressive culture seems to have conquered the resources necessary for rapid reproduction. Kill all you want -- we'll breed more. As long as we have the good farmland, plenty of water, maybe some mountains for defense, iron ore, etc. Ever play risk? Sometimes a sacrifice of armies to win a continent early on is more than paid back. I see your point, though. I just wanted to balance out the aggression issue.

---------- Post added 02-21-2010 at 04:31 AM ----------



A conviction that convictions are dangerous, excepting this conviction regarding convictions. I can relate to that.

Once again we've found little to disagree on, are you sure you're not really an unmarried 20 (wait, I'm 21 as of today!) year old woman?, because that would be nice.