The brothers and the river

@VideCorSpoon,

If each brother counts the other brothers, and only the other brothers, each brother will only count four brothers. If they are too dumb to count themselves, the missing brother is whoever was counting.

@Didymos Thomas,

LOL! That's it. I should have been more vague in the question. I guess it was a complex example of relativism a thousand or so years ago.

@VideCorSpoon,

What is this from?

@Didymos Thomas,

Classical Indian philosophy, on the theory of Self (Indian word Atman) by Jitendranath (pronounced jeh-hindrah) Mohanty.

I was fortunate enough to attend a lecture series before he retired this past year. He is a contemporary of Pandits Tarkavedantatatirtha and Tarktirtha, so he can throw his weight around on the issue of Indian Metaphysics.

@VideCorSpoon,

I'm vaguely familiar with eastern philosophy.

If this passage is from a study on the nature of the self, I would imagine there is some important context we are missing. 'That the brothers are too stupid to include themselves in the counting to determine if all who departed arrived' does not seem to be of any interest when discussing the self, much less Atman (sanskrit for soul; true self in Hinduism, ego in Buddhism).

@Didymos Thomas,

Well said.

"If this passage is from a study on the nature of the self, I would imagine there is some important context we are missing. 'That the brothers are too stupid to include themselves in the counting to determine if all who departed arrived' does not seem to be of any interest when discussing the self, much less Atman (sanskrit for soul; true self in Hinduism, ego in Buddhism)." (Didymos Thomas)

You're right and you're wrong.

From a practical perspective, the brothers are indeed stupid. If we saw this occurrence in a contemporary movie, it would be a lame comedic scene. However, there is a concept we are missing. This may in fact be relativistic perception. But it is in fact the opposite, if we follow Indian philosophy, and that the brothers are the wisest of all because they demonstrate a valuable point. Here's why.

Each brother counts everyone except for themselves, this is why they cannot get the fact that the one missing is the counting brother? hence relativistic perception. Perception is relative to the one counting.

"That the brothers are too stupid to include themselves in the counting to determine if all who departed arrived' does not seem to be of any interest when discussing the self, much less Atman" (Didymos Thomas)

What is the self? The self, according to western philosophy is attached (and led by) Descartes opinion, "I am a thinking thing" (Cogito Ergo Sum) This is where it is important to note that at this point, many people in particular will quote kant, or hume, or Spinoza, etc. and say otherwise. BUT!!! What is the self as itself? It is for all intensive purposes a thinking thing? a core metaphysical concept alone.

Because the self is a thinking thing, we must look to the self as a cognitive thing. Indian philosophy, which may not be our view, rationalizes it thus? the concept of ignorance.

The concept of ignorance
It is complex, so I will describe it simply the way it was described to me.

A man who is wise is he who thinks himself ignorant.
A foolish man is he who thinks himself all knowing and continues to believe this.

The wise man who think himself ignorant understands that there is knowledge beyond his understand, but is aware that that knowledge exists. The foolish man who thinks he knows everything is indeed foolish because he limits his perspective of the universe.

The brothers are a parable of what it means to be the foolish man by means of relativistic perception.

"?much less Atman (sanskrit for soul; true self in Hinduism, ego in Buddhism)." (Didymos Thomas)

Indeed you have a point, how does this relate to Atman, or the self? It relates by means of Pramana, the theory of knowledge. But perhaps mind body interaction was recognized as important to the Indians as well as the continental philosopher such as Descartes and posited their own belief on the issue. Atman, to cut down the explanation, is the root from which Pramana extends (attribute of the substance) when all is said and done in a way. This is arguable from our perspective? but this is the way they understood it. It's within their context.

@VideCorSpoon,

Quote:

Each brother counts everyone except for themselves, this is why they cannot get the fact that the one missing is the counting brother? hence relativistic perception. Perception is relative to the one counting.

Yes, I understand, and still the example is silly. The brothers recognized there was five prior to crossing the river, so if they are interested in learning if everyone reached the other side, they are fools not to count themselves - regardless of what "self" is.

Quote:

What is the self? The self, according to western philosophy is attached (and led by) Descartes opinion, "I am a thinking thing" (Cogito Ergo Sum) This is where it is important to note that at this point, many people in particular will quote kant, or hume, or Spinoza, etc. and say otherwise. BUT!!! What is the self as itself? It is for all intensive purposes a thinking thing? a core metaphysical concept alone.

Sure, there are many potential answers to the question, "what is self?" One potential answer is the buddhist response - what self (this is why Buddhist credit Atman, self, with the cycle of samsara).
Also, I'm not so sure the self is necessarily a "core metaphysical concept". We can discuss self and reject metaphysics.

Quote:

Atman, to cut down the explanation, is the root from which Pramana extends (attribute of the substance) when all is said and done in a way. This is arguable from our perspective? but this is the way they understood it. It's within their context.

And it should come as no surprise that Buddhism has made a point to criticize the Hindu's attachment to Atman.

@Didymos Thomas,

Exactly! The brothers are fools. Its because of their stupidity that we come understand they are indeed stupid.

And yes, there are indeed many potential answers to what the self is. I too find the Buddhist, as well as the hindu conception of self very interesting.

"Also, I'm not so sure the self is necessarily a "core metaphysical concept". We can discuss self and reject metaphysics." (Didymos Thomas)

Blasphemy, I say. You have been reported to the local inquisitors office. Fear the Spanish inquisition, for among their chief weaponry is fear? fear, and surprise? fear, surprise, and those nice big red hats? wait, let me start over.

I suppose it's a matter of perspective. Does the self just exist, or does the self come to exist. Is a TV a TV because it has always been a TV? Or does a TV come to be a TV from a semblance of parts that make that TV a TV? Do you like chicken or eggs? Sweet or sour? But for the purpose of my point the self, in modern philosophy at any rate, is at the core of being (or existence, however you look at it). Again, this is the point of the Cogito argument put forth by the father of modern philosophy, Rene Descartes. We have to know (debatably) the self to know that everything else exists. Cant reject metaphysics and totally look at the self, that would be like looking at the species: human but denying the genus:mammal.

So beware the focal points of philosophy!!!! Leibniz had some convincing arguments, but some of his ideas came from Spinoza, whose ideas came from Descartes, and Descartes from GOD!!! And Gods ideas came from Gods God while Xeno (xeno's paradox) chuckled from the sidelines. No single point of philosophy comes from itself? it is predicated of something which eventually delves into the core of metaphysics.

@VideCorSpoon,

Quote:

Exactly! The brothers are fools. Its because of their stupidity that we come understand they are indeed stupid.

If they cling so closely to non-self, why do they accept the self of others? Wouldn't they look around and count one?

Quote:

I suppose it's a matter of perspective.

You said it, Torquemada. We may disagree, and I'd be willing to work that out with you; however, I do not think we necessarily need to discuss metaphysics to address either self, or true self (since we brought up eastern thought).

Quote:

Cant reject metaphysics and totally look at the self, that would be like looking at the species: human but denying the genus:mammal.

What if we reject that there is a self? If we reject the notion of an unchanging self, there is no "being as such" to study. We can say a great deal about what 'metaphysics' is[/s], but most simply we can say metaphysics studies first causes and things that do not change. If we reject that first causes exist and reject that some 'things' do not change, we can reject metaphysics, and avoid the mistake of "being as such".

[quote]So beware the focal points of philosophy!!!! Leibniz had some convincing arguments, but some of his ideas came from Spinoza, whose ideas came from Descartes, and Descartes from GOD!!! And Gods ideas came from Gods God while Xeno (xeno's paradox) chuckled from the sidelines. No single point of philosophy comes from itself? it is predicated of something which eventually delves into the core of metaphysics.[/quote]

Sure, metaphysics is part of the field of philosophy - it's mark is significant. The point is, we can reject metaphysics and take that mark as misguided, no matter how brilliant.
Either every point in philosophy rests in metaphysics or no question of philosophy rests in metaphysics, save metaphysical questions which are thought to be inherently incoherent. Right or wrong, rejecting metaphysics seems entirely possible, not to mention boasting a history.

@Didymos Thomas,

"If they cling so closely to non-self, why do they accept the self of others? Wouldn't they look around and count one?"

I don' think they accept the self of others, they accept the perception of perhaps an illusory image "of" others. Perception can be deceiving.

"What if we reject that there is a self? If we reject the notion of an unchanging self, there is no "being as such" to study. We can say a great deal about what 'metaphysics' is, but most simply we can say metaphysics studies first causes and things that do not change. If we reject that first causes exist and reject that some 'things' do not change, we can reject metaphysics, and avoid the mistake of "being as such".

Let me break your statement down.

"[But] What if we reject that there is a self? - Ok, for arguments sake, let's reject the self.

"If we reject the notion of an unchanging self, there is no "being as such" to study." - thus if reject the self, we reject the metaphysical framework it clings to. I don't know about this, because all we have done is reject the attribute of the substance? erased the writing from the paper. The being is there to study, only its attributes, namely the self, do not exist.

"We can say a great deal about what 'metaphysics' is, but most simply we can say metaphysics studies first causes and things that do not change." - good. Metaphysics is the study of the primacy of substance and that the substrate that underlies substance does not change. Agreed.

If we reject that first causes exist and reject that some 'things' do not change, we can reject metaphysics, and avoid the mistake of "being as such". - If we reject the primacy of substance and also reject that the substrate does not change, we can reject metaphysics, and avoid the mistake of "being as such," which I take to mean the metaphysical being as it is, being as itself without any predicates? in essence the blank substrate. This in a way had actually affirmed metaphysical doctrine, not refuted it.

"Sure, metaphysics is part of the field of philosophy - it's mark is significant. The point is, we can reject metaphysics and take that mark as misguided, no matter how brilliant." - Can we????? If we argue from 1 to infinity, should we do so under the understanding that zero is irrelevant.

Either every point in philosophy rests in metaphysics or no question of philosophy rests in metaphysics, save metaphysical questions which are thought to be inherently incoherent." - I fail to grasp the concept. Does the argument turn into a Logical (Iff) (if and only if) one then not the other except when metaphysical questions are incoherent in virtue of their inherent essence?

"Right or wrong, rejecting metaphysics seems entirely possible, not to mention boasting a history." - You would have to convey more on this notion? It seems as though you have affirmed it in a way, but conclude otherwise? Also, I don't understand the boasting history part.

@VideCorSpoon,

Quote:

"If we reject the notion of an unchanging self, there is no "being as such" to study." - thus if reject the self, we reject the metaphysical framework it clings to. I don't know about this, because all we have done is reject the attribute of the substance? erased the writing from the paper. The being is there to study, only its attributes, namely the self, do not exist.

No, we have done more that reject the attribute of the substance, we have rejected that the substance exists in of itself. We have not "erased the writing from the paper", this comment isn't even analogous. The "being" might be there (I'm not sure what you mean by "being"), but the "being as such" is not, therefore, no metaphysics.

Quote:

If we reject the primacy of substance and also reject that the substrate does not change, we can reject metaphysics, and avoid the mistake of "being as such," which I take to mean the metaphysical being as it is, being as itself without any predicates? in essence the blank substrate. This in a way had actually affirmed metaphysical doctrine, not refuted it.

The only "metaphysical doctrine" this confirms is the doctrine that metaphysics is bunk.

Quote:

Can we????? If we argue from 1 to infinity, we do so under the understanding that zero is irrelevant.

Yes, I presented arguments for this claim. Namely:
1. metaphysics studies being as such and first causes
2. If there is no such thing as a first cause or being as such, then we should reject metaphysics
3. There is no such thing as a first cause
4. There is no such thing as being as such
5. Therefore, we should reject metaphysics

Quote:

I fail to grasp the concept. Does the argument turn into a Logical (Iff) (if and only if) one then not the other except when metaphysical questions are incoherent in virtue of their inherent essence?

If first causes and being as such exist, then you are right - every point of philosophy rests in metaphysics. However, if there is no being ass such or first cause, metaphysics is of no relevance to any question in philosophy.

Quote:

You would have to convey more on this notion? It seems as though you have affirmed it in a way, but conclude otherwise? Also, I don't understand the boasting history part.

You claimed that we cannot reject metaphysics. I disagree with you. There is a history of significant thinkers who have rejected metaphysics.

@Didymos Thomas,

"No, we have done more than reject the attribute of a substance, we have rejected that the substance exists itself. We have not "erased the writing from the paper", this comment isn't even analogous. The "being" might be there (I'm not sure what you mean by "being"), but the "being as such" is not, therefore, no metaphysics."

I have to ask if you have any background with metaphysics. This is fast becoming oratoric dialogue, and leaving the realm of deductive reasoning. I agreed to assume that the "self" is nonexistent for the purpose of the discussion. The "self" is an attribute, connected invariably to the substance to which it identifies. If on the other hand you talked of the "soul," then it seems plausible because that is transcendental in virtue of its concept. But the "self" is an attribute, not a self existing thing. That's just basic sense, for the self implies ownership to a thing.

"The only "metaphysical doctrine" this confirms to is the doctrine that metaphysics is bunk."

I don't know about that man? you may want to re-examine the paragraph and the logic.
"If we reject the primacy of substance (~P) and also reject that the substrate does not change (~C), we can reject metaphysics (~M), and avoid the mistake of "being as such(~P)," which I take to mean the metaphysical being as it is, being as itself without any predicates? in essence the blank substrate. This in a way had actually affirmed metaphysical doctrine, not refuted it."
(~P & ~C) |- ~M & ~P
1.(~P & ~C)
2.~P Simp, 1
3.~C Simp, 1
4.~M Assumed presumption
5.~M &~P Conj, 2 4

Even in the base form of logic, your assumption of rejection of metaphysics stops the argument dead in its tracks? the argument dies at #4? logically because it breaks the syllogistic chain.

Now take your logical statement of what you think you said.

Yes, I presented arguments for this claim. Namely:
1. metaphysics studies being as such and first causes
2. If there is no such thing as a first cause or being as such, then we should reject metaphysics
3. There is no such thing as a first cause
4. There is no such thing as being as such
5. Therefore, we should reject metaphysics

I don't even have to break this down to tell you where you went wrong.
1.Assumption is logically sound for the arguments sake
2.If there is no first cause as being, then we reject metaphysics. Ok, you could assume that.
3.There is no such thing as a first cause. Ok, you could assume that too.
4.There is no such thing as a first cause (this is the problematic point here)
5.Thus, reject metaphysics.

Because I think you confuse the nature of being in metaphysics, I think the argument fizzles out in a way. In 3 you state that there is no such thing as first cause. You are entitled to that assumption. 4, which should have a link to drive the hammer home repeats line 3. It's like saying?

1.Apples exist
2.Apples exist
3.Thus Applesauce

Aristotle covers this in his metaphysics because it is a common mistake, "socrate's snub nose nose"(zeta meta.)

I think as long as this one issue, that you may not fully understand being (which means substance in metaphysics? that's just how the ancients conceived it), we enter not into deductive reasoning based off of solid foundations, but faulty logic. Namely, what on earth do you take to be "being as such?"

"If first causes and being as such exist, then you are right - every point of philosophy rests in metaphysics. However, if there is no being ass such or first cause, metaphysics is of no relevance to any question in philosophy."

Now this is logical? It's completely shifted from the approach? but its logical.

"You claimed that we cannot reject metaphysics. I disagree with you. There is a history of significant thinkers who have rejected metaphysics."

Hmm? I pretty familiar with modern philosophers and their views of metaphysics? and I can say that I am unaware of significant thinkers who reject metaphysics. Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Kant, Berkeley, Hume, the list goes on and on. They variate on the ontology of their own metaphysics? but they don't completely dismiss it.

@VideCorSpoon,

Quote:

I have to ask if you have any background with metaphysics.

I've managed to read a book or two; however, I really do not see the relevance of the question. My claim is that it is possible to reject metaphysics. You claim this is not possible. If anything, I must wonder if you have any "background with metaphysics" because there have been books published in which the author's claim things like 'metaphysics is pointless'.

For an example easily accessible, you should read the Stanford Encyclopedia entry entitled "Metaphysics" by Peter van Inwagen:
Metaphysics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

He certainly has a background in metaphysics, more so than you, me, or anyone else on this forum. And he argues "that metaphysics-however defined-is an impossible enterprise."

Quote:

This is fast becoming oratoric dialogue, and leaving the realm of deductive reasoning.

There is nothing "oratoric" about our discussion, at least on my part. I'm simply claiming that rejecting metaphysics is possible. Considering I have presented clear evidence that rejecting metaphysics is possible (because, apparently you are unfamiliar with such literature) there is little to argue about.

Quote:

The "self" is an attribute, connected invariably to the substance to which it identifies. If on the other hand you talked of the "soul," then it seems plausible because that is transcendental in virtue of its concept. But the "self" is an attribute, not a self existing thing. That's just basic sense, for the self implies ownership to a thing.

In psychology, "self" is most basically the conscious personality. Some people argue that "self" is what is most essential to us. It is possible to reject this notion of self.

It is also possible to reject the notion that the "substance", of which "self" is an attribute, exists in of itself. It is possible to reject "being as such" outright.

Remember, when I discussed "self", my argument was this: "If we reject the notion of an unchanging self, there is no "being as such" to study."

Quote:

I don't even have to break this down to tell you where you went wrong.
1.Assumption is logically sound for the arguments sake
2.If there is no first cause as being, then we reject metaphysics. Ok, you could assume that.
3.There is no such thing as a first cause. Ok, you could assume that too.
4.There is no such thing as a first cause (this is the problematic point here)
5.Thus, reject metaphysics.

Because I think you confuse the nature of being in metaphysics, I think the argument fizzles out in a way. In 3 you state that there is no such thing as first cause. You are entitled to that assumption. 4, which should have a link to drive the hammer home repeats line 3. It's like saying?

You did not accurately represent my argument. Here it is again:

1. metaphysics studies being as such and first causes
2. If there is no such thing as a first cause or being as such, then we should reject metaphysics
3. There is no such thing as a first cause
4. There is no such thing as being as such
5. Therefore, we should reject metaphysics

I have not made any argument to support 3 or 4, and if I was rejecting metaphysics I should support those two claims. Instead, I am arguing that it is possible to reject metaphysics. In this argument I show how someone can reject metaphysics if they reject the subject of metaphysics.

Is it possible to reject first causes? yes
Is it possible to reject 'being as such'? yes
Therefore, it is possible to reject the study of metaphysics outright.

We can argue the coherency of rejecting metaphysics if you like, but that's not what I've attempted to prove here.

Quote:

Now this is logical? It's completely shifted from the approach? but its logical.

No, it's not a complete shift. It's the essence of what I've argued this whole time. That you attempted to superimpose another debate into the thread is no fault of mine. My claim was that it is possible to reject metaphysics because we can reject that which the subject consists of - being as such and first causes.

Quote:

Hmm? I pretty familiar with modern philosophers and their views of metaphysics? and I can say that I am unaware of significant thinkers who reject metaphysics. Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Kant, Berkeley, Hume, the list goes on and on. They variate on the ontology of their own metaphysics? but they don't completely dismiss it.

Well, Peter van Inwagen is certainly no chump. Even then, much of eastern "metaphysics" consists of explanations as to why the western endeavor of metaphysics is silly.

If we reject metaphysics, if we have no place for 'being as such' or 'first causes', we can talk about self, according to it's definition in psychology, however, we are left with a self which is constantly changing and defies a great deal of discourse (Descartes, et al.) regarding the self, especially any discussion of some thing essentially you which exists, or exists to carry on to some other life, whatever the figurative trappings.

This is especially true if we equate "self" with Atman. Remember, Buddhist understand Atman (the same sanskrit word) as some thing independent of everything else, as being a cause of samsara.

As a side not, you have a habit of misquoting me, whether it's blatant changes (as mentioned above) or bolded insertions, I really have no idea why you do so. Are these simple errors made, if perhaps you are retyping my words? Or what?

@Didymos Thomas,

"I've managed to read a book or two; however, I really do not see the relevance of the question. My claim is that it is possible to reject metaphysics. You claim this is not possible. If anything, I must wonder if you have any "background with metaphysics" because there have been books published in which the author's claim things like 'metaphysics is pointless'."
For an example easily accessible, you should read the Stanford Encyclopedia entry entitled "Metaphysics" by Peter van Inwagen:
Metaphysics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Hmm?. When you looked up on google "what is metaphysics," you found "metaphysics" by Peter van Inwagen, you assumed that within the article, the evidence that it is possible to refute metaphysics exists based off of the first paragraph. Also, I JUST NOW SEE where you got the phrase "being as such." My claim is that it is not possible to reject metaphysics. Keep in mind that this article is not concrete? it is an academic abstract. As such, he posits "new metaphysics" as a possible answer to the further questions raised by "old" metaphysics. "If, then" and "perhaps " and "it is possible that" litter the article?. These "may" be the tell tale signs of a "strong possibility" that the article is indeed an abstract position beyond the old definition of metaphysics. Peter van Inwagen (which interestingly enough published on the problem of evil) is giving you a hypothesis, not an academically recognized essence of Metaphysics. He very well knows what metaphysics is? but he elaborates on conflicting theories.

"He certainly has a background in metaphysics, more so than you, me, or anyone else on this forum. And he argues "that metaphysics-however defined-is an impossible enterprise."

He does indeed. More so than you or me. BUT!!!! He does not argue that metaphysics is an impossible enterprise. When you copy and pasted that phrase, you forgot the very beginning? which is a big no no in academia. The full line says,

"It (the article) also considers various attempts to show that metaphysics-however defined-is an impossible enterprise."

This is NOT HIS VIEW. This is him considering historical rebuttal, not the enforcement of his own position, only a review of what has been said.

"There is nothing "oratoric" about our discussion, at least on my part. I'm simply claiming that rejecting metaphysics is possible. Considering I have presented clear evidence that rejecting metaphysics is possible (because, apparently you are unfamiliar with such literature) there is little to argue about."

Given that the nature of your assumption is not grounded well. You may need to reread that article, because you interpreted it wrong. You have NOT presented clear evidence, you have merely provided inadequate ideas that confuse the nature of metaphysics. The interjection "because, apparently you are unfamiliar with such literature" does not belong in debate. This is called "fire starting" and I usually don't fall into that type of ORATORIC trap.

" In psychology, "self" is most basically the conscious personality"

In psychology? but here we are in philosophy. Unless you assume that philosophy is an all encapsulating subject that precedes psychology?

"Some people argue that "self" is what is most essential to us. It is possible to reject this notion of self. It is also possible to reject the notion that the "substance", of which "self" is an attribute, exists in of itself. It is possible to reject "being as such" outright."

So we move from metaphysics to psychology now? And again, all of this is based off of the wrong assumptions. These are all inadequate ideas because they reflect the nature of the conversation in the wrong.

"You did not accurately represent my argument. Here it is again:

1. metaphysics studies being as such and first causes
2. If there is no such thing as a first cause or being as such, then we should reject metaphysics
3. There is no such thing as a first cause
4. There is no such thing as being as such
5. Therefore, we should reject metaphysics

I have not made any argument to support 3 or 4, and if I was rejecting metaphysics I should support those two claims. Instead, I am arguing that it is possible to reject metaphysics. In this argument I show how someone can reject metaphysics if they reject the subject of metaphysics.

Is it possible to reject first causes? yes
Is it possible to reject 'being as such'? yes
Therefore, it is possible to reject the study of metaphysics outright.

We can argue the coherency of rejecting metaphysics if you like, but that's not what I've attempted to prove here."

Good lord? there are so many problems with this that the refutation won't fit in three pages of postings.

"No, it's not a complete shift. It's the essence of what I've argued this whole time. That you attempted to superimpose another debate into the thread is no fault of mine. My claim was that it is possible to reject metaphysics because we can reject that which the subject consists of - being as such and first causes."

Hmmm?

"Well, Peter van Inwagen is certainly no chump. Even then, much of eastern "metaphysics" consists of explanations as to why the western endeavor of metaphysics is silly."

Because what Peter van Inwagen says is law. The rest of your comment is just plain ridiculous.

"If we reject metaphysics, if we have no place for 'being as such' or 'first causes', we can talk about self, according to it's definition in psychology, however, we are left with a self which is constantly changing and defies a great deal of discourse (Descartes, et al.) regarding the self, especially any discussion of some thing essentially you which exists, or exists to carry on to some other life, whatever the figurative trappings"

I'm sorry, but your comments in general, especially Descartes and "the self" is ridiculous. Descartes is the "I"... not the "self." These two concepts are dramatically different.

This is especially true if we equate "self" with Atman. Remember, Buddhist understand Atman (the same sanskrit word) as some thing independent of everything else, as being a cause of samsara.

LOL!!!! There's no basis for this assumption.

As a side not(e), you have a habit of misquoting me, whether it's blatant changes (as mentioned above) or bolded insertions, I really have no idea why you do so. Are these simple errors made, if perhaps you are retyping my words? Or what?"

LOL!!! Whatever you say. My copy and paste skills are poor I admit... I keep on pressing control-B instead of C. I'm glad you brought this accusation up though, because when the argument turns to "nu-uh, thats not what I said... I really meant this" this is usually an indication the opponent has run out of relevant objections and is reduced to "fight'in " words.

In conclusion.

People will, no matter the facts, believe what they want. As we have seen , there is a drastic breakdown in a philosophical debate when the opponent is misinformed? And I don't mean just him(Didymos Thomas), I (VideCorSpoon) am just as susceptible to the confusion of an idea. Notice the stubbornness of both sides. VideCorSpoon firmly asserts that metaphysics is x. Didymos Thomas firmly asserts that metaphysics is not x. Both refuse to move from their respective positions, regardless of the validity of their arguments, to a neutral ground and hash out the concept as it should be done in the best tradition of philosophy. Instead, the desire to delve into oratorical debate (on behalf of a certain position) overcame the main concept of philosophy? which solving the question.

The blind assumption that one is right, regardless of the facts, has spread much discord in the history of philosophy? in fact, this may be why philosophy exists in the first place. Where can a conversation like this go. Unfortunately nowhere. Well found reason is a necessary part of debate, and the absence of it is in the end a pyrrhic victory regardless who wins.

@VideCorSpoon,

Quote:

Hmm?. When you looked up on google "what is metaphysics," you found "metaphysics" by Peter van Inwagen, you assumed that within the article, the evidence that it is possible to refute metaphysics exists based off of the first paragraph.

For your information, Inwagen also has a book titled "Metaphysics" - which I have read. I found that article in searching for articles by Inwagen on metaphysics because I am familiar with his views given my familiarity with his text. Also, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is a wonderful resource, with the work of well respected thinkers.

Regardless of what you like to tell yourself, you do not have any sort of monopoly on truth.

I did not claim that metaphysics is bunk, and that any worthwhile investigation of the self must be done without metaphysics. I only made the claim that making that claim is possible, and has been done before. Am I wrong? Is it impossible to make that claim? Hardly.
Meanwhile, you have tried to superimpose a debate - a debate in which I am supposed to argue that metaphysics is bunk, and that we can only investigate the self outside of metaphysics. In the process, you have made personal attacks which are entirely unnecessary.

If you want that discussion, let's have it. I'm not sure where I stand personally. But I'm not foolish, nor arrogant enough to cling so tightly to metaphysics that I refuse to believe discussion of personality is impossible without metaphysics - that I refuse to believe that others are capable of rejecting metaphysics.

Quote:

My claim is that it is not possible to reject metaphysics. Keep in mind that this article is not concrete? it is an academic abstract.

Keep in mind I only gave that article as an example.

It is possible to reject metaphysics. Scholars of more worth than you or I will ever be have done so. Right or wrong, we are capable of claiming metaphysics is bunk, and still talk about the psychological notion of self.

@Didymos Thomas,

Well thanks for that information? indeed he does? because that's his primary field of interest at Notre dame. As it so happens, I am familiar with the book as well.

But wait, there's more. Read Preface (x), Para. 1 . Better yet, I'll retype it for you if your book isn't next to you at the moment..

"It should be noted that this book is a "systematic" rather than an "historical" introduction to metaphysics. Although it contains discussions of arguments that have their origins in the works of various great philosophers, it does not pretend to present these arguments in a way that does scholarly justice to the form in which they were originally presented. And no attempt is made at a connected history of metaphysics." (Metaphysics/Inwagen, Preface x)

Feel free to look it up. Does Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy have well respected thinkers and is in turn a wonderful resource? Sure? why not.

"Regardless of what you like to tell yourself, you do not have any sort of monopoly on truth."(Didymos Thomas)

I don't presume to have a monopoly on truth. The federal securities and exchange commission prohibit it. I can only go as far as board approved corporate mergers and 51% of shareholder compliance. To be quite honest, the fact that you think I "know it all" is a result of baseless argument? not my so called deductive arguments.

"I did not claim that metaphysics is bunk, and that any worthwhile investigation of the self must be done without metaphysics. I only made the claim that making that claim is possible, and has been done before. Am I wrong? Is it impossible to make that claim? Hardly."(Didymos Thomas)

You didnt claim that metaphysics is bunk???? Assertions; post 10 (last para.), Post 12 (2nd para.)?????

"Meanwhile, you have tried to superimpose a debate - a debate in which I am supposed to argue that metaphysics is bunk, and that we can only investigate the self outside of metaphysics. In the process, you have made personal attacks which are entirely unnecessary."(Didymos Thomas)

Wait WHAT!!! Personal attacks????? The only word that even comes next to the idea of possibly thinking about a personal attack is the comment "your argument is ridiculous." That's in the context "thus I refute thee" not "thus I think you smell!"

"If you want that discussion, let's have it. I'm not sure where I stand personally. But I'm not foolish, nor arrogant enough to cling so tightly to metaphysics that I refuse to believe discussion of personality is impossible without metaphysics - that I refuse to believe that others are capable of rejecting metaphysics."(Didymos Thomas)

Oh Man!!! hypocrisy hypocrisy hypocrisy... it is thus that I refute thee!!! Like I have said numerous times? arguments like that are non-conducive to philosophy. I still say that. "thou art arrogant and foolish, videcorspoon" cried Didymos Thomas with bated breath. And at that very moment, the bitterest of tears fell from 'spoons water soaked eyes. "why?" 'spoon exclaimed, "why do the children hate me so?"

"It is possible to reject metaphysics. Scholars of more worth than you or I will ever be have done so. Right or wrong, we are capable of claiming metaphysics is bunk, and still talk about the psychological notion of self." (Didymos Thomas)

That's why we have gotten completely lost?you and I. It is possible given the right logical argument supported by valid inferences of rational and relatable subjects.

Now I am going to take a turn here, and I hope you may as well. I can appreciate your veracity on the subject and I acknowledge that full heartedly? it was well demonstrated. You have stuck by your guns as I have stuck to mine. But I think we have reached an impasse with no foreseeable mutual outcome. Perhaps it is time to conclude amicably.

Can we assume to agree on the fact that we disagree?

@VideCorSpoon,

My copy of Inwagen's book is in storage (in the middle of a move), though I appreciate the quote. However, I'm not sure the relevance. Inwagen is still an example of a thinker who rejects metaphysics. That's the only reason I brought him up.

Quote:

To be quite honest, the fact that you think I "know it all" is a result of baseless argument? not my so called deductive arguments.

Well, you are arguing that we cannot discuss self without metaphysics, which is patently false as such a thing has been done.

Quote:

You didnt claim that metaphysics is bunk???? Assertions; post 10 (last para.), Post 12 (2nd para.)?????

You could ignore the context of the debate and my post, and in the process begin to think I claimed outright that metaphysics is bunk.

Quote:

Wait WHAT!!! Personal attacks????? The only word that even comes next to the idea of possibly thinking about a personal attack is the comment "your argument is ridiculous." That's in the context "thus I refute thee" not "thus I think you smell!"[/QUOTE]

Oh, so now I'm not just using google searches and out of context quotes from the first result of said search to prove my point? Cool. I'm glad you now know better.

Quote:
Oh Man!!! hypocrisy hypocrisy hypocrisy... it is thus that I refute thee!!! Like I have said numerous times? arguments like that are non-conducive to philosophy. I still say that. "thou art arrogant and foolish, videcorspoon" cried Didymos Thomas with bated breath. And at that very moment, the bitterest of tears fell from 'spoons water soaked eyes. "why?" 'spoon exclaimed, "why do the children hate me so?"
Considering I'm only arguing that it is possible to discuss self without appeals to metaphysics, I can find no hypocrisy. As a matter of fact, self is sometimes discussed without metaphysical appeals. Why you refuse to accept that this can and does occur, whatever the coherence of such claims, is beyond me. But, at least I'm trying, hmm?

Quote:
Now I am going to take a turn here, and I hope you may as well. I can appreciate your veracity on the subject and I acknowledge that full heartedly? it was well demonstrated. You have stuck by your guns as I have stuck to mine. But I think we have reached an impasse with no foreseeable mutual outcome. Perhaps it is time to conclude amicably.

Can we assume to agree on the fact that we disagree?
Oh, I agree we disagree; I've never disputed that we disagree. I've only tried to explain to you that self can be discussed without appeals to metaphysics, and I've tried to give some examples as to why this might occur.
Why you have attempted to superimpose the debate as to whether or not rejecting metaphysics is coherent, I do not know. Why you refuse to accept that self can be discussed, rightly or wrongly, without metaphysics, I do not know, especially considering the blatant fact that such a thing is possible.

This is usually the result of "Inquisitions" - people become too strongly attached to a certain claim, and lose sight of the other person's claims, and then proceed to bog down the thread with useless, irrelevant rhetoric.

@Didymos Thomas,

What a pair we are and what a discussion this is!!!!!! Your comment is so problematic that it is mind-whirling!!!! The first half of your "refutation" of my comments is sad in a number of ways. It seems that throwing insults has become a new addition to metaphysics as well as "the self." Also, I'm sorry to hear the book is in transit. That seems very unfortunate at this point.

"Oh, so now I'm not just using google searches and out of context quotes from the first result of said search to prove my point? Cool. I'm glad you now know better."

"Thus I refute thee" is a quote from George Berkeley on materialist principles? which deals with metaphysics? which in his book Principles of Human Knowledge, deals with?dare I say? materialistic conception (gasp!) among other things. I had to chuckle to myself when I read your comment because at that moment it occurred to me that you indeed base your arguments off of google searches? because no one would actually read the physical book Principles of Human Knowledge and be able to synthesize the concepts in philosophy, could they? Cool, I'm glad you know better now (irony intended and corrected syntax noticeable).

This has to be the greatest comment yet?.
"Considering I'm only arguing that it is possible to discuss self without appeals to metaphysics, I can find no hypocrisy. As a matter of fact, self is sometimes discussed without metaphysical appeals. Why you refuse to accept that this can and does occur, whatever the coherence of such claims, is beyond me. But, at least I'm trying, hmm?"

LOL! And I have been "saying" that the way "you" have been saying has no academic merit!! It is my fault because I assumed that you knew better, that you were well educated in the concepts. i don't mean to be mean, honestly I don't, Can't argue with a person who doesn't even demonstrate knowledge of core concepts to discuss it abstractly.

"Oh, I agree we disagree; I've never disputed that we disagree. I've only tried to explain to you that self can be discussed without appeals to metaphysics, and I've tried to give some examples as to why this might occur."

Ooook???

"Why you have attempted to superimpose the debate as to whether or not rejecting metaphysics is coherent, I do not know. Why you refuse to accept that self can be discussed, rightly or wrongly, without metaphysics, I do not know, especially considering the blatant fact that such a thing is possible."

LOL!!! I fear the lack of information on a certain person's part may have had a hand in the misconceptions? call it a hunch.

"This is usually the result of "Inquisitions" - people become too strongly attached to a certain claim, and lose sight of the other person's claims, and then proceed to bog down the thread with useless, irrelevant rhetoric."

LOL!!!!!!!!!!! Again, I have to chuckle to myself? go ahead? picture it?. Absorb it in your mind. If you isolate this statement, you just contradicted yourself!!!! You just said proclaimed the necessity of relativism and then accused another by being relative!!!!!!! LOL!!!!!

I have to put this matter to rest. This is fast becoming positively ridiculous(and please don't get your feelings hurt by that word.) AGAIN?.

I am going to take a turn here (again), and I hope you may as well. I can appreciate your veracity on the subject and I acknowledge that full heartedly? it was well demonstrated. You have stuck by your guns as I have stuck to mine. But I think we have reached an impasse with no foreseeable mutual outcome. Perhaps it is time to conclude amicably.

Can we assume to agree on the fact that we disagree? Yay or ney????

@VideCorSpoon,

Whatever. I don't blame you for being upset at making a fool of yourself. To discuss academic merit, and then respond with "LOL" again and again. I don't see the humor.

Why again do you refuse to accept that people can discuss self without appeals to metaphysics? Perhaps if you answer this question you might for once make some sense in this discussion

Again, we do[i/] disagree. Maybe you missed that in my previous post.

As for "taking turns" in the discussion, how about you try to do something other than show someone else to be wrong, even when doing so forces you to deny a simple fact? You like me to think you are well educated - wonderful! If you are, I trust you will begin to put that education to use and make positive contributions to the forum. Of course, I am an optimist.

Philosophy Forum

The brothers and the river

Quick Links

My Account

able2know