Does it all come down to faith in one's Metaphysical Position?
Is it the case that all disagreements come down to Metaphysical beliefs (and faith in those beliefs)? Is it possible to come to any agreement on any issue, when the root issue is Metaphysics?
Comments (34)
A third issue is that I find myself grasping around for my own metaphysical position. Stoicism is still attractive, but in some ways, Skepticism (maybe even a skepticism closer to that of the ancient Platonists who became skeptics) seems like it may be closer to what is the case. I suppose I could "mix and match" Skepticism and Stoicism.
It's simple. Free will is an illusion and anyone who tells you otherwise is a fool. :P
Obviously, I jest. But I think one thing you should consider is the psychological aspects of belief. I am not just talking about biases and underlying beliefs, I am talking about how people probably think differently from one another. It is not just they that they started with different premises and reached different conclusions- the entire process is potentially different. Of course, those psychological needs cannot be ignored as well. I do not, however, believe all disagreement is a result of different base beliefs. In some cases, the person's beliefs can just be wrong or faulty. People have changed their minds on issues because of arguments and ideas being presented to them before. In fact, we do it all the time. How far this can go is a matter of personal context.
So it would be the usual pragmatic justification of any belief. We can figure out what logically seems to make sense as a theory - or at least stands as a clear enough alternative to make a difference whether we believe it vs not believing in it. Then we can pay attention to the consequences of acting on said belief.
This means that a large class of traditional metaphysical dilemmas may indeed be classed as theories that are "not even wrong". They don't actually frame alternatives that make a difference. So is there a god, is there freewill, is there a meaning to life? Really, unless you are advancing a position which would make some actual difference if you believed it, it only sounds like you are being philosophical to talk about the "what if". A belief with zero consequences is not really "a belief" in any strong sense.
This is why skepticism is in the end unsatisfying. You can likewise claim to disbelieve anything. There is always "some grounds" for denying any positive claim. But such disbelief has to have consequences too to be a difference that makes a difference. And also, pointing out that something can be legitimately disbelieved is only to confirm that the original belief was one of consequence. It was already doing the right thing in being framed in a way that could be found wrong. So the skeptic's position - if it has any actual value - is already incorporated (at least implicitly) in what it seeks to challenge.
The moon could be made of green cheese. But that skeptical possibility is already subsumed in the belief it is made of rock. Likewise views on god, freewill or life's meaning are properly cashed out in metaphysics only to the degree there is some positive claim that then admits to the skeptics test.
So yes, you have a problem if your beliefs about freewill or whatever are only framed in a vague and untestable fashion. Faith then seems the only option. But in fact what should be questioned is whether you really "have a belief" rather than simply some meaningless formula of words - an idea that is in philosophical reality, not even wrong.
Metaphysics did start out in this rigorous fashion. It posed concrete alternatives, asking questions like whether existence was ruled by chance or necessity, flux or stasis, matter or form, etc, etc. And the whole of science arose from this rational clarification of the options. It was a really powerful exercise in pure thought.
But the big stuff was sorted in a few hundred years in Ancient Greece. So what is left now is mostly the need to learn this way of thinking more than to attempt to solve a lot of unsolved metaphysical riddles. And worst of all is to try to treat ideas without concrete consequences as real philosophical inquiries. Metaphysics didn't become central to modern thought by worrying about beliefs with no effects.
Quoting apokrisis
My interest in Ancient Skepticism (basically those who followed in the footsteps of Plato- if there are no forms, then we can't have knowledge.) has only just begun. But, as I understand it, they didn't so much challenge or try convince anyone else of anything, as much as just believe themselves that there were as many reasons to accept any position, as there were reasons to doubt it. So, they found comfort in not making any claims about any positions.
And actually, I do like Plato, especially the way that he portrays Socrates. Socrates doesn't seem to have a conclusion in mind, or have any agenda at all when he gets into conversations. Both parties may learn something, or the conversation just might end in confusion... but, it's an interesting journey nonetheless.
So as I say, proper scepticism would be about being able to recognise when the issue under discussion is vague or undecidable. The difference then is between whether that is so due to the question itself being "not even wrong", or due to a lack of sufficient facts.
What do you think this idea of there being "as many reasons for as reasons against" actually spells out as a situation? It could be a sign of a third ontological position - a state of equilibrium balance. As I say, metaphysical arguments do logically throw up dichotomous or dialectical alternatives like "chance vs necessity". So inquiry into existence does often result in "both sides appearing right" for a good reason. The polar choices are the extremes or the limits of possibility. And then actuality is what exists in-between as their mixing. We ask which nature is - chance or necessity - and wind up with equal reason to believe both are in play. Nature is some equilibrium balance. And that is in fact what our metaphysics predicts (if we understand polar opposites as the complementary extremes of the possible, leaving the actual as what must fall on the spectrum in-between),
So scepticism can find itself undecided when faced with a well-posed metaphysical choice. There is as much reason to believe in the one option as the other. But that then is evidence that both are true and fundamental - just as reasoning says they should be if they are the complementary bounds of what is even the possible.
Quoting anonymous66
Lots of stuff is interesting in life. No harm in that. But we are only still talking about Plato/Socrates because their dialectical mode of reasoning proved foundational of modern thought. The dialogues didn't result in confusion but sharply delineated alternatives that have been productive ever since.
Well of course there is plenty of confusion - like not recognising sceptism only works as the servant of hypothesis generation, or that metaphysical dichotomies are hitting the pay-dirt of finding the complementary divisions that then encompass all that is even "the possible".
But metaphysics itself aims at rational clarity and has no point if it can't achieve that. Argument which has the goal of sewing confusion is called sophistry. Plato/Socrates certainly had something to say about those bastards. :)
None of Plato's dialogues ended in confusion? Not even Euthyphro? What of Aporia in Plato's dialogues?
Becoming an investigator sounds interesting. Perhaps it will lead to Ataraxia.
Well, the Theaetetus is simply wrong in treating rationality as the memory of eternal ideas. Although it could then be regarded as essentially right if you understand Plato's argument less literally as making an early ontic structural argument. But either way, I don't think it is confused. It made a thesis in concrete enough fashion to become a long-lived metaphysical notion. You can understand it well enough to dispute it.
And likewise, demonstrations of aphoria are a positively instructive fact of epistemology. They show how ill-founded many common beliefs are - because they are essentially vague ideas and so fall into the class of "not even wrong". The confusion lies not in Plato's dialectics but in the weak arguments that have to be got past.
If it interests you, see my discussion of Tillich's concept of faith as "ultimate concern" in this thread:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/1307/religion-will-win-in-the-end-/p6
I changed my post... The Euthyphro is a better example of an Aporetic Dialogue.
In regards to Ataraxia (freedom from worry) or lack thereof, I suspect the Stoics would suggest that 1. worry is not the main issue. the main issue is one's progress towards moral excellence. and concentrating on the Virtues is what is necessary and sufficient for Eudaimonia, (not reducing worry). and 2. concentrating on the present can reduce worry.
I don't know if I have mentioned these before, but have a look at these sources:
http://katjavogt.com
Professor of Philosophy at Columbia. She is also the author of the SEP article 'Ancient Skepticism' which begins:
Another quote about Belief and Truth:
You can see how this attitude is easily misinterpreted, because of the emphasis that has been put on 'belief' in culture. So in that scheme, you're either a 'believer' or an 'unbeliever', which are two poles of an apparent dichotomy. The 'unbeliever' is thought 'not to believe anything' - but this easily morphs into 'believing in nothing' - which turns out to be just another belief! So 'armchair skepticism' is something quite different to the principled skepticism of the Greek philosophers.
I sorry I'm late to this thread and hopefully my post won't be too redundant. I think if one goes about trying to get everyone to come to a common agreed upon beliefs/morals etc then we already do, it will be a bit of a tough battle; but perhaps to work with what people already believe and very, very slowly sometimes even taking several generations slowly assimilate people of different religions or systems of belief to work better together.
Part of this is due to the fact that a lot of people are not able and/or willing to change their ideology at the drop of a hat. As a person partial to nihilism, I can tell you the many times I have tried to explain my views to others only to come back nearly empty handed.
Maybe another way to look at the problem is that anyone has to be pragmatic (as well as hedonistic to some degree) and even if people come for different ideology and cultures, almost all people are concern with their welfare as well as the welfare of others who happen to be vital to their own welfare in some regard or another. Although it isn't uncommon for people to be indifferent and/or hostile to those who they believe are not important to their own welfare.
Out of curiosity, I'm kind of interested in what topic you are having difficulty in discussing the matter with your classmates or other people you are dealing with.
A metaphysical position would be something like what the world ontologically consists of and how we know that.
As a nihilist, wouldn't you expect to be empty handed?
I'd say that all disagreements about metaphysical matters certainly do come down to metaphysical beliefs. Metaphysical questions cannot be decided by empirical studies; they can only be decided by pure and/ or practical reason and there is no reason without presupposition.
That just means is there something fundamental the world is made up of, like water, matter, math, ideas, etc.
If so, is there a way we can know this to be the case? Is there a way we can know anything about the world? Were the ancient skeptics right? What does it mean to know?
But you're right, qualification is always needed, although the terms ontology and epistemology are well established in philosophy, and shouldn't need to be debated.
Some topics that come to mind are: How should we treat the poor? How should we treat those who disagree with something that we hold dear? What kind of society should we create? How should atheists treat the religious? How should the religious treat atheists?
It seems to me that metaphysics is unavoidably speculative. It seems to me that no metaphysics can be proved.
Couldn't any metaphysics be shored-up with enough ad-hoc assumptions, ("epicycles") to "answer" objections to it, and explain whatever someone asks for an explanation of?
Physicalism posits a brute-fact, but that doesn't prove that physicalism is wrong.
I suggest that, though we can't prove which metaphysics is correct, we can compare the metaphysicses by Ockham's Principle of Parsimony. Is there a metaphysics that doesn't make any assumptions, or posit a brute-fact? Sure, the one that I propose, and call "Skepticism".
Someone could call Skepticism an "unfalsifiable proposition". Sure it is.
When you defend Flat-Earth advocacy by more and more assumptions, to explain all the ways that observations contradict Flat-Earth, you're making it an unfalsifiable proposition.
But Skepticism is a different kind of unfalsifiable proposition, because it doesn't need any assumptions.
Of course Physicalism is an unfalsifiable proposition too, depending on a brute-fact.
Well, maybe Physicalism isn't unfalsifiable: There was a quantum-mechanics specialist, someone with high academic standing (I don't remember his name) who wrote a book in which he said that quantum-mechannics lays to rest the notion of an objectively-existent physical world.
That sounds like a very rare instance of physics establishing a conclusion about metaphysics.
Michael Ossipoff
I don't see that physics is taking a position. Physics is offering the Schrodinger's equation as a way of probabilistically predicting the position of the election and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Beyond this we enter the domain of metaphysics, as we should be. Understanding the nature of nature is the providence of philosophy not science.
What we do have is a physicist taking a metaphysical position based upon his/her interpretation of quantum physics, which is fine, but it does cross the line into metaphysics. My own preferred interpretation is the deBroglie-Bohm interpretation. I prefer this approach because it is real, it embraces cause, it is non-deterministic allowing for the possibility of choice. In addition, the concept of a quantum potential that guides as acts non-locally fully explains all observed "spooky behavior" of elections, e.g. delayed choice and quantum entanglement at a distance. Undoubtedly there is more to be known and or understanding will evolve.
Metaphysics doesn't provide final answers, rather it continues to explore by positing questions and creating potential new ways of looking at things. This is all that is possible in a fluid, every changing universe where nothing stands still. In this regard, metaphysics is analagous to art, to the extent that I believe that understanding art provides a terrific doorway into metaphysics.
No doubt about that.
Michael Ossipoff
I am not an expert on the work of Ken Wilber--I have only read "A Brief History of Everything". And I am aware that somebody who reads this is likely to respond with something like, "Ken Wilber is a New Age quack!". But the way that I understand it, Wilber has spent much of his life trying to integrate all of the intellectual traditions from every corner of the Earth from every period of history and prehistory.
Maybe he is nothing more than a quack. Or maybe he is a philosopher in every best sense of the word who simply has no home in academia or mainstream intellectual circles. Or maybe he is something in between. Or maybe no matter who or what he is, his work is a failure.
Or maybe he is onto something.
Either way, his work that I have read is enjoyable, fascinating, a valuable tour of intellectual history, and packed with fresh, original (to me, anyway) insights.
Maybe I am mischaracterizing his work--again, I am nowhere near being an expert. But I would characterize it, based on my initial impression, as saying, "Rather than trying to ferret out and evaluate everything, let's integrate everything into a coherent whole". It might be worth stepping outside of the philosophical canon and giving Integral Theory some attention, if you haven't already.
Based upon my so studies, physics only offers the equations, which are purely symbolic and have no meaning onto themselves. Any interpretations must necessarily be subjective and yes, physicists as most scientists have no problem providing subjective, metaphysical interpretations and labeling them as factual science. Scientists not only do this some of the time, they do it all the time but only a few will admit to it.
One egregious example is Einstein who took a scientific symbol of time (a physical movement) and without any hesitation elevated it to an ontological status. As a result we have a mess in science such as time travel, twins aging at different rates, etc., and the extremely strange situation of General Relativity contracting Special Relativity (Special claiming all reference frames being equal and General claiming they they are all different by virtue of acceleration). Scientific time is used to measure synchronicity. It has nothing to do with the psychological time that we experience in life.
As for the question of an objective world, things get tricky because words and metaphors are inadequate. I personally embrace the holographic analogy which would claim:
1) There is something real out there (using Bohm's version of the Schrodinger's equations) but it is entangled with the observation or consciousness.
2) What is real is are holographic wave forms that exist out there outside of the mind (not in the brain).
3) The brain creates a reconstruction beam that illuminates the hologram hence the subjective view of the real and the corresponding entanglement between the observed and the observer.
Much of the above is a composite of Bohm's Implicate Order and Pribram's view of holographic consciousness. I want to emphasize that this is a very small minority view of quantum and contradicts what most scientists espouse, but here is a link that provides some basis for this metaphysical point of view. Ultimately, you will have to come up with your own metaphysical view.
http://holographicarchetypes.weebly.com/holographic-paradigm.html
Yes, scientists often over-apply science.
Your statement about physics is reasonable enough. But it doesn't answer the question of whether that author was right when he said that quantum-mechanics lays to rest the notion of an objective, independently-existent physical world.
His statement surprised me, because I didn't think that physics said anything about metaphysics. But there are ways in which quantum-mechanics differs from previous physics too. Anyway, it doesn't sound so unreasonable to say that science can say something about its own limitations.
Bottom-line: Neither you nor I are qualified in quantum-mechanics enough to evaluate the accuracy of that guy's statement. Was it just another instance of science being over-applied? Or was he right? It's his subject, not ours, and so we both don't know whether he was right.
But I will say that his rejection of an objective, independently-existing world is in agreement with my metaphysics, and that suggests to me that just maybe his statement was valid. But neither of us know about that for sure, one way or the other.
Of course you realize that you're in the minority if you reject Special Relativity. There's some consensus that General Relativity needs work. But wholesale rejection of it would be a minority position.
I'm not sure what you mean about time being a physical movement, and Einstein elevating it to an ontology. Time and space are properties of the hypothetical possibility-world, the setting of our life-experience possibility-stories. I thought that Einstein was only talking about the physics, with Relativity, and that he wasn't making metaphysical claims with it.
Einstein often used religious language, but Physicalists insist that he was only doing so as a figure of
speech. I don't know about that, one way or the other.
The metaphysics that you advocate has lots of assumptions and brute-facts.
As I've been saying, I don't believe that any metaphysics can be proved, but assumptions and brute-facts do not count in a metaphysics's favor.
I have, and i call it "Skepticism". I've described in in the discussion-thread, "A Uniquely Parsimonious and Skeptical Metaphysics." It's an Idealism. I admit that Michael Faraday, Frank Tippler, and Max Tegmark discussed its main basis before I did.
Michael Ossipoff
I agree, it doesn't and never does. Quantum physics is an equation. You plug some numbers in and you get some results. Equations don't interpret themselves-they never do. They are simply a device for measurement and approximate predictions.
The moment scientists or philosophers decide to provide some interpretation of the ontological meaning of equations, they have entered into the world of metaphysics which is absolutely fine as long as it is presented as such. Unfortunately, scientists have this tendency of mixing up metaphysical musings with symbolic equations that in themselves have zero ontological meaning.
Since scientists disagree on wats to interpret the quantum equations and principles, I am extremely comfortable with my belief that this particular scientist is simply espousing his own interpretations as one of scientific fact. Naughty, naughty.
[Quote]But I will say that his rejection of an objective, independently-existing world is in agreement with my metaphysics, and that suggests to me that just maybe his statement was valid. But neither of us know about that for sure, one way or the other.[/Quote]
I would agree that quantum experiments seem to indicate that the observer and the observed are entangled. This is not to say that there isn't something real out there. It is just that the mind is subjectively interpreting it.
[Quote]Of course you realize that you're in the minority if you reject Special Relativity. There's some consensus that General Relativity needs work. But wholesale rejection of it would be a minority position.[/Quote]
I don't reject Relatively. Special relativity is simply a transformation method between frames of reference. No big deal. What I challenge is that time, as used for measurements (some physical displacement) has any ontological relevance to time as we experience it in life, which is psychological in nature, heterogenous, and indivisible. This was Bergson's objection. Strangely, Einstein either didn't get it or pretended he didn't get it, but then again he also rejected quantum physics.
What's more, General Relativity which establishes a differences in frames of references (accelerating over vs non-accelerating one) is in direct contradiction to Special Relativity. This particular problem creates all kinds of paradoxes which underscore the high probability that something is awry. Bohm wrote in one of his essays that where there are paradoxes, something further needs to be understood. I believe at the heart of the issue is the chasm between scientific time and real time.
[Quote]I I thought that Einstein was only talking about the physics, with Relativity, and that he wasn't making metaphysical claims with it.
Einstein often used religious language, but Physicalists insist that he was only doing so as a figure of
speech. I don't know about that, one way or the other.
The metaphysics that you advocate has lots of assumptions and brute-facts.[/quote]
When Einstein began talking about the space-time continuum being real he entered into the realm of metaphysics. As a result of the paradoxes this manner of thinking created, a whole slew of sci-fi worlds were created including the ever popular Dr. Who. It's not that what Einstein proclaimed had in any manner explained the life we experience, but it was so much fun the audience embraced it.
Metaphysics is speculation based upon observations and intuition. One can search for facts but there aren't any and if one insists on facts, then one becomes immobile. However, if metaphysical speculation is not one's cup of tea, there is always something else to do such as learning to play an instrument. I don't think any of my friends or acquaintances spend much time with metaphysics outside of their religion though as one ages certain questions about life do seem to become more relevant. I, on the other had, use my philosophy in a practical manner every day of my life, which is why I look for metaphysics that is very strongly grounded in my every day experience of life.