Hello Pantagruel, For me, it is really easy to see how it wouldn’t be: I would just say quantum physics is a model that we use to navigate reality; an...
Hello Corvus, My definition of metaphysics is that is the study of that which is beyond the possibility of experience, and not that it is a process of...
Hello T Clark, Kant, as can be seen in your quote of CPR, was making most of his arguments from the model that we represent the world; which, from tha...
Hello 180 Proof, Can you please define what you mean by ‘metaphysics’? Because, to me, metaphysics is ‘“beyond” premises’. In the sense of Aristotle’s...
Hello Manuel, I never said the external world doesn’t exist; and astronomy and physics produce models of reality based off of predicting our experienc...
You are confusing my definition with what I claimed about the practice itself: I never said that 'metaphysics' is defined as "the study of that which ...
Hello Philosophim, Apparently so! I didn’t expect the semantics behind ‘metaphysics’ to be such a pinnacle aspect of the conversation. I mainly agree ...
Hello T Clark, If you have a different definition, then let’s hear it: I am more than happy to entertain other definitions. On my end, I am using the ...
Hello Corvus, I don’t agree, because I am not making claims about that which is beyond the possibility of experience. However, since the term is somew...
Hello Manuel, Constrained by our possible forms of experience: space and time. Just because I experience the outer world in space and time, it does no...
Hello 180 Proof, Would you say, then, that metaphysics is informed by physics, and never vice-versa? Irregardless, if metaphysics is the “abstracted d...
Hello simplyG, I agree with most of this, if I were to not be specifically meaning ‘the study of that which is beyond the possibility of experience’. ...
Hello Wayfarer, It is very motivated by Kant. Over all, I agree with your depiction of the origins of ‘metaphysics’. I don’t quite agree: I think we c...
Hello Manuel, Not at all: it just means all of our knowledge is contrained by the possible forms of experience. Saying we have sense-data is a part of...
Hello T Clark, True, but this is not a conventional definition in philosophy: it is an adequate colloquial rundown. That is why, if you re-read it, th...
Hello Mww, Kant claims metaphysics is the study of that which is beyond the possibility of experience; but I am not claiming he thought it was a produ...
Hello Joshs, I think we are just using the term ‘metaphysics’ differently: I have no problem with coming up with models (i.e., theories), such as theo...
Hello SimplyG, I get what you mean, and do agree that we often do this; but, taking the side of the pragmatists, I don’t see why we need metaphysics t...
Hello Mww, Couple things that I would like to note: 1. The imagination can be constrained by procedures which make it a discipline, in the sense that ...
Hello 180 Proof I apologize: I must have misunderstood what you wrote. This makes a bit more sense to me. Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems like ...
If you consider pure speculation that is indistinguishable from human imagination valid forms of inquiring about that which is beyond the possible for...
In the sense that I defined it in the OP, I don't think we need metaphysics to expose errors in our reasoning: we can do so without making ontological...
I have no problem with this, since it isn't metaphysics in the more traditional sense (I would say at least). You are basically saying, and correct me...
Hello SimpleG, 1. Reasoning based upon experience to make claims about something beyond experience, as opposed to merely creating a predictive model f...
Hello jorndoe, I am failing to understand what you are contending with here: it seems you just re-stated what I told you. My point was that those argu...
Hello Mww, I apologize: I thought I responded to you, but I must have forgotten. I don’t have any issue with that as a model of experience, but I don’...
Hello Mww, Yes, I am saying it ‘affects’ you insofar as your senses are aware of it. So this is where I haven’t fully quite captured your metaphysical...
Hello Philosophim, Absolutely no worries my friend! Take all the time you need: I always appreciate your substantive responses. Demonstrating that we ...
Oh, that's what I thought you were saying, since you replied "exactly" to my response saying how do you know you have thoughts if only accept public k...
Hello Leontiskos, I apologize: I must have misunderstood what you were saying. The claim that “the existence of moral facts would presuppose the exist...
Hello Mww, Oh I see: I was not intending by “affected” that you were aware of it (as the ego). But if it isn’t accounted for within Kant’s view, then ...
By ‘obligation’, I mean something which one ought to do—that’s it. However, if by ‘obligation’ you tie it, in definition, to moral facticity; then, ye...
But objective idealism doesn't reduce ontology to epistemology. So, if I am understanding you correctly, you think that you do have compelling grounds...
My point is that people should be most confident in their private, mental life existing then anything else; which you are implying they should be conf...
Hello Leontiskos, The fact that no fundamental obligation is a moral fact does not negate the existence of moral facts. The point is that the moral fa...
Hello Jorndoe, A nonsequitur is not itself a deduction: the former is a hypothetical that has a false implication, and the latter is an argument where...
Hello Mww, But this concedes that it does affect you! I get that relative to your inertial frame nothing affected you, but the whole the point is that...
Hello Count, I think you may have misunderstood the OP (which is totally fine): it is not that moral realism is insignificant because there are no fac...
Hello Mww, Yes and no: you are right that it doesn’t affect you insofar as you experience one continual stream of temporal processes, but it does affe...
Surely, you agree that there is some legitimate evidence which is not public (e.g., introspective knowledge, self-reflective knowledge, etc.)? Otherwi...
Hello Jorndoe, I am not saying they are deductive arguments: even if they are inductive arguments they are still non sequiturs (viz., if the argument’...
I forgot to respond to the fence analogy: sorry! This doesn't make sense to me: for the reason that you perceived it differently is exactly because so...
Hello Mww, With respect to Einstein vs. Kant, it appears as though, to me, that you are accepting Einstein’s equations but through the lens that they ...
Hello Jorndoe, Although I am not familiar with that book, I would like to just share some brief comments on the 10 reasons you expounded for not belie...
Comments