Jackson

Derrida was a critic of structuralism.

Deconstruction was not Critical Theory. It was a way to read and interpret texts.

Never.

Why should Kant be popular in philosophy departments?

Kant is very popular today.

Me too.

Yes. I never got much out of Paul de Man.

All part of life. I didn't create reality, I decide how to act in it.

Not really. I never experienced a moral dilemma.

Custom. Like saying hello to strangers or asking how they are.

I act in accordance to the situation.

Same as it always was. Morality is just conventional practice. Norms.

Agree.

Even aesthetics can make use epistemology. Personally, I equate metaphysics with aesthetics.

Please do.

Perhaps. For philosophers, they are distinct categories.

Practical use is not the same as being true.

I am in full agreement with you.

I probably should not comment on this thread.

Good point. Nature for Aristotle was a system of production, of doing something. Not just physical particles moving.

I did not read his comment that way. The story of the Garden of Eden is based on the idea that God (the father; the authority) punished humans (childr...

Okay, guess we're done.

Of course.

Got it. Now explain what that has to do with the relation of science to metaphysics.

Science describes physicality, the movement of particles. It is descriptive. It does not say why or if those movements are meaningful.

Then explain it to me. I do not think there are many scientists who think they are doing metaphysics.

I am confused by that. His quote would seem to state the oppposite.

Lots of things are true that still can be trivial.

God is the lawgiver of the universe. No thanks.

Yes, a term never used by Arisotle.

This may not be apropos of your comment. But I find Quantum Mechanics far closer to how I understand the world than classical, mechanistic physics.

Aristotle did not call it "Metaphysics."

I would not use "reliable" as a test for truth. There are many trivial and reliable facts.

I always find it amusing when people come to a philosophy forum to say physics is really where truth lays.

I have no problem reading it and I am not a subscriber.

Why indeed. The error began by calling Aristotle's work on "first philosophy" with the title, "Metaphysics." Of course, the name stuck, but like a lot...

The term "metaphysics" really has nothing to do with the term "physics." This definition would imply there is something fundamental about physics.

Kant critiqued metaphysics. But he reduces metaphysics to epistemology.

5. Time machine.

"Grammar" gets to be a bit abstract with Wittgenstein. Though he may skirt the charge off linguistic idealism--reality is language--he sometimes treat...

Good thread. Metaphysics, to me, is about how you think about the world. Not in terms of truth, but what kind of thing it is.

Thank you for your service.

Can you explain more what you're referring to? So far the discussion is interesting but a bit vague.

What problems do you see Wittgenstein dissolving?

Yes, I see now.

What is QFT?

Sorry, I did not understand your post.

Agree. Science is shallow, but useful.

Particle in a field. Same thing, isn't it?

Depends what one means by nature. For science, it is only the movement of particles.