Janus

This is becoming boring and pedantic, so I'll leave you to it.

Where? Write it again or link to it; I couldn't find it.

Where? Remember I'm asking for traditional definitions, not your definition.

Can you offer some other traditional definitions of metaphysics?

If you think he is boring and pedantic it wouldn't have taken you much reading to discover that you think that, would it?

No, it is traditionally considered to be that which is absolutely existent (as opposed to what appears to us to be existent).

You may not, but traditionally metaphysics was understood according to that definition. What do you mean by "totality of the world"? Is thinking about...

If metaphysics is taken to be the science of the Real (where "real" is understood to be what is independent of human experience) then Kant was not doi...

Perhaps "invalid" is a problematic term, given it's use in logic to denote consistency as distinct from truth. My point is that if metaphysics is take...

:up: That's it!

There is no problem with saying there is being outside of any perspective, or that things exist independently of any perspective; but it's obvious, by...

Apology rejected because unneeded. :wink: I would say our study of what we describe as reality (the empirical) is science, not metaphysics. Do we ever...

That is the very claim which Kant refuted. Kant's metaphysical project is confined to reflection and analysis of what possible human experience and ju...

Right, so I was hoping Wayfarer would offer an explanation of what he thinks could constitute a valid or true metaphysics, as opposed to merely the us...

If a metaphysics, to be considered valid or substantive, must reflect a "reality beyond human perception" and all our metaphysics are merely human cre...

What then could constitute a metaphysic? Surely no merely human perspective could qualify, since metaphysics, to be considered substantive in your boo...

It's obviously either a meaningless question, or else at least a question that cannot be answered.

Yes, that's what I said? Doesn't matter taking the form of the various elements mean the opening up of all the possibilities which we see manifest tod...

Wouldn't the lawful behavior of matter already make it meaningful, though?

I do have it, have read it, and found it very interesting as I recall (it was about ten years ago I read it, I think). My response was not a critique ...

How can you deny that words can refer to things perceived? We don't perceive the world; it is the idea of the unconditioned totality of possibly perce...

The universe is not merely matter; matter means nothing, can be nothing, unless it takes form. Meaning is inherent within form. How could there be for...

I agree with you about the Logical Positivists misconstrual of Wittgenstein's philosophy. He undoubtedly allowed for the mystical, but only as somethi...

I read the article; nothing unfamiliar there nor anything which disagrees with anything I've said, as far as I can tell. If you think differently then...

You're not disagreeing with anything I said other than that Kant is traditional metaphysics; which is just plain wrong. Kant critiques the idea that a...

Kant rejected the possibility of doing traditional metaphysics. Wittgenstein definitely thought that traditional metaphysics is "language on holiday"....

My initial thought is that statements which count as basic are statements which have come to be accepted because they reflect what is common, most uni...

No worries man. I remember we did touch on this before; although I don't recall the unpleasantness so much. Anyway aplologies for any misunderstanding...

As early Heidegger and the later Wittgenstein (among others) would have it an implicit background understanding and interpretation is always involved.

The rule would be to reflect, or be aware, I suppose.

I'm waiting to see the anti- or bizarro- you, apo, and his respective philosophy. If you present it I ought not to be able to tell it is really you be...

That one knows how things seem to one is demonstrated in the act of being conscious of how things seem. It is also an act, a doing. I wasn't suggestin...

Knowing how things seem means becoming conscious of how they seem. Seeming can very well remain unconscious.

Not introspection, reflection. By remembering we can know how things seem to us. Even in relation to mere introspection, if we report whatever we find...

How do you know I have trouble following a single thread? I wasn't meaning to offend you; I thought that was what you were referring to; your multiple...

I think Schopenhuaer's statement is an apologetic for his idea that the noumenon is Will. Not so profound, in my view, and all the less so because he ...

Who did you think I was referring to? Exempting myself? Not I. Really merely a play on words...with no one in particular in mind...

Only two? I thought you had many more than that. And yet the approaches do not differ enough such as to be unrecognizable as one. Keep trying I guess.

If the fool shits...

Hermeneutics, not hermetics.

Killing in war situations is not defined as murder. Your husband and wife example is laughable and not deserving of a response.

You've not familiar with hermeneutics?

Murder is disruptive of the social order; it is irrelevant what the murder's intentions regarding the social order might be imagined to be. And it is ...

Cannibalism is not murder, but killing for food. Infanticide in animals is an instinctive, well-regulated behavior, not a random act of passion.When t...

Not trying to prove anything means not making a claim. In which case asking for justification of what is presented is inapt. But by all means continue...

The burden of proof is irrelevant if the person presenting the ideas is not trying to prove anything. It's not difficult to see.

Oh, you were referring to the beliefs of others? I had thought referred to some beliefs of my own that you knew of. The combination of "you" and "his"...

What beliefs are you referring to?

Not exactly. Since saying that knowledge, to be of any use, must be useful, is not really saying anything, but seems to indicate that you think knowle...

Good for you! You sound very similar to a recently disappeared poster: @"Garrett Travers"; I think you would get on very well with him.