Re: Metaphysics and Fish sticks

Video Cam Direct Upload to MathFails: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwC75Va_Ud4

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• Metaphysics
• and
• Fish
• sticks
• philosophy
• psychology
• spiritually
• integral
• spiral
• dynamics
• absolute
• relative
• masculine
• feminine
• subject
• object
• science
• scientific
• investigation
• mythic
• rational
• pluralistic
• holisitc
• theism
• atheism
• new
• age
• ken
• wilber
• don
• beck
• big
• mind
• waking
• down
• Buddhist
• zen
• mediation
• Absolute
• Unchangeable

[KevinSolway]

A couple of points. Firstly, many people regard it as "useful" to throw logic out the window. So I don't find that "usefulness" has any value in itself.

Secondly, it doesn't seem to me that abstractions find their source in physical objects. I don't even know that there are such things as physical objects. Take the number one, "1", for example. It doesn't necessarily find its source in a physical object, like an apple. It can arise as a descriptor of duality created in the mind.

[pyrrho314]

re: people that find it "useful" to throw logic out the window. Let them. I'll go into the argument with logic, they without, and let them see if it's useful or not. The desire to prove usefuleness to others is productive, but hardly a fundamental of truth... truth comes from the usefulness to you. Do YOU find logic useful?? Then how could you claim it's not?

[LordImmolation]

All words are abstractions and intellectual pigeon holes. But part of the job of metaphysics is to explain which abstractions are most fundamental and how they interact with each other. We need to commit to certain ontological entities to explain all observed phenomena. You for example are committed to the ontological "abstraction" of perception. I on the other hand think perception is reducible and explainable by the physical world which is why I am committed to realism.

[pyrrho314]

I don't understand why you make this distinction... to me we define the physical world in terms of perception, so there is no conflict or true distinction between the two except that perceptions are a name for a part, and the physical is the name of a pattern of perception.

[LordImmolation]

I think it all comes down to this: While I acknowledge that we "can only ever know our perceptions. I want to account for the consistency of perceptions by appealing to an external world. So, I assume one and explain perceptions as relations subjects have to the external world.

Thus, I hold perceptions as reducible to relations of physical objects (which I explain as relational property complexes) and these are my primitives.

I did two videos on perception not too long ago,"keepin it real"

[pyrrho314]

yes, I understand that goal... subjectivists explain objective phenomenon in terms of subjective experience, more objectivist people explain subjective phenomenon in terms of objectivism... like light and dark, you can explain dark as the absence of light or light as the absence of dark... you have to look close to see why one makes more sense.

[notonewhit]

When the universal is made a mere form and co-ordinated with the particular, as if it were on the same level, it sinks into a particular itself.....Would any one, who wished for fruit, reject cherries, pears, and grapes, on the ground that they were cherries, pears, or grapes, and not fruit?

Enjoyed your take on the topic.

Indeed, we are condemned to posit our presuppositions and to have them dashed upon the hard rock/altar of the real.

[pyrrho314]

lol, yup...

[TWITfromURANUS]

Spring theory?