GENIUS FORUMS

It seems that metaphysics deals strictly with concepts in our mind such as "existence", "universe", "entity", "causality", "in/finite", etc. These concepts are just this -- concepts that have evolved with human language. Human language is by no means perfect. Language evolved with human beings, and there is no reason to suppose that evolution valued truth at all, in fact truth and understanding was probably the last reason that language was developed, from an evolutionary standpoint.

Metaphysics is like the world inside our head. We reason based on the definitions of concepts as though they hold some absolute truth inside them; we forget that a word like causality, for example, evolved simply to describe the interaction between the subjective forms that the human mind creates. Likewise we use words like finite and infinite as though they have some ultimate, objective meaning, forgetting that they don't even point at some subjective experience, but are just theoretical terms to describe theoretical concepts that human beings create -- such as worlds in our head I suppose.

When we make deductions about reality or existence or ultimate reality can they be imposed upon reality itself, the one I am living in rather than talking about, or only upon the world we created in our head, and the world dictated by our language?

Deductive reasoning is simply playing with words and concepts. Is there any reason to suspect that the human mind can understand reality, let alone that our metaphysical concepts (the premises in our 'deductive reasoning') actually relate back to the world we live in?

If you are asking these questions, you are already doing metaphysics. (Or at least, meta-metaphysics.)

Do you think it is a priori and obvious that the concept of utility should be applied here? If you are asking and addressing these questions, haven't you already decided that there is a reason to do so?

DHodges wrote:If you are asking these questions, you are already doing metaphysics. (Or at least, meta-metaphysics.)

I suppose I am doing meta-metaphysics. I count it as valid though because metaphysics is actually something we create and understand, whereas what metaphysics tries to explain is not.

DHodges wrote:Do you think it is a priori and obvious that the concept of utility should be applied here? If you are asking and addressing these questions, haven't you already decided that there is a reason to do so?

My reason for doing so is to try and understand why people on this forum use metaphysics when it seems way off base to me.

I don't really engage in metaphysics myself, although it sometimes might seem like I do. Rather, I see the role of philosophical reasoning as one of dismantling our conceptual delusions about reality, as opposed to creating a logical system of explanation or establishing a metaphysical reality. It is a destructive enterprise, rather than a creative one. The enlightened sage is simply someone who has destroyed all of his false thinking and rests in what is left.

The concept of causality is a good example. Its main purpose is to dismantle the delusion that things begin and end, that things really do exist in an absolute sense. It is a like of glue, if you will, which joins together what has been artificially separated by our mistaken conceptualizing. Or more accurately, it is like a scythe which hacks away the whole conceptual construction which has us believing in beginnings and ends.

Once this repair work has been done, we don't have to use this scythe anymore. It has done its job, so we can put it aside and move on. That is how it works with all philosophizing.

The bottom line is that our ignorance and lack of connection with reality is created by conceptual barriers that we have unwittingly erected in our minds. Because of this, we need to engage in conceptual work to pull apart these barriers. And that is what philosophy is.

-

David,

I don't really engage in metaphysics myself, although it sometimes might seem like I do. Rather, I see the role of philosophical reasoning as one of dismantling our conceptual delusions about reality, as opposed to creating a logical system of explanation or establishing a metaphysical reality. It is a destructive enterprise, rather than a creative one. The enlightened sage is simply someone who has destroyed all of his false thinking and rests in what is left.

I agree that metaphysics needs to be dismantled as it is misleading and pointless.

How about "absolute truth" though? It is an entirely metaphysical concept....

The concept of causality is a good example. Its main purpose is to dismantle the delusion that things begin and end, that things really do exist in an absolute sense. It is a like of glue, if you will, which joins together what has been artificially separated by our mistaken conceptualizing. Or more accurately, it is like a scythe which hacks away the whole conceptual construction which has us believing in beginnings and ends.

I see what you mean here from your book. Can you still deny free will based on causality though? I think we can only deny free will based on empirical evidence now, but we still end up denying it.

The bottom line is that our ignorance and lack of connection with reality is created by conceptual barriers that we have unwittingly erected in our minds. Because of this, we need to engage in conceptual work to pull apart these barriers. And that is what philosophy is.

Some of these barriers are necessary for human life. I agree that metaphysics is not and is harmful.

WhorlyWhelk,

How about "absolute truth" though? It is an entirely metaphysical concept....

It is just a conceptual tool as well. It is a very useful tool as it helps us connect with what is timelessly real, but it is just a tool nonetheless. It is usually the last thing that a person gives up as he enters into wisdom.

DQ: The concept of causality is a good example. Its main purpose is to dismantle the delusion that things begin and end, that things really do exist in an absolute sense. It is a like of glue, if you will, which joins together what has been artificially separated by our mistaken conceptualizing. Or more accurately, it is like a scythe which hacks away the whole conceptual construction which has us believing in beginnings and ends.

WW: I see what you mean here from your book. Can you still deny free will based on causality though? I think we can only deny free will based on empirical evidence now, but we still end up denying it.

Ultimately, we can't really deny anything with empirical evidence, because empirical evidence is always speculative and uncertain. Denying a false idea can only be done logically, as I demonstrate in my chapter on free will.

DQ: The bottom line is that our ignorance and lack of connection with reality is created by conceptual barriers that we have unwittingly erected in our minds. Because of this, we need to engage in conceptual work to pull apart these barriers. And that is what philosophy is.

WW: Some of these barriers are necessary for human life.

What's an example?

-

David,

WW: How about "absolute truth" though? It is an entirely metaphysical concept....

DQ: It is just a conceptual tool as well. It is a very useful tool as it helps us connect with what is timelessly real, but it is just a tool nonetheless. It is usually the last thing that a person gives up as he enters into wisdom.

So you would agree that there are no absolute truths then? This was never my impression, for example from the first Reasoning Show episode.

Ultimately, we can't really deny anything with empirical evidence, because empirical evidence is always speculative and uncertain. Denying a false idea can only be done logically, as I demonstrate in my chapter on free will.

Wait... are you saying you are still holding to causality or do you agree that it, as another metaphysical concept, is meaningless in reality?

All that we have is empirical evidence. I agree we can't absolutely deny anything through it; the fact is that we can't absolutely deny anything. We can only draw inferences and conclude that it is most likely: for example, that other humans exist, that we evolved, that history is real, that the soul is an illusion, and that we don't have 'free will'.

Our method of drawing inferences is through conceptualizing. We just have to make sure that our concepts don't run out of control and start making metaphysical claims and we must always remember that our concepts are imperfect as they are merely products of our empirical evidence.

DQ: The bottom line is that our ignorance and lack of connection with reality is created by conceptual barriers that we have unwittingly erected in our minds. Because of this, we need to engage in conceptual work to pull apart these barriers. And that is what philosophy is.

WW: Some of these barriers are necessary for human life.

DQ: What's an example?

I was going to say the subjective form that we cast on reality though I'm not sure this is relevant after reading a second time as it isn't, in itself, a conceptual barrier in our mind. Just to better understand you, would you say that all concepts are barriers to connection with reality or just certain ones?

Whorly, some good questions you have here.

When we make deductions about reality or existence or ultimate reality can they be imposed upon reality itself, the one I am living in rather than talking about, or only upon the world we created in our head, and the world dictated by our language?

BTW, imposed on which 'reality itself' are to talking about? Why can't all of the above be reality itself? Absolutely ALL inclusive that is.

Sapius wrote:Whorly, some good questions you have here.

When we make deductions about reality or existence or ultimate reality can they be imposed upon reality itself, the one I am living in rather than talking about, or only upon the world we created in our head, and the world dictated by our language?

BTW, imposed on which 'reality itself' are to talking about? Why can't all of the above be reality itself? Absolutely ALL inclusive that is.

I'm talking about the world I experience. It seems our minds have conceptualized this world which is fine and helps us survive better and be rational. However when we build complex concepts that don't relate to anything we experience and then act like they can explain the nature of reality we are committing an error.

WhorlyWhelk wrote:

Sapius wrote:Whorly, some good questions you have here.

When we make deductions about reality or existence or ultimate reality can they be imposed upon reality itself, the one I am living in rather than talking about, or only upon the world we created in our head, and the world dictated by our language?

BTW, imposed on which 'reality itself' are to talking about? Why can't all of the above be reality itself? Absolutely ALL inclusive that is.

I'm talking about the world I experience. It seems our minds have conceptualized this world which is fine and helps us survive better and be rational. However when we build complex concepts that don't relate to anything we experience and then act like they can explain the nature of reality we are committing an error.

I mean if "reality" is the world that one lives in, then how is ones head or whats "in" it, itself, not in the world that I live in? How is my talking of anything at all not in the world that I live in? Irrelevant of what one may be talking about.

Sapius,

I mean if "reality" is the world that one lives in, then how is ones head or whats "in" it, itself, not in the world that I live in? How is my talking of anything at all not in the world that I live in? Irrelevant of what one may be talking about.

That is the mistake metaphysicians make. When they think up some model of existence itself all it is is a model they thought up, based on a misuse of language. This model is simply part of existence, not the definition of existence. They try to transcend our empirical world using words that only have meaning due to our empirical world.

That would certainly be a crude and irrational mistake to make.

-

Whorly,

That is the mistake metaphysicians make. When they think up some model of existence itself all it is is a model they thought up, based on a misuse of language.

I agree that misuse of language can lead to mistakes, especially when someone else defines my words according to his perspective. Words came about after we found the need to describe what we mean for the sake of communication, and what we mean are the definitions, not the words itself. As far as existence (the world we live in) is concerned, language is there, but how we use or misuse the language is another story and is debatable, since what is going on in my head may be different than yours although we do agree that existence means ‘the world we live in’. It is simply a matter of individual perspectives.

This model is simply part of existence, not the definition of existence.

I understand what you mean, but is the ‘world we live in’, also a thought up model of existence and hence a part of existence, hence not the definition of theeeeee existence? In my opinion all definitions inclusive IS the world we live in, not that “existence” (the world we live in) is beyond ‘the world we live in’ (existence), hence cannot be known or defined. It doesn’t make sense. In fact you did define by saying (or thinking) it IS the world we live in.

They try to transcend our empirical world using words that only have meaning due to our empirical world.

And who or what gives the meaning to what we experience as an empirical world, or the word ‘empirical’ itself? It’s a catch 22 I guess. And I don’t think transcending means ascending to a heavenly world beyond existence (the world we live in).

Language evolved with human beings, and there is no reason to suppose that evolution valued truth at all, in fact truth and understanding was probably the last reason that language was developed, from an evolutionary standpoint.

From an evolutionary standpoint, which I take it you can think and speak from; what makes you think that evolution does not value truth? Although “IT” cannot and does not think as you and I do, but are WE beyond evolution itself, or something other than evolution itself? If evolution can help us see the difference between survival and death through cognitive mental processes and better our survival chances, why do you think it would be a lie that fire can keep us warm in a cold dark cave? Does it not hold any value from an evolutionary standpoint? Or does it become a personal value of Olga the clan leader simply because he thought of it first? How else could this knowledge be transmitted effectively other than through language, or in other words, symbolic means?

Personally I do not ascribe any more real importance or higher value to “metaphysics”, as it were, than any other field of knowledge, because all are so very inter-twined and actually act as complimentary elements to what eventually makes up what we know as existence, AKA, the world we live in. What concepts we personally scrabble or squabble over, are a different story of course, but that too is existence inclusive, in my opinion.

Sapius,

WW: Language evolved with human beings, and there is no reason to suppose that evolution valued truth at all, in fact truth and understanding was probably the last reason that language was developed, from an evolutionary standpoint.

S: From an evolutionary standpoint, which I take it you can think and speak from; what makes you think that evolution does not value truth? Although “IT” cannot and does not think as you and I do, but are WE beyond evolution itself, or something other than evolution itself? If evolution can help us see the difference between survival and death through cognitive mental processes and better our survival chances, why do you think it would be a lie that fire can keep us warm in a cold dark cave? Does it not hold any value from an evolutionary standpoint? Or does it become a personal value of Olga the clan leader simply because he thought of it first? How else could this knowledge be transmitted effectively other than through language, or in other words, symbolic means?

Truth is something that we created to better survive. However where truth doesn't help us survive it is disfavored. Truth is a means, not an end. Evolution values survival, which may be increased by the tool called truth or by ignorance or non-truth.

Whorly,

Truth is something that we created to better survive.

Well, the word yes, but not the significance the word embodies. Irrelevant of calling it truth or gigadiboo, warmth does save us from freezing. Isn’t it? So it is gigadiboo that warmth saves us from freezing over to death. How does that change the significance of the matter? Which we happen to call 'truth'.

Evolution values survival, which may be increased by the tool called truth or by ignorance or non-truth.

I am curious; you will have to explain what you mean by ignorance and non-truth, and how does that help survival?

Sapius,

WW: Truth is something that we created to better survive.

S: Well, the word yes, but not the significance the word embodies. Irrelevant of calling it truth or gigadiboo, warmth does save us from freezing. Isn’t it? So it is gigadiboo that warmth saves us from freezing over to death. How does that change the significance of the matter? Which we happen to call 'truth'.

So does truth exist independently of the human mind?

WW: Evolution values survival, which may be increased by the tool called truth or by ignorance or non-truth.

S: I am curious; you will have to explain what you mean by ignorance and non-truth, and how does that help survival?

I mean that perhaps knowing the truth would have a negative effect on individuals and thus they would be disfavored evolutionarily and the ignorance would prevail. Or perhaps that, for example, believing in some warrior God would help a group of natives survive and thrive better than or conquer a group of passive nihilists (like this forum teaches) who value nothing but truth and think the trivialities are a waste of time beyond basic survival.