Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Terrapin Station]

1. Okay. So you understand that metaphysical things exist, but you haven't explained the qualities of conscious existence, right?

Let's stop here for a minute (I noticed that you're bringing up more and more points each post. That's going to be a problem). We'll get back to the rest in a minute.

If you recall, I have requirement for doing a "That's not explained/that hasn't been explained" argument.

Those requirements are:

(1) You give detailed criteria you're using for counting as an explanation in general,
(2) You also tell us why your criteria from (1) are going to be the demarcation criteria for explanations, and
(3) We examine whether the criteria given in (1) actually are your demarcation criteria by testing them with a number of mundane things (so, not consciousness) that you believe are explained versus not explained, and we make sure that you can present explanations for what you consider explained that meet your criteria, and we see whether some of the mundane stuff that you don't consider explained can't be explained per your criteria.

I'm happy to do arguments hinging on whether something is explained, but ONLY if you meet those three criteria. It's your choice. Either meet the criteria, or that line of discussion will be ignored.

Remember I told you that if you bring this up again once we restart, we'll be right back to the above. So what's it going to be?

[3017Metaphysician]

1. Okay. So you understand that metaphysical things exist, but you haven't explained the qualities of conscious existence, right?

Let's stop here for a minute (I noticed that you're bringing up more and more points each post. That's going to be a problem). We'll get back to the rest in a minute.

If you recall, I have requirement for doing a "That's not explained/that hasn't been explained" argument.

Those requirements are:

(1) You give detailed criteria you're using for counting as an explanation in general,
(2) You also tell us why your criteria from (1) are going to be the demarcation criteria for explanations, and
(3) We examine whether the criteria given in (1) actually are your demarcation criteria by testing them with a number of mundane things (so, not consciousness) that you believe are explained versus not explained, and we make sure that you can present explanations for what you consider explained that meet your criteria, and we see whether some of the mundane stuff that you don't consider explained can't be explained per your criteria.

I'm happy to do arguments hinging on whether something is explained, but ONLY if you meet those three criteria. It's your choice. Either meet the criteria, or that line of discussion will be ignored.

Remember I told you that if you bring this up again once we restart, we'll be right back to the above. So what's it going to be?

Okay. I know it's a bit overwhelming. We've got a lot of metaphysical phenomena to deconstruct (we're still on Will and 'purpose'), so you're right, lets stay on one 'concept' at a time:

All humans have purpose
Terrapin Station is a human
Therefore, Terrapin Station has purpose

The concept of Purpose:

1.the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists.

"the purpose of the meeting is to appoint a trustee" ·
synonyms:

motive · motivation · grounds · cause · impetus · occasion · reason ·
[more]

VERB

1.have as one's intention or objective.





Are any of those 'things' false?

[Pattern-chaser]

All humans have purpose

...

Are any of those 'things' false?

That "all humans have purpose" is not immediately obvious to me. I'm not saying it's false, but I am not happy to consider it true without at least some justification?

[3017Metaphysician]

All humans have purpose

...

Are any of those 'things' false?

That "all humans have purpose" is not immediately obvious to me. I'm not saying it's false, but I am not happy to consider it true without at least some justification?

PC!

Nice, thanks for your contribution PC... .

In the spirit of metaphysics (first principles of Being) lets unpack that 'metaphysical' concern relative to conscious existence.

1. You used the phrase "not happy". Why does, or should, your (anyone's) happiness matter? Think out loud if you care to....

(We''ll try to answer that question before exploring what it means to have human 'purpose', and whether that purpose can be described/explained physically or meta-physically or a little of both.)

[Terrapin Station]

1. Okay. So you understand that metaphysical things exist, but you haven't explained the qualities of conscious existence, right?

Let's stop here for a minute (I noticed that you're bringing up more and more points each post. That's going to be a problem). We'll get back to the rest in a minute.

If you recall, I have requirement for doing a "That's not explained/that hasn't been explained" argument.

Those requirements are:

(1) You give detailed criteria you're using for counting as an explanation in general,
(2) You also tell us why your criteria from (1) are going to be the demarcation criteria for explanations, and
(3) We examine whether the criteria given in (1) actually are your demarcation criteria by testing them with a number of mundane things (so, not consciousness) that you believe are explained versus not explained, and we make sure that you can present explanations for what you consider explained that meet your criteria, and we see whether some of the mundane stuff that you don't consider explained can't be explained per your criteria.

I'm happy to do arguments hinging on whether something is explained, but ONLY if you meet those three criteria. It's your choice. Either meet the criteria, or that line of discussion will be ignored.

Remember I told you that if you bring this up again once we restart, we'll be right back to the above. So what's it going to be?

Okay. I know it's a bit overwhelming. We've got a lot of metaphysical phenomena to deconstruct (we're still on Will and 'purpose'), so you're right, lets stay on one 'concept' at a time:

All humans have purpose
Terrapin Station is a human
Therefore, Terrapin Station has purpose

The concept of Purpose:

1.the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists.

"the purpose of the meeting is to appoint a trustee" ·
synonyms:

motive · motivation · grounds · cause · impetus · occasion · reason ·
[more]

VERB

1.have as one's intention or objective.





Are any of those 'things' false?

You're ignoring all of the stuff I wrote about the requirements for an "this is not explained" discussion. Why are you ignoring that?

At any rate, yes, "All humans have (a) purpose" is false.

[3017Metaphysician]

1. Okay. So you understand that metaphysical things exist, but you haven't explained the qualities of conscious existence, right?

Let's stop here for a minute (I noticed that you're bringing up more and more points each post. That's going to be a problem). We'll get back to the rest in a minute.

If you recall, I have requirement for doing a "That's not explained/that hasn't been explained" argument.

Those requirements are:

(1) You give detailed criteria you're using for counting as an explanation in general,
(2) You also tell us why your criteria from (1) are going to be the demarcation criteria for explanations, and
(3) We examine whether the criteria given in (1) actually are your demarcation criteria by testing them with a number of mundane things (so, not consciousness) that you believe are explained versus not explained, and we make sure that you can present explanations for what you consider explained that meet your criteria, and we see whether some of the mundane stuff that you don't consider explained can't be explained per your criteria.

I'm happy to do arguments hinging on whether something is explained, but ONLY if you meet those three criteria. It's your choice. Either meet the criteria, or that line of discussion will be ignored.

Remember I told you that if you bring this up again once we restart, we'll be right back to the above. So what's it going to be?

Okay. I know it's a bit overwhelming. We've got a lot of metaphysical phenomena to deconstruct (we're still on Will and 'purpose'), so you're right, lets stay on one 'concept' at a time:

All humans have purpose
Terrapin Station is a human
Therefore, Terrapin Station has purpose

The concept of Purpose:

1.the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists.

"the purpose of the meeting is to appoint a trustee" ·
synonyms:

motive · motivation · grounds · cause · impetus · occasion · reason ·
[more]

VERB

1.have as one's intention or objective.





Are any of those 'things' false?

You're ignoring all of the stuff I wrote about the requirements for an "this is not explained" discussion. Why are you ignoring that?

At any rate, yes, "All humans have (a) purpose" is false.

Is that a trolling response or are you throwing in the towel, again?

Oh well, I guess I'll play the game. I know logic and metaphysics is not in your wheelhouse, but how about Deconstruction?

LOL

[Consul]

"Metaphysical or physical" makes NO SENSE. "Metaphysical" is not a synonym for "not physical."

One meaning of "metaphysical" is "applied, esp. in explicit contrast to physical, to what is immaterial, incorporeal, and supersensible", "that is above or goes beyond the laws of nature; belonging to an operation or agency which is more than physical or natural; supernatural" (Oxford Dictionary of English). However, in the general context of philosophy "metaphysical" isn't synonymous with "nonphysical", "superphysical", "hyperphysical", or "supernatural".

[Terrapin Station]

Is that a trolling response or are you throwing in the towel, again?

Oh well, I guess I'll play the game. I know logic and metaphysics is not in your wheelhouse, but how about Deconstruction?

LOL

??? Why would you see it as either trolling of "throwing in the towel." You asked me if I thought any of that is false. I gave you my answer. "All humans have (a) purpose" is false.

So how about discussing this instead of changing the topic. You think that "All humans have (a) purpose" is true. I think it's false. How would we go about settling this in your view?

[Steve3007]

One meaning of "metaphysical" is "applied, esp. in explicit contrast to physical, to what is immaterial, incorporeal, and supersensible", "that is above or goes beyond the laws of nature; belonging to an operation or agency which is more than physical or natural; supernatural" (Oxford Dictionary of English)....

Relating this back to the title: "Can we agree as to what metaphysics is?", the short answer, then, is "no, it seems we can't" and the reason why we can't takes us into a familiar discussion about the meanings of words more generally. It seems pretty clear that metaphysics, as defined within the discipline of philosophy, is largely centred on ontology - the study of what exists. This is pretty unambiguous. But the practical, "everyday" meanings of words tend to evolve with usage. Dictionaries attempt to keep up and tell us the current widely accepted usages. And it's clear that there is a very widespread public perception of "metaphysics" that it's specifically about things to which the notion of empirical evidence doesn't apply. So it tends to get used to mean "stuff that isn't science" or stuff that is, in one way or another, related to things that are perceived to be not-science, like emotions, religion, mysticism, and so on. There's a related perception that it's all about teleology (the idea that all things have some kind of objectively existing purpose), because of the obvious relationship between teleology and religion.

See, for example, this by LuckyR in a different topic:

We are in agreement that faith addresses the metaphysical. ... the metaphysical cannot be proven or unproven

That kind of comment (similar to lots of other comments), I think, expresses the widespread common (outside of philosophy) usage.

However, in the general context of philosophy "metaphysical" isn't synonymous with "nonphysical", "superphysical", "hyperphysical", or "supernatural".

Quite.

So, this being a philosophy discussion website, some might argue that we should assume, unless it's explicitly stated otherwise, that words are being used with the meanings that are relevant to philosophy. Not the everyday language meanings (if there's a difference). In that context, "metaphysics" isn't synonymous with either teleology or "that which can't be measured" or "that which can't be proved" or similar. It's a wide ranging subject forming a foundation for all sorts of other subject, including science, obviously (since science clearly deals with things we at least assume, as a working hypothesis, to exist!).

[3017Metaphysician]

Is that a trolling response or are you throwing in the towel, again?

Oh well, I guess I'll play the game. I know logic and metaphysics is not in your wheelhouse, but how about Deconstruction?

LOL

??? Why would you see it as either trolling of "throwing in the towel." You asked me if I thought any of that is false. I gave you my answer. "All humans have (a) purpose" is false.

So how about discussing this instead of changing the topic. You think that "All humans have (a) purpose" is true. I think it's false. How would we go about settling this in your view?

Terrapin Station,

Unless we've overlooked something more dubious, your logic doesn't square with your belief system on many levels. I'll be more than happy to continue, however, depending on your response (and based upon your previous responses which we can certainly re-visit), you may not be up for the challenge (deconstructing your logic viz metaphysics):

All humans have purpose
Terrapin Station is a human
Therefore, Terrapin Station has purpose


To which Terrapin Station relied: "false"

Then Terrapin Station replied subsequently (above): "...so how about discussing this... ."

Hence, for one, it begs the question; what is your purpose in wanting to "discuss this" if you have no purpose?

[Pattern-chaser]

This is a good summary of how far we've got in this topic: not all that far. I would, though, like to extend one of the points you made, Steve.

One meaning of "metaphysical" is "applied, esp. in explicit contrast to physical, to what is immaterial, incorporeal, and supersensible", "that is above or goes beyond the laws of nature; belonging to an operation or agency which is more than physical or natural; supernatural" (Oxford Dictionary of English)....

Relating this back to the title: "Can we agree as to what metaphysics is?", the short answer, then, is "no, it seems we can't" and the reason why we can't takes us into a familiar discussion about the meanings of words more generally. It seems pretty clear that metaphysics, as defined within the discipline of philosophy, is largely centred on ontology - the study of what exists. This is pretty unambiguous. But the practical, "everyday" meanings of words tend to evolve with usage. Dictionaries attempt to keep up and tell us the current widely accepted usages. And it's clear that there is a very widespread public perception of "metaphysics" that it's specifically about things to which the notion of empirical evidence doesn't apply. So it tends to get used to mean "stuff that isn't science" or stuff that is, in one way or another, related to things that are perceived to be not-science, like emotions, religion, mysticism, and so on. There's a related perception that it's all about teleology (the idea that all things have some kind of objectively existing purpose), because of the obvious relationship between teleology and religion.

See, for example, this by LuckyR in a different topic:

We are in agreement that faith addresses the metaphysical. ... the metaphysical cannot be proven or unproven

That kind of comment (similar to lots of other comments), I think, expresses the widespread common (outside of philosophy) usage.

However, in the general context of philosophy "metaphysical" isn't synonymous with "nonphysical", "superphysical", "hyperphysical", or "supernatural".

Quite.

So, this being a philosophy discussion website, some might argue that we should assume, unless it's explicitly stated otherwise, that words are being used with the meanings that are relevant to philosophy. Not the everyday language meanings (if there's a difference). In that context, "metaphysics" isn't synonymous with either teleology or "that which can't be measured" or "that which can't be proved" or similar. It's a wide ranging subject forming a foundation for all sorts of other subject, including science, obviously (since science clearly deals with things we at least assume, as a working hypothesis, to exist!).

Some words have different meaning within philosophy and without. In such cases, it is sensible for us to default to the philosophical meaning(s). However, if we look at how "metaphysics" is typically used here, in this forum, it seems that it is mostly used in a philosophically-everyday way, to mean something like what I proposed, which you re-state as being "about things to which the notion of empirical evidence doesn't apply".

Excluding this topic, which specifically seeks to describe or define "metaphysics", I think the 'everyday' meaning is the one most commonly used in this forum. It may not be the most correct or complete meaning, but it does seem to be the one that is used most often.

[Steve3007]

...Excluding this topic, which specifically seeks to describe or define "metaphysics", I think the 'everyday' meaning is the one most commonly used in this forum. It may not be the most correct or complete meaning, but it does seem to be the one that is used most often.

Yes, it is indeed that meaning that most people here seem to use. The trouble is, because it means slightly different things to different people, it's the kind of thing that often leads to endless arguments which hinge on people simply using words in different ways to each other.

Look, for example, at what stevie said to JackDaydream a few minutes ago in a different topic:

Sorry but even though you are using words like "physics" and "thermodynamics" and "Newton" and "quantum theory" as ornaments implying serious science the thrust of your posts (OP and this one quoted) actually is metaphysical speculation through and through.

That might well lead to a pointless argument.

[Terrapin Station]

Terrapin Station,

Unless we've overlooked something more dubious, your logic doesn't square with your belief system on many levels. I'll be more than happy to continue, however, depending on your response (and based upon your previous responses which we can certainly re-visit), you may not be up for the challenge (deconstructing your logic viz metaphysics):

All humans have purpose
Terrapin Station is a human
Therefore, Terrapin Station has purpose


To which Terrapin Station relied: "false"

Then Terrapin Station replied subsequently (above): "...so how about discussing this... ."

Hence, for one, it begs the question; what is your purpose in wanting to "discuss this" if you have no purpose?

I didn't say, "No humans have a purpose." I said it's false that all do.

If there are 7 billion humans, and 6,999,999,999 have a purpose, but one doesn't, then it's false that all humans have a purpose, right?

[3017Metaphysician]

Terrapin Station,

Unless we've overlooked something more dubious, your logic doesn't square with your belief system on many levels. I'll be more than happy to continue, however, depending on your response (and based upon your previous responses which we can certainly re-visit), you may not be up for the challenge (deconstructing your logic viz metaphysics):

All humans have purpose
Terrapin Station is a human
Therefore, Terrapin Station has purpose


To which Terrapin Station relied: "false"

Then Terrapin Station replied subsequently (above): "...so how about discussing this... ."

Hence, for one, it begs the question; what is your purpose in wanting to "discuss this" if you have no purpose?

I didn't say, "No humans have a purpose." I said it's false that all do.

If there are 7 billion humans, and 6,999,999,999 have a purpose, but one doesn't, then it's false that all humans have a purpose, right?

Terrapin Station: You seem to be certain in your supposition. Rearrange the proposition's to support your position. Then deconstruct the meaning of purpose to make those premises sound.

[Terrapin Station]

Terrapin Station,

Unless we've overlooked something more dubious, your logic doesn't square with your belief system on many levels. I'll be more than happy to continue, however, depending on your response (and based upon your previous responses which we can certainly re-visit), you may not be up for the challenge (deconstructing your logic viz metaphysics):

All humans have purpose
Terrapin Station is a human
Therefore, Terrapin Station has purpose


To which Terrapin Station relied: "false"

Then Terrapin Station replied subsequently (above): "...so how about discussing this... ."

Hence, for one, it begs the question; what is your purpose in wanting to "discuss this" if you have no purpose?

I didn't say, "No humans have a purpose." I said it's false that all do.

If there are 7 billion humans, and 6,999,999,999 have a purpose, but one doesn't, then it's false that all humans have a purpose, right?

Terrapin Station: You seem to be certain in your supposition. Rearrange the proposition's to support your position. Then deconstruct the meaning of purpose to make those premises sound.

??? No idea what either part of that is saying really.

Do you mean to tell me that you don't understand that if one x is not-F, then it's false that all xs are F?