TPF : End of Metaphysics?

[Gnomon]

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/702906
To What Extent Can Metaphysics Be Eliminated From Philosophy?

Therefore, I do question the idea of the gradual elimination of metaphysics. Empirical knowledge through science is extremely important, but the metaphysical imagination and art of reason may be essential in understanding the larger picture. What do you think? — Jack Cummins

Since the "Enlightenment" era (Age of Reason, circa 1700) --- rejection of revered speculations by ancient religious & philosophical authorities, along with the emergence of pragmatic materialist Science as a dominant factor in modern civilization --- Metaphysics has been in danger of going the way of the Dodo : ex-stinky. But, as long as some humans still have provocative curiosity & un-fettered imagination & practice the "art" of Reason, contemplation of the Big Picture (e.g. Ontology -- Epistemology) will have a place in the "art" of Philosophy.

Plato was mostly concerned with metaphysical questions, but Aristotle had his own "enlightenment" phase, which rejected speculation beyond what is "Real" & Practical. In his encyclopedic book on contemporary knowledge of Nature (The Physics, circa 350BC), the first volume was concerned mainly with the material world of the five senses. Yet, in his second volume --- perhaps intended as a philosophical commentary on the technical details in volume one --- he dealt with many of the same broad general conjectures as Plato.

For example, in his theory of hylomorphism, he posited that real natural things were not simply the superficial stuff you see & touch (Matter), but included an invisible essence (Form or logical structure) that organized raw material into specific things with inherent traits. However, he denied the existence of general intangible disembodied ethereal eternal subjective ideal Platonic Forms, and insisted that only embodied (lower case) forms, in specific palpable corporal material space-time real objective Things, are meaningful and practical, hence subject to human manipulation.

Ironically, very little of his The Physics remains viable relative to modern Science, while the volume that later became known as The Metaphysics, is still fiercely debated by both philosophers and scientists. The terms of such debates typically hinge on Natural vs SuperNatural status, and Idealistic vs Pragmatic interpretations. So, it appears that speculations on more-than-meets-the-eye remain popular in certain circles, and unpopular in others. For example, New Age philosophies hold Metaphysics in high esteem. But Post-Renaissance philosophies, such as Physicalism & Logical Positivism despise such irrational lapses, and label them as "Romanticism", at best.

Consequently, many of the visceral disputes on this philosophical forum, quickly devolve into trench warfare, with each side taking shots at the enemy across a non-mans-land divide. A few of us though, try to make peace (Synthesis) by straddling the no-go zone (Meta-Physics), and get shot at from both Thesis and Anti-Thesis antipodes. The Dodo is dead, long live Meta-Physics!


Romanticism : 1.(noun) impractical romantic ideals and attitudes

Meta-Physics :
1. Often dismissed by materialists as idle speculation on topics not amenable to empirical proof.
2. Aristotle divided his treatise on science into two parts. The world as-known-via-the-senses was labeled “physics” - what we call "Science" today. And the world as-known-by-the-mind, by reason, was labeled “metaphysics” - what we now call "Philosophy" .
3. Plato called the unseen world that hides behind the physical façade: “Ideal” as opposed to Real. For him, Ideal “forms” (concepts) were prior-to the Real “substance” (matter).
4. Physics refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind. Meta-physics includes the properties, and qualities, and functions that make a thing what it is. Matter is just the clay from which a thing is made. Meta-physics is the design (form, purpose); physics is the product (shape, action). The act of creation brings an ideal design into actual existence. The design concept is the “formal” cause of the thing designed.
BothAnd Blog Glossary

[Gnomon]

Perhaps, what is needed is more thorough metaphysics than in the past, or system builders with more synthetic understanding, in putting the many broken fragments of the past pictures together in a new way. — Jack Cummins

That is exactly what I have tried to do with my Enformationism worldview. It's based on the sciences of Quantum physics and Information theory, but it requires a Metaphysical approach to make sense of this new way of viewing the "uncanny valley" (e.g. spooky action a distance) of quantum-scale reality.

I doubt that Physicalists & Materialists are actually opposed to philosophical Metaphysics. Apparently, they don't see any practical difference between bible-based Catholic Scholastic Metaphysics and reason-based philosophical Ontology & Epistemology. Both ways of viewing the world attempt to observe reality from the outside --- a god-like perspective, which is unscientific. And they propose the existence of Universals & Generals & Ideals that exist only in a mental sense, and are not verifiable by empirical methods. So, if such ideas make sense to you, they must be taken for granted, not proven, except for logical consistency.

PS__I attempt to repair the "broken fragments" of reductive science with the holistic glue of philosophy. Thesis (Metaphysical worldview) plus Anti-Thesis (Physical worldview) = Synthesis (Holistic worldview).

Uncanny Valley :
The horror in this movie comes from the suspense and the lack of information the audience has
https://nfhsraiderwire.com/showcase/202 ... of-horror/

[Gnomon]

↪universeness
Well I for one was trying to unburden it of what I thought were questionable associations with Chinese philosophy, to return it to its Platonist-Aristotelian roots. — Wayfarer

When I engage in a discussion on "metaphysics" on this forum, I begin by trying to "unburden" that venerable term from it's Catholic Scholastic baggage. Aristotle didn't categorize the theme of the second volume of his book on Nature (phusis) as "super-natural". Instead, its topics were merely philosophical (general & universal, instead of specific & local) ideas & opinions about the natural world -- including its human spectators & commentators.

Ironically, the medieval Greek Renaissance spawned both Science and Scholasticism. And it was the biblical Scholastics, who inextricably linked the mundane Greek term "Meta-physics" with Christian concepts of an unseen parallel realm above the manifest natural world. Hence, for most western thinkers, "meta" doesn't mean simply "after" or "subsequent", but implies "above" and "superior". Which offends those who believe that scientific Reality is purely Material & Physical, hence uncontaminated with Mental or Spiritual impurities. Just the opposite of the Christian belief system, which views Matter as the pollution of spiritual souls.

Apparently, Eastern philosophies are not as well known by posters on TPF. In my experience, the most common negative association of "metaphysics" is with European/Christian doctrine, not Buddhism or Taoism. Although the Body/Spirit or Brain/Mind distinction is also found in Eastern worldviews, that dueling Dualism seems to be most egregious in the West --- perhaps due to the Religion vs Science upheavals following the Enlightenment/Renaissance reformation, during which people were burned at the stake for doctrinal disputes. On the other hand, Eastern religions didn't place their emphasis on Belief, but on Behavior.

Anyway, I have tried with little success to return the descriptive term "meta-physics" to its original Aristotelian meaning. For him, Physics was the objective study of Physical Nature, and Meta-Physics was a subjective investigation of Human Nature. Not just what we know, but how we know (Epistemology). Not just what we are, but what "Being" is (Ontology). In other words, The Physics was observations of the Environment, and The Metaphysics was inwardly focused on the Observer. For example, there are no objective Laws in nature, because universal Principles are in the mind of the beholder.

Aristotle seemed to include Human Nature under the general topic of Nature. But modern pragmatic Science has come to dominate the study of our physical surroundings, even down to its barely physical substructure. So modern Philosophy got stuck holding the bag of meta-physical leftovers. Yet, Quantum Physics has begun to cross-over into the impractical unrealistic philosophical domain of spooky Non-classical-physics. And that neither-here-nor-there terrain is where toes get stepped-on and beliefs get tripped-up.

ARISTOTLE'S NATURE INCLUDED BOTH SIDES OF PLATO'S IDEAL/REAL DICHOTOMY
maxresdefault.jpg

[Gnomon]

No. Aristotle's Metaphysics (a word he never uses) is about first principles of philosophy--not "Human Nature." — Jackson

Yes. I'm aware that Aristotle's purpose in writing the second volume of his encyclopedia on Nature, has been interpreted in various ways at various times. The Scholastics, for religious reasons, focused on the spiritual implications of his work. In fact, Ari himself referred to the theme of his book as "Theology", but from a (pre-christian, yet "virtuous", Pagan) perspective. Some modern academics have even portrayed Aristotle as an Atheistic Realist Scientist, and emphasized his differences from Mystical Idealistic Plato.

Nevertheless, having no academic training in Philosophy, I approached the book as a look at the rational Observers of Nature. And I tend to interpret the work in terms of my Information-theoretic worldview, which is not yet mainstream in academia. Hence, IMHO, it's an early treatise on Human Nature -- among other things -- and more like modern Psychology than Plato's more spiritual approach. But, he still referred to the human Soul, as the embodiment of Reason. His books cataloged the Categories that we still use millennia later in our Religion, Science, Cosmology, and Philosophy.

Aristotle’s Metaphysics :
Metaphysics, for Aristotle, was the study of nature and ourselves. In this sense he brings metaphysics to this world of sense experience–where we live, learn, know, think, and speak. Metaphysics is the study of being qua being, which is, first, the study of the different ways the word “be” can be used.
https://open.library.okstate.edu/introp ... /__unknown__/

Topical Metaphysics :
Peirce divided metaphysics into (1) ontology or general metaphysics, (2) psychical or religious metaphysics, and (3) physical metaphysics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_metaphysics

Metaphysics of Theology :
Metaphysics (Greek: τὰ μετὰ τὰ φυσικά, "things after the ones about the natural world"; Latin: Metaphysica) is one of the principal works of Aristotle, in which he develops the doctrine that he refers to sometimes as Wisdom, sometimes as First Philosophy, and sometimes as Theology.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics_(Aristotle)
Note -- Ari made it clear that he thought that contemporary Greek Religion was based on false premises, and fostered base motives for popularity, instead of promoting a rational search for worldly wisdom.

Philosophical Theology :
"For the actuality of thought is life, and God is that actuality; and the essential actuality of God is life most good and eternal. We hold, then, that God is a living being, eternal, most good; and therefore life and a continuous eternal existence belong to God; for that is what God is."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotelian_theology

[Gnomon]

I'm aware that Aristotle's purpose in writing the second volume of his encyclopedia on Nature, — Gnomon
Sorry, I do not understand what you're saying here. — Jackson

If it was unclear, what I was implying was that your "First Principles" interpretation is one of many. So, I submitted some alternative versions of Aristotle's "purpose" for separating Physics from Metaphysics. The first volume was Scientific & Materialistic, looking at the environment. The second volume was Philosophical & Psychological, looking at the observer. Admittedly, that is not a traditional academic interpretation. But, it serves my 21st century information-theoretic purposes. And the links are intended to show that I am not alone in seeing the focus on the mind of the Observer, as Quantum Physics has forced scientists to do.

PS__I'm not saying that Aristotle was a Quantum Scientist. Merely that his insight was prescient.

"I'm aware that Aristotle's purpose in writing the second volume of his encyclopedia on Nature, has been interpreted in various ways at various times."

Intentional Observer Effects on Quantum Randomness :
Observer effects are thus described as entanglement correlations between the intentional observer and the observed system
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10 ... 00379/full

[Gnomon]

Regarding Aristotle and the subject of objectivity - I think the whole concept, or rather orientation, of objectivity, is part and parcel of the modern period. The word itself only came into regular usage in the early modern period. And I think the deep reason for that is that pre-moderns, even very sophisticated pre-moderns such as the Greeks, experienced the world differently - not as an ensemble of objects, but as an intentional creation, and so had different kind of relationship with it -an 'I-Thou' relationship, not subject and object. — Wayfarer

Yes. I doubt that Aristotle thought in terms of total opposition between Subjective (ideal) & Objective (real), in the modern sense. But, he seems to have pioneered the mundane Pragmatic approach, that was later adopted by modern Science, to replace the sublime Theoretical/Theological*1 methods of the Scholastics. Nevertheless, I see the roots of modern thinking in his treatise on Nature. For example, where Plato used the notion of universal Ideal Form (eidos) as the ultimate reality, Aristotle used the term in reference to specific material objects.

Later, when Greek "ousia" (being or divine essence) was translated into Latin, two different words were used : essentia and substantia. Although "essence" can be interpreted as the immaterial logical structure of a thing, "substance" has come to be associated with the material fabric of an object. And latter-day materialistic science pointedly avoids the spiritual associations of "essence" in favor of the secular meaning of "substance". So, the modern subjective/objective dichotomy seems to reflect total rejection of the submissive ancient "I-Thou" relationship, in favor of today's dominating "I-it" attitude.

Since my personal worldview is Information-theoretic, I tend to see "Form" in both categories : essential & material. That's because 21st century Information theory now defines "Information" as both Mental (metaphysical meaning) and Material (physical substance). Hence, En-Form-Action (Energy) is the power to create (enform) both Mind and Matter, both Subjective Ideas and Objective Objects.

*1. Theory : mental scheme ; speculation [possibly from "theos/deus" (god) ]

Aristotle Objectivity :
The terms “objectivity” and “subjectivity,” in their modern usage, generally relate to a perceiving subject (normally a person) and a perceived or unperceived object. The object is something that presumably exists independent of the subject’s perception of it. In other words, the object would be there, as it is, even if no subject perceived it. Hence, objectivity is typically associated with ideas such as reality, truth and reliability. . . .
Hence, the term “subjective” typically indicates the possibility of error. . . . .
Aristotle, by contrast, identifies the ordinary objects of sense experience as the most objective reality. He calls them “primary substance".
https://iep.utm.edu/objectiv/
Note --- Ironically, Plato's ultimate reality (now known as "Ideal") seems to fit the modern notion of "objective reality". So, which is real, and which illusion?

Information Realism :
Physics Is Pointing Inexorably to Mind
Only the mathematical apparatus used to describe the behavior of matter is supposedly real, not matter itself. . . . .
Matter is done away with and only information itself is taken to be ultimately real.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/ob ... y-to-mind/

[Gnomon]

The Metaphysics of Materialism

R.G. Collingwood wrote that metaphysics is the study of absolute presuppositions. Absolute presuppositions are the unspoken, perhaps unconscious, assumptions that underpin how we understand reality. Collingwood wrote that absolute presuppositions are neither true nor false, but we won’t get into that argument here. I would like to enumerate and discuss the absolute presuppositions, the underlying assumptions, of classical physics. I’ll start off. — Clarky

I wasn't familiar with RGC, but his notion of "absolute presumptions" is interesting. In metaphysical discussions on this forum certain "presumptions" & prejudices quickly become apparent as posters line-up on opposite sides : crudely described as Physics versus Metaphysics. However, RGC seems to be returning to Socratic, versus Analytic, methods; apparently in response to Two-value Logical Positivism. Analytical Positivism seems to presume that knowledge is either True or False. Yet, Socrates demonstrated that most human knowledge is debatable.

I don't have the technical training to make any "absolute" observations on your list. But it's apparent that [1] is not very controversial in this day & age, but [2] is at the root of most of our interminable debates. Disagreements on the other items may depend on degree of commitment to Materialistic or Spiritualistic worldviews, which could also be labeled as "Realism vs Idealism". Absolute Presuppositions seem to assume a Black & While, Either/Or world. But Einstein's Relativism has implied that the world is BothAnd.


Socrates would challenge initial hypotheses and examine them for presumptions and assumptions.
https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences ... Legacy.htm

The Socratic method is a form of cooperative argumentative dialogue between individuals, based on asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and to draw out ideas and underlying presuppositions. ___Wikipedia

"Collingwood had nothing to contribute to the debate between realists and idealists; he would have regarded it as belonging to metaphysics as the study of pure being, not as metaphysics understood as a form of presuppositional analysis. . . . "
The task of philosophy, Collingwood claims in An Essay on Metaphysics, is not to assert propositions in answers to questions but to uncover presuppositions.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/collingwood/

[1] We live in an ordered universe that can be understood by humans.
Note --- a minority of *educated* people today may still presume that the frustrations & rational challenges of the world are due to Trickster gods, or dueling deities, such as Jehovah & Satan.
** I caught a presupposition of my own.
[2] The universe consists entirely of physical substances - matter and energy.
Note ---Since the advent of Quantum & Information theories in Science, the physical foundation of the world was been undermined. What was classically presumed to be absolute, now seems to be indeterminate & uncertain.

[Gnomon]

As I said in my original post, the validity of materialism is not the subject of this discussion. It's purpose is to try to identify the absolute presuppositions of a materialist view point, i.e. materialism is assumed for the purposes of this discussion. — Clarky

Yes. But a materialist might disagree with the label of "presupposition", and insist that it is just an "absolute truth" or "known fact". Assuming you do find some "absolute presuppositions" in Materialism, will that reflect on its Validity? Likewise with Spiritualism or Idealism or any kind of -ism. One man's presupposition may be another man's fundamental Truth.

The label for each belief system is intended to identify its core value, its ultimate truth, and its essential reality. Metaphysical debates on this forum tend to focus on finding false assumptions in the opposition worldview, while presenting obvious truths in the correct worldview. Then around & around we go.

PS__Why do you limit this discussion to Classical Physics? Do you have an agenda? Just asking.

[Gnomon]

PS__Why do you limit this discussion to Classical Physics? Do you have an [unstated] agenda? Just asking. — Gnomon
Have you read the OP? Have you read the rest of the posts on this thread? If you don't want to play by the terms of discussion I set down, you should go to another thread or start your own. — Clarky

Sorry! I didn't mean to offend you. Although long threads tend to inevitably stray off-topic, that was not my intention. The OP didn't explain why the discussion was supposed to be limited to Classical Physics. Yet it seemed to me that you had an implicit goal for this thread --- beyond simply juxtaposing Materialism and Metaphysics, which are usually deemed to be exclusive (either/or) topics. Collingswood's list is the explicit agenda, but all the presuppositions are expressed in terms of Classical Absolutes, as contrasted with a 20th century world of Arbitrary Relativity. Perhaps my gaffe was to point at the invisible elephant in the room.

Now, after skimming the posts, I found the quote below that seems to point to a future expansion of the OP into a more contentious arena of Science & Philosophy. With a few exceptions (e.g. gravity as spooky action at a distance), Newton's Classical Physics was mostly amenable to human intuition about the logical & predictable way-of-the-world. But Quantum Physics threw a monkey wrench into the gears of classical mechanics. Quantum Logic seems to be Fuzzy and Indeterminate.

So, I just inferred that the "terms of discussion" were perhaps deliberately incomplete. Now, I see that you may be implying that reconciling Quantum Quirkiness with Classical Normality may require an updated 21st century worldview. And that is exactly what I have concluded myself : the world is not simply Either/Or (1/0), but complexly BothAnd (yin/yang). All parts of this world are inter-related (entangled) into a Whole System that we sometimes refer to holistically as "Nature".

Second focus - For the purposes of this discussion, we live before 1905, when the universe was still classical and quantum mechanics was unthinkable. I see the ideas we come up with in this discussion as a baseline we can use in a later discussion to figure out how things change when we consider quantum mechanics. — Clarky


Agenda : 1. a list of items to be discussed at a formal meeting.

Absolute : Pure & perfect ; a value or principle which is regarded as universally valid or which may be viewed without relation to other things.

Arbitrary : based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

Relativity : relationships viewed through special Frames of Reference