What is philosophy and what is metaphysics? Can you be neutral?

So I am looking through the post here, and I think this forum could benefit from a discussion around what philosophy actually is, and what metaphysics actually is. To be honest the title of the forum itself is a bit redundant and we will see why that is true shortly. Philosophy has three main branches: Metaphysics, Epistemology, and Axiology. Here I'll give a brief summation of what each branch is in hopes to bring the post here more in line with the forums title.

Metaphysics

This will be the longest section because metaphysics is a bit of a confusing term in philosophy, because it can be used in a broad sense as I have in the first paragraph, and it can be used in a more nuanced sense within that broad sense of the term. Metaphysics, again broadly speaking, is the study of first principles and the nature of existence. Within metaphysics there is a sub-field known as ontology which is the study of existence and the nature of things. When we are asking questions like what is that thing over there? We are asking ontological questions. The more strict sense of the word metaphysics can be brought up here as it can be compared with ontology to be understood more clearly.

You see let's say we were to speak of the metaphysics of a universe like that of Harry Potter. Well in this universe there are odd laws that operate according to movements with a wand and words spoken with the mouth, these are metaphysical principles that would operate within the universe if it were indeed like Harry Potter. There would be rules governing the mixing of ingredients that would produce effects that would appear absurd to people like us, like a love potion, or a potion that turns you into another person. These are metaphysical things within a universe like that of Harry Potter that are not found within our universe. Our universe has things like gravity, and cause and effect, and there are no principles that allow us to create muffins or have our house hold items clean for us. If we were to speak of the ontology of Harry Potter, well we would be speaking of the types of things that would exists in this universe. They would have similar things to our universe like those bloody muggles, and then they would have house elfs, giant talking spiders, giants, dragons, and a host of other odd creatures. So you can see the distinction here is between rules and principles that exists that govern how the world operates, and the types of things found in that world.

Epistemology

Epistemology is the study of the nature of knowledge, justification, and belief. There are four main areas of discussion in the realm of epistemology. The first area ask questions about the nature of knowledge itself, and its relation to other concepts such as truth. The second area is that of skepticism, which ask whether or not knowledge is possible at all? The third area deals with the origins and scope of knowledge, while the last area ask questions about the criteria for knowledge and it's justification.

In epistemology, there is something known as the Münchhausen trilemma. If we ask ourselves how any knowledge is known to be true, we may provide some proof, but we can then ask how is this belief known, and we can always ask this question. This leaves us with only three options in our pursuit of knowledge: the circular argument, the regressive argument, and the axiomatic argument. The route one takes is normally a consequence of their beliefs regarding truth and justification.


Axiology

Axiology is composed of Aesthetics and Ethics and is the study of values. Ethics involves studying our system of right and wrong, and asks questions surrounding the nature of value. There are three main sub-categories within ethics: Meta-ethics, normative ethics, and applied ethics. Meta-ethics asks questions about the truth value, meaning, and referents of moral propositions, while normative ethics deals with questions concerning how we ought to act. So while meta-ethics ask questions about the meaning of our moral language, and the metaphysical nature of moral propositions, normative ethics analyzes the standards of ethical action within the system. Applied ethics is the application of ones ethical theory in the real world, for example, how are we obligated to act with a police officer?

Aesthetics is the study of beauty and art. I won't say much more on it here, but if it's an area that really interest you feel free to dive in on it. Anyways that sums it up.

Myth of Neutrality

No one is neutral in these realms. Everyone has underlying beliefs about metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics, whether they've questioned them or not. This myth of neutrality becomes apparent when we think about what propositions are true, and how can we tell which propositions are true. In philosophy, this is known as the problem of the criterion. It's important to note we are asking a question about how to begin our epistemological theorizing, rather than asking questions about the nature of truth.

The intuition some of you may have is that one cannot know that which is true, without determining the method by which we should go about determining true propositions. This would be a form of methodism which proposes to answer how we know epistemologically prior to what we know. Others may feel that we must know some true propositions, and from those we may derive a method by which to separate other propositions from false one. This would be a form of particularism. While the skeptic may believe you cannot answer how we know without having some idea of what you know, and you cannot have some idea of what you know prior to some method of knowing. Thus the skeptic assumes there is no independent answer to these questions and so we cannot begin our epistemological theorizing. The problem is the skeptic has no reason for believing that there isn't an independent answer to these questions and so is in the same boat as the others.

I myself would argue that one must know some true propositions, and then use those to derive some accurate method of knowing. To illustrate this, imagine you inherit an apple orchard, but also imagine you have absolutely no knowledge about apples. Now prior to gaining any knowledge of apples you seek to construct a machine that will separate good apples from bad apples. There would be no way to begin for you have no idea what makes an apple good or bad, or what makes an apples an apple. This is an illustration of what the methodist tries to do with true and false conclusions about the world. That is they try and devise a method of separating true and false conclusions when they know nothing about truth, falsehood, arguments or conclusions themselves. This to me is a convincing reason to reject philosophical methodism. This is why I will argue that everyone of you come to this debate with a worldview, and that this acts as a guide to interpret the phenomena of your experience.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Neutrality is always a relative concept, as are axioms.

If you teach a child that triangles are good and squares are bad, then those rules are axioms from the child's limited point of view.

Once that child grows up and gains a broader awareness and understanding of geometry, hopefully they would realize that shapes are neither good or bad.

So basically, think of Goedel's incompleteness theorem. So long as our understanding is limited, we must rely on the axioms revealed by a higher authority of understanding. Those axioms will remain absolutes until an even higher plane of under of understanding is attained.

Everything is relative to the extent of your understanding.

I've always wanted to dip my toe into philosophy, this might just make me take the 1st step.

Might help me understand more of the AEX and Talk Heathen, also the likes of Rationality Rules and CosmicSkeptic

I have a 'Philosophy 101' book on the shelf, I think I'll start it tonight, thanks 👍🏻.

a reply to: FinallyAwake

I don't find any of those people to particularly well versed in philosophy, though they are popular within the atheist community. I would recommend actually reading some philosophers over those people. Read David Hume, Bertrand Russel, Friedrich Nietzsche, and the like. David Hume is good if you like discussions with theist as theist most often find him to be one of the more consistent empiricist which is what most atheist who have no interest in philosophy are.

Cosmic Skeptic gets on my nerves a little, because he peddles a non-academic view of atheism to appease his followers. He is studying at oxford so he should know that atheism as a proposition is a metaphysical claim about the nature of reality as impersonal and lacking a foundation in the divine. So what you should be able to tell after reading this post is that atheism or the proposition that "god does not exists" is an ontological proposition. It's not a claim about what some individual knows or doesn't know or what they have confidence in, but most atheist when they label themselves as atheist they mean to tell you something about their lack of knowledge or belief, which is an epistemological claim.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Atheists don't claim that God doesn't exist. That would be foolish. They claim that there is no evidence for God which is a different proposition altogether.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

First let me say it's good to speak with you again. Years and years ago you and I would have conversations concerning the end times. I've radically shifted my views since then to that of the Orthodox Christians, but it's great to hear from you.

So basically, think of Godel's incompleteness theorem. So long as our understanding is limited, we must rely on the axioms revealed by a higher authority of understanding. Those axioms will remain absolutes until an even higher plane of under of understanding is attained.

I am familiar with Godel's theorems, but perhaps we could work this out a bit more for those in the room who are not. Essentially what Godel did was demonstrate that no formal system can be both complete and consistent. Math nerds once believed that everything that was true would have some type of mathematical proof. A system in which all truths have mathematical proofs as counter parts is described as being complete, while ones that do not have this property are called incomplete.

The second part of this comes from the idea that mathematical systems should not contain contradictions. This means one should not be able to derive things are be true and false at the same time. If a system that does not include contradictions is called consistent. All of these systems are based on axioms which are statements that are assumed not proven.

What Godel demonstrated was that any non-trivial formal system cannot be both of these simultaneously. In essence he showed two things that are true of every formal system. The first is that for any system based on a set of axioms, there will be questions that cannot be answered within those axioms. The second is that to demonstrate the consistency of one's system they will need to rely upon some new set of axioms(i.e. a new or higher system of thought).

Self reference is in my opinion really the key to forming what one might call Godel sentences as they require one to indirectly speak of themselves. So for example, I can directly speak about my typing English right now in a way that makes it clear that the English language is a system of arbitrary axioms we call grammar that define how we are to manipulate particular signs and symbols, and that this system is complex enough that it can speak of itself as I am doing now. So if we were to attempt to create a Godel sentence for they system of language known as English we may say something like "the meaningfulness of the English language cannot be proven by the English language." In other words we cannot appeal to the axioms of the English language to prove that these axioms produce meaning that can be communicated between individuals. So English is an incomplete system as there are statements that can be derived from it's axioms that are not provable within those axioms. Beyond that the ability for English to communicate meaning between individuals is assumed in the process of developing a language, and higher theories of meaning and semiotics must come into play to provide for the intelligibility of English itself.

I believe at a high level this demonstrates the ultimate need for revelation in our search for truth, but that should be enough rambling for now.

a reply to: midicon

Atheists don't claim that God doesn't exist. That would be foolish. They claim that there is no evidence for God which is a different proposition altogether.

First, you don't speak for all atheist. Second, I am not talking about atheist, I am talking about atheism. That isn't an individual, but a proposition.

Are you suggesting that you have no evidence for God, therefore it is more likely than not that God does not exist or are you equally unconvinced of the existence of a Godless reality?

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

I don't speak for all atheists, that is true, but you say that atheism proposes that God doesn't exist and I made a point that that statement isn't quite as you propose.

I'm not convinced either way but I do find that that a Godless reality seems more evident when I look around me at the world. I see no evidence at all for God but I don't discount the possibility and am open to any evidence that would support the proposition.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Your actions can be neutral.
Your speech can be neutral.
Your heart can not.

a reply to: midicon

I don't speak for all atheists, that is true, but you say that atheism proposes that God doesn't exist and I made a point that that statement isn't quite as you propose

No. You made a point about people who identify themselves as atheist. Let's look at what you said "Atheists don't claim that God doesn't exist. That would be foolish. They claim that there is no evidence for God which is a different proposition altogether."

So you're making a claim about a group of people. I am speaking about a philosophical position on the nature of reality. A metaphysic. The existence of God is an ontological question, and that is separate from a question about the degree of confidence an individual may have in the affirmation or negation of God's existence, which is an epistemological question. This is how atheism is used within the domain of philosophy. Your free to use it differently else where, but in philosophy atheism refers to a class of metaphysical positions like materialism that are absent a deity and are based wholly in the impersonal forces of the world.

I'm not convinced either way but I do find that that a Godless reality seems more evident when I look around me at the world. I see no evidence at all for God but I don't discount the possibility and am open to any evidence that would support the proposition.

Let's make sure you understand that the way reality can only be one of two ways, either God exists or God does not exists. That's a metaphysical claim about reality. It's not about you, do you get that? Your inability to determine which state of affairs is actually the case doesn't offer you a middle ground to retreat back into. Your view of existence, knowledge, and man will be affected by which of those you think is more likely. Now you say that a Godless reality seems more likely to you than one with God in it. Why is a godless reality more probable than it's counter part? Simply because you are not aware of any evidence for God's existence?

a reply to: scraedtosleep

I would say none of those things can be neutral. Speech obviously isn't neutral as it assumes that speech is meaningful, and that isn't self evident, you need a larger philosophical context to even make the concept intelligible. Actions are biased by our motivations and desires.

My favorite what I call active living philosopher (those who try to live their philosophy opposed to the intellectual philosophers of the outer mind) is the Integral Metaphysics pandit Ken Wilber, known in some circles as the Einstein of consciousness. en.wikipedia.org...

The question seemingly being dealt with here atheism actually is not as black and white as we think.

True, basically religion is or has been a theological or theistic phenomenon as well as a theocratic reality of a God-centered philosophy.

But, lo and behold, the Buddhist tradition has no belief in a God, or I like to often call it, Sky-God theory inside the traditional big three Western religions.

So, we often don’t know this or forget that there is a major religion that doesn’t have a concept of a sky-God looking after humans.

In the end, it may all boil down to semantics since one can deduce some kind of God-type fact in Buddhist theology in the concepts of Karma and Dharma.

What I always thought was that the God or sky-God of exoteric religion is just something not observable by empirical reality, therefore, the Buddhist concept of no God more so relates to the phantom God of that stripe which is inside of exoteric religion, which by conventional perception just does not exist as of the present.

So we have God of theology and God of existential reality as relates to the creation that is what they call non-theistic God.

One more point. This is a complex issue since we also have to bring up mythology as an integral element that intersects very succinctly with these concepts: Philosophy/Metaphysics/Theism/non-theism/mythology.

So, philosophy and metaphysics run all throughout these concepts like a stream flows through a mountain.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

I am not aware of any evidence that God exists. A Godless reality seems more probable because of the suffering I see around me. I don't need a middle ground to retreat back into.

I appreciate your lengthy replies and the time you have taken to do so.

I am no philosopher and can easily fall into a word salad when trying to make a simple point.

metaphysics -v- philosophy

supernatural -v- practical

that is an example of even-steven/neutrality

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

I remember our past exchanges well. Its good to see you're back. I've only recently made a brief return to ATS, myself. I myself have drifted further away from denominations, and have taken up a more mystical approach to spirituality, all while maintaining my old core beliefs in Christ. I find it best for me to maintain a balance between the objective and subjective. I'm sure I share a lot of common ground with the Orthodoxy. I would love to engage in more dialogue with you about the Orthodox faith, metaphysics, and perhaps the Byzantine Empire.

Revelation is key, though it may come in many forms, insight, intuition, rationalism, irrationalism, and especially divine revelation. Its important to realize that we each have a horizon limiting our perception, which of coarse, can and should be expanded.

On the subject of neutrality; though I believe neutrality to be relative, it is important to keep context in mind. In a societal situation where dual polarity has become so overwhelmingly dominant, neutrality within the realm of that social polarity is likely a good vantage for observation. However, one should keep the left and right hand options open, when it comes to action. Paul (the metaphysical genius that he was) made this point in 2 Corinthians.

[2Co 6:7-8 NASB] [7] in the word of truth, in the power of God; by the weapons of righteousness for the right hand and the left, [8] by glory and dishonor, by evil report and good report; [regarded] as deceivers and yet true;

In my personal opinion, one can maintain loyalty to a more absolute standard of righteousness, while operating in ways that can be perceived as right handed or left by society. I'm not strictly speaking in the political sense, but in the sense of what society deems good vs evil. These distinctions are most often relative moral constructs.

In short, its good to have the ability to be all things to all people without ruling out certain axioms.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: FinallyAwake

I don't find any of those people to particularly well versed in philosophy, though they are popular within the atheist community. I would recommend actually reading some philosophers over those people. Read David Hume, Bertrand Russel, Friedrich Nietzsche, and the like. David Hume is good if you like discussions with theist as theist most often find him to be one of the more consistent empiricist which is what most atheist who have no interest in philosophy are.

Cosmic Skeptic gets on my nerves a little, because he peddles a non-academic view of atheism to appease his followers. He is studying at oxford so he should know that atheism as a proposition is a metaphysical claim about the nature of reality as impersonal and lacking a foundation in the divine. So what you should be able to tell after reading this post is that atheism or the proposition that "god does not exists" is an ontological proposition. It's not a claim about what some individual knows or doesn't know or what they have confidence in, but most atheist when they label themselves as atheist they mean to tell you something about their lack of knowledge or belief, which is an epistemological claim.

Thanks for that 👍🏻

Yes some atheists are like that, but I was under the the impression that atheism meant lack of belief in the 'claim' that there is a god?

I don't if there is or isn't a God, but I don't believe the claim that there is.

As for advice on philosophers to read thank you 👍🏻

I heard Rationality Rules and Molenuex talking about Hume, when they were debating 'UPB'. But I don't know if I'm buying into that yet.

I heard Molenuex isn't a great philosopher either, like he thinks he is.

Philosophy Is Near Sighted.
It's Counter Part Is Law (The Blind Sighted)
Then There Is 'You'!
1st. Foresight (Or Lack Thereof)
2nd. Hindsight (Or Lack Thereof)
3rd. Insight (Or Lack Thereof)
But Lots of Luck To Your In 2020 (No Pun Intended).


A Meta-Physical Experience Is 'To Be Conjoined To Truth With The Experience Of The Truth. To Which End You Can Ascertain It's POV With A Strict POV You Trust. Trust Is Constant And Truth Dispells Irrationalism. It Is Customary To Impart It, But It Is Useless To Do So. Not All IS As It Would Seem

To 1 philosophy is a belief and language to help some study, clarify and understand science that may be partially accepted by mainstream religious and science groups or not accepted at all by mainstream religious and science groups.
Philosophy tends to cover topics related to sciences that are not proven by mainstream religious and science groups of the time.

For example-
1633
April 12
Galileo is accused of heresy

On April 12, 1633, chief inquisitor Father Vincenzo Maculani da Firenzuola, appointed by Pope Urban VIII, begins the inquisition of physicist and astronomer Galileo Galilei. Galileo was ordered to turn himself in to the Holy Office to begin trial for holding the belief that the Earth revolves around the sun, which was deemed heretical by the Catholic Church. Standard practice demanded that the accused be imprisoned and secluded during the trial.


This was the second time that Galileo was in the hot seat for refusing to accept Church orthodoxy that the Earth was the immovable center of the universe: In 1616, he had been forbidden from holding or defending his beliefs. In the 1633 interrogation, Galileo denied that he “held” belief in the Copernican view but continued to write about the issue and evidence as a means of “discussion” rather than belief. The Church had decided the idea that the sun moved around the Earth was an absolute fact of scripture that could not be disputed, despite the fact that scientists had known for centuries that the Earth was not the center of the universe.

Galileo was right in his beliefs and his philosophy about EA*RTH revolving around SOL but was challenged by mainstream influences back then for believing such because the mainstream religious and science groups back then felt their sciences proved otherwise.

To 1 philosophy is associated with some being channeled information and or guided consciously from beyond the physical perceivable reality from the possible metaphysical realms and or dimensions of reality...

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Metaphysical energy though not fully grasped and understood does exist and is kind of hard to ignore or remain neutral to.

Examples of metaphysical energy.
When people are happy or sad and also animals if you are conscious you can feel their vibs or vibrations even if they physically are not touching you.
That is metaphysical energy.
How you respond to it depends on how compassionate or empathetic you are as a CREATOR Creation to the vibrations you are detecting. But deciding how you respond removes neutrality from the equation because you are still thinking of how to respond. Also ignoring the vibes or metaphysical vibrations may cause draining effect upon those who sense or feel the vibes but choose to ignore as the mind still continues to ponder is the decision to ignore logical or illogical in turn generating potential physical stresses to develop which in turn can cause negative physical effects on the body.

Deeper metaphysics is connecting that non physical or metaphysical energy to the unknown spiritual energy connected to humans and the supernatural/paranormal realms of existence and activities associated.
So for example someone sensitive enough to sense crossed over spirits or spirit like energy is detecting metaphysical activities and energy that current sciences of today may not be able to fully detect as of yet.

NAMASTE*******

Are you talking about the planet literally revolving around the sun as being a philosophy or about the experience of the individual enduring backlash for the professed. I usually tell myself if I have to resort to philosophy to meet my demise... I rather roll in silence and take on Metaphysics. You typically shouldn't pay $10 for a $1 dollar piece of chocolate.