Are you a Philosopher or a Metaphysicist?

Personally, I dont see myself as either; I prefer not to belong to a label. I believe what I believe, do what I do and thats pretty much it. Its the same principle as my eating habits. People call me a vegetarian, but I dont see myself as that. I just simply dont eat meat. Its the same thing, but the mindset is different.

This is why I see myself as neither categories. A label is too constricting, for me anyway. I like being philosophical, and its also quite fun. I love being metaphysical too, but to belong to both categories? It isnt how I think.

reply to post by blazenresearcher

reply to post by TerryMcGuire


I too thought metaphysical meant there was an underlying spirtitual component.

As do others posting on this thread it seems. From what I found,NorEaster is using the definition as found in the reply I made. As he has not replied to my reply, I do not know if he is aware of the confusion this causes to those of us who have understood the word by its more general usage.

reply to post by Itisnowagain


Even if it is a "one liner" ....I HAVE to say.....I like this thought.

Not so much a 'big bang' more like a beautiful melody.

I definitely AGREE!!! ;-)


xoxoxox


Jenn

Originally posted by TerryMcGuire
reply to post by blazenresearcher

 

reply to post by TerryMcGuire


I too thought metaphysical meant there was an underlying spirtitual component.

As do others posting on this thread it seems. From what I found,NorEaster is using the definition as found in the reply I made. As he has not replied to my reply, I do not know if he is aware of the confusion this causes to those of us who have understood the word by its more general usage.

Oh well.....just "go with it" and contribute as to what your thoughts are....lol..... philosophize.

I was just really wanting to get into this....so what if it is a little "out there"...we all are.

Originally posted by mattime
Personally, I dont see myself as either; I prefer not to belong to a label. I believe what I believe, do what I do and thats pretty much it. Its the same principle as my eating habits. People call me a vegetarian, but I dont see myself as that. I just simply dont eat meat. Its the same thing, but the mindset is different.

This is why I see myself as neither categories. A label is too constricting, for me anyway. I like being philosophical, and its also quite fun. I love being metaphysical too, but to belong to both categories? It isnt how I think.

I know what you are saying.....for this very reasoning......that you state above is soooooooo WHY I am NOT a part of a religious sect. I can believe without having to be called a &*(&^&%^$* thing. ;-) Ya know....anyways...I am NOT wanting to derail this thread AT ALL..just sayin how I really related to your comments regarding THAT subject. ;-)

I am not one for "labels" either....thats why I can see me as a Philosopher first....then of course there is a metaphysics part of me as well. They compliment each other well I think....or maybe I am just boosting my ego??

reply to post by NorEaster


excellent read as always sir.

as a chaote with some small experience in metamorphosis* [of the psychological variety, that is] and identity games, i feel i don't fit into either category or in the meta-philosopher category either [ no offense meant to kayA1 and tomten]

"i am who/what i am becoming."

i think part of the problem lies with, as the replies on this thread are rapidly showing, with definitions, [ as has been pointed out, metaphysics is a branch of philosophy, however it is also a euphemism/codeword for an occultist] this in turn leads to the problem of language itself, that is:

is human language a proper tool for mapping reality?

then again what is reality?

getting back to the differences/confusion referenced in the op; i see part of the problem as being not knowing what operating paradigms are being used as a foundation by a poster, or in the majority of cases not being aware of paradigms at all: a reader only knows that [s]he does not understand where the poster is coming from at all.

as one should define terms, i add the following re paradigms in particular and aeonics in general as well as a brief definition of the term metamorphosis as referenced above

Paradigm Shifts and Aeonics

All the philosophies, creeds, dogmas and beliefs that humanity has evolved are variants of three great paradigms, the Transcendental, the Materialist and the Magical. In no human culture has any one of these paradigms been completely distinct from the others. For example in our own culture at the time of writing the Transcendental and Magical paradigms are frequently confused together.

Transcendental philosophies are basically religious and manifest in a spectrum stretching from the fringes of primitive spiritism through pagan polytheism to the monotheism of the Judaeo-Christian- Islamic traditions and the theoretical non-theistic systems of Buddhism and Taoism. In each case it is believed that some form of consciousness or spirit created and maintains the universe and that humans, other living organisms, contain some fragment of this consciousness or spirit which underlies the veil or illusion of matter. The essence of Transcendentalism is belief in spiritual beings greater than oneself or states of spiritual being superior to that which currently one enjoys. Earthly life is frequently seen merely as a form of dialogue between oneself and one's deity or deities, or perhaps some impersonal form of higher force. The material world is a theatre for the spirit or soul or consciousness that created it. Spirit is the ultimate reality to the transcendentalist.

In the Materialist paradigm the universe is believed to consist fundamentally and entirely of matter. Energy is but a form of matter and together they subtend space and time within which all change occurs strictly on the basis of cause and effect. Human behaviour is reducible to biology, biology is reducible to chemistry, chemistry is reducible to physics and physics is reducible to mathematics. Mind and consciousness are thus merely electrochemical events in the brain and spirit is a word without objective content. The causes of some events are likely to remain obscure perhaps indefinitely, but there is an underlying faith that sufficient material cause must exist for any event. All human acts can be categorized as serving some biological need or as expressions of previously applied conditioning or merely as malfunction. The goal of materialist who eschews suicide is the pursuit of personal satisfaction including altruistic satisfactions if desired.

The main difficulty in recognizing and describing the pure Magical Paradigm is that of insufficient vocabulary. Magical philosophy is only recently recovering from a heavy adulteration with transcendental theory. The word aether will be used to describe the fundamental reality of the magical paradigm. It is more or less equivalent to the idea of Mana used in oceanic shamanism. Aether in materialistic descriptions is information which structures matter and which all matter is capable of emitting and receiving. In transcendental terms aether is a sort of 'life force' present in some degree in all things. It carries both knowledge about events and the ability to influence similar or sympathetic events. Events either arise spontaneously out of themselves or are encouraged to follow certain paths by influence of patterns in the aether. As all things have an aetheric part they can be considered to be alive in some sense. Thus all things happen by magic, the large scale features of the universe have a very strong aetheric pattern which makes them fairly predictable but difficult to influence by the aetheric patterns created by thought. Magicians see themselves as participating in nature. Transcendentalists like to think they are somehow above it. Materialists like to try and manipulate it.

thus a born again christian operating exclusively from the Transcendentalist paradigm will bring up god, jesus or the devil, irrespective of whether a thread is about politics, the FDA's corruption, or an alien encounter.


ideally, a chaote should operate from a meta-paradigm

Magical paradigm shifting

Perhaps the most striking feature of chaos magic is the concept of the magical paradigm shift. Borrowing a term from philosopher Thomas Samuel Kuhn, Carroll made the technique of arbitrarily changing one's world view (or paradigm) of magic, a major concept of chaos magic.[4] An example of a magical paradigm shift is doing a Lovecraftian rite, followed by using a technique from an Edred Thorsson book in the following ritual. These two magical paradigms are very different, but while the individual is using one, he or she believes in it fully to the extent of ignoring all other (often contradictory) ones.

The shifting of magical paradigms has since found its way into the magical work of practitioners of many other magical traditions, but chaos magic remains the field where it is most developed. Changing belief systems at will is also sometimes practiced by followers of Discordianism.

Some chaos magicians like to operate in what is sometimes called a meta-paradigm. This is much akin to syncretism but with the consideration that flexibility of belief is a means of personal power and freedom. A more or less syncretic reality tunneling. Even more removed from this, being a post-meta-paradigmatic view, or an abstention from the notion of any view being absolute, compare Nietzsche's Perspectivism.
[edit] Belief as a tool

Chaos magic claims that belief can be an active magical force. It emphasizes flexibility of belief and the ability to consciously choose one's beliefs, hoping to apply belief as a tool rather than seeing it as a relatively unchanging part of one's personality.[8] Various psychological techniques are employed in order to induce flexibility of belief.[9] Other chaos magicians suggest that people do not need "belief" to work magic.[10] Austin Osman Spare asserts in the Book of Pleasure and various other works that Will formulates Desire which promulgates Belief.
quoted from: Chaos_magic

*Metamorphosis
The transmutation of the mind to magical consciousness has often been called the Great Work. It has a far-reaching purpose leading eventually to the discovery of the True Will. Even a slight ability to change oneself is more valuable than any power over the external universe. Metamorphosis is an exercise in willed restructuring of the mind.

All attempts to reorganize the mind involve a duality between conditions as they are and the preferred condition. Thus it is impossible to cultivate any virtue like spontaneity, joy, pious,pride, grace, or omnipotence without involving oneself in more conventionality, sorrow, guilt, sin, and impotence in the process. Religions are founded on the fallacy that one can or ought to have one without the other. High magic recognizes the dualistic condition but does not care whether life is bittersweet or sweet and sour; rather it seeks to achieve any arbitrary perceptual perspective at will.

Any state of mind might arbitrarily be chosen as an objective for transmutation, but there is a specific virtue to the ones given.The first is an antidote to the imbalance and possible madness of the magical trance. The second is a specific against obsession with the magical practices in the third section. They are:

1) Laughter/Laughter2) Non-attachment/Non-disinterest. Attaining these states of mind is accomplished by a process of ongoing meditation. One tries to enter into the spirit of the condition whenever possible and to think about the desired result at other times. By this method, a strong new mental habit can be established.

source: Liber Null

Plato's cave comes to mind, as we all grope in the dark, trying to make contact and/or communicate with others.

in that spirit:

gropingly yours,

DerepentLEstranger

reply to post by NorEaster


I am a combination of both......and I think a lot of people are. For me it depends upon what the subject matter is.

Originally posted by NorEaster


So, are you a philosopher or a metaphisicist?

Me, I'm a metaphysicist.

I love your great insightful style of communicating and I can see you have delved deeply in to what one label means over another. Personally I don't need a label to be able to understand where you are coming from, I look for what you are trying to convey. But none the less, I understand there are plenty of people who apparently do need to know what your label is.
To be " honest" with you which is what your insignia points at, you are not really a meta physicist that just what you think you are, to be more exact its more a case of what you enjoy doing.Whats wrong with that? nothing.It like the famous quote " I think therefore I am" the update on that is " I think, therefore I only think I am" there is nothing about knowing! The whole question of what one is very hard to determine, for instance is a writer always a writer? or is that just what apparently is happening in "reality" for a short period of "time"
have a look at the term neti neti, its quiet revealing in itself.
best wishes AT

I am both.
You can't say it's impossible if I exist

life is a gift, therefore there is no other meaning that.

what do most people do with gifts.

why can't you explore both. that's the fun and enjoyment in it.

Just as evolv said, there are multiple branches of philosophy and metaphysics is one of them. You are not one or the other. If you do make the distinction then it's not metaphysics, unless 'metaphysicist' is separate from metaphysics. Perhaps the distinction that is being made is the philosopher versus the mystic?

Originally posted by evolv
There are five main branches of philosophy which include logic (rules for correct thinking/reasoning), aesthetics (what is beauty), epistemology (human knowledge), Ethics (what it means to lead a good life), and Metaphysics which deals with reality (what is). These branches may vary depending on who you ask. Whether or not you choose to study any of these branches, you are still considered a philosopher.

Well, personally, I don't classify myself as either as these. I understand the importance of operating within the realm of proven facts, but I also see the importance of being speculative, operating on a ground of 'what ifs'. Isn't speculation necessary for discovering facts? Only so much can be discovered by interrelating concepts that have already been discovered. Sometimes you gotta make up an idea and see where it leads. That's my philosophy.

Objectivity works with subjectivity in the same way that male works with female. Without objectivity and subjectivity co-existing, there would never be the birth of new knowledge.

reply to post by NorEaster


i have found this topic interesting '' ! i feel that i am every aspect depending on what spoke of life i am in .i am a mutable fire sign so i grow constantly . an i have love 4 mankind . want them to open there mind ,attempting to help .

thank you redbarron626 for this quote

If anyone is interested, there are schools of metaphysics in most major cities. Look one up and visit one of these schools, it could be enlightening.

and redbarron626 i would like to see your post on "What's the history behind your screen names and avatars?,"
i love ur avatar ('')

Originally posted by TerryMcGuire
reply to post by NorEaster

 

Well now you have upset my entire gravy train. Your discourse sent me scurrying to other references from one of which I dragged this.

The word "metaphysics" was first used as the title for several of Aristotle's works, because they were usually anthologized after the works on physics in complete editions. The prefix meta- ("beyond") indicates that these works come "after" the chapters on physics. However, Aristotle himself did not call the subject of these books "Metaphysics": he referred to it as "first philosophy."

The editor of Aristotle's works, Andronicus of Rhodes, is thought to have placed the books on first philosophy right after another work, Physics, and called them "the books that come after the [books on] physics". This was misread by Latin scholiasts, who thought it meant "the science of what is beyond the physical".

However, once the name was given, the commentators sought to find intrinsic reasons for its appropriateness. For instance, it was understood to mean "the science of the world beyond nature (phusis in Greek)," that is, the science of the immaterial. Again, it was understood to refer to the chronological or pedagogical order among our philosophical studies, so that the "metaphysical sciences would mean, those that we study after having mastered the sciences that deal with the physical world" (St. Thomas Aquinas, "In Lib, Boeth. de Trin.", V, 1).

There is a widespread use of the term in current popular literature, which replicates this error, i.e. that metaphysical means spiritual non-physical.

Now I find it difficult to grasp your fuller meanings until I can disassociate from my mistaken understanding of this word and the gaggle of synaptic miss-associations that have grown up around it. Why does it seem I a constantly back to the drawing board?

Metaphysical probably doesn't imply non-physical. Not that some people aren't going to insist that it means whatever the hell they want it to mean. Human beings are the only naturally occurring anything that spits in the eye of logic and the natural flow of what constitutes reality, but then that's the gift that the human being offers to all else that exists.

If I am asking whether one is a philosopher or a metaphysicist, then what I am asking is whether they approach reality as if it is "real" or "an illusion projected by the perception of the individual". Maybe I didn't really explain it very well, but then again, the fact that there will always be posters whose sole pleasure in life is picking apart a very simple and (to be blunt) obvious thread premise without adding a damn thing to the discussion, is why I don't launch too many threads here.

The human race is (essentially) divided up into two kinds of people.

(1) Those who believe that it's important to understand the truth about what's real, and
(2) those who declare that what they already believe or decide to embrace is what's really important.

From there, there are degrees of each that range from obsessive to disinterested to delusional. If you declare yourself "un-labelable" then you've declared a potentially unembraced truth to be situationally unimportant - placing you in the second group by direct implication. The philosopher, traditonally, has never been overly concerned about the extended ramifications of what he/she has embraced as plausible. In fact, some have even struggled to simply propose something novel for the sake of novelty. Certainly not seeking to serve any greater truth than the truth that without an original theory, a philosopher has no career to build upon.

It is obvious that the question was about the position that one has placed him/herself within the larger realm of physical reality. The metaphysicist - relying on the definition that I offered - examines all of the whole of what constitutes physical reality, and if that isn't what a metaphysicist does, then hand me a term that does describe such a person and I'll use that term in my thread. Truth is, if metaphysics is just about New Age circle-jerking then someone needs to invent a term for people who aren't just playing around with convoluted variations and combinations of Eastern Philosophy and pagan rituals.

Or maybe this thread's already given plenty of indication concerning those who've responded. The difference between the two types of people interested in this field is pretty obvious, after all.

Originally posted by smithjustinb
Well, personally, I don't classify myself as either as these. I understand the importance of operating within the realm of proven facts, but I also see the importance of being speculative, operating on a ground of 'what ifs'. Isn't speculation necessary for discovering facts? Only so much can be discovered by interrelating concepts that have already been discovered. Sometimes you gotta make up an idea and see where it leads. That's my philosophy.

Objectivity works with subjectivity in the same way that male works with female. Without objectivity and subjectivity co-existing, there would never be the birth of new knowledge.

Subjectivity is an invention of the human intellect. Nothing else that exists is capable of anything but objective reality.

Of course, you may not agree with this, but if you examine a chair or a rock or a storm cloud, you'll see that there's no capacity for subjectivity within the space that either fills within the whole of physical reality. This may not mean anything to you, or to your philosophy, but to be honest, your view doesn't affect the objective nature of what sits out there just beyond the lens of your eye.

I'd place you deep within the philosopher's camp.

Originally posted by caladonea
reply to post by NorEaster

 

I am a combination of both......and I think a lot of people are. For me it depends upon what the subject matter is.

The subject matter is reality. Fairly broad, but then that's the point. Not everyone is interested in the nature of reality. Those people are neither philosophers or metaphysicists. This question - I guess - was posed to those who are focused on the nature of reality. There are lots of people who have a passing interest in mysterious stuff. Those folks are tourists, and while they're nice and all, they aren't really who I'm addressing here.

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by caladonea
reply to post by NorEaster

 

I am a combination of both......and I think a lot of people are. For me it depends upon what the subject matter is.

The subject matter is reality. Fairly broad, but then that's the point. Not everyone is interested in the nature of reality. Those people are neither philosophers or metaphysicists. This question - I guess - was posed to those who are focused on the nature of reality. There are lots of people who have a passing interest in mysterious stuff. Those folks are tourists, and while they're nice and all, they aren't really who I'm addressing here.

edit on 8/21/2011 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)

Ah...the nature of reality.......my reality may not be your reality....what is true for me may not be true for you..but yet all of it is real and true.

Originally posted by caladonea

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by caladonea
reply to post by NorEaster

 

I am a combination of both......and I think a lot of people are. For me it depends upon what the subject matter is.

The subject matter is reality. Fairly broad, but then that's the point. Not everyone is interested in the nature of reality. Those people are neither philosophers or metaphysicists. This question - I guess - was posed to those who are focused on the nature of reality. There are lots of people who have a passing interest in mysterious stuff. Those folks are tourists, and while they're nice and all, they aren't really who I'm addressing here.

edit on 8/21/2011 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)

Ah...the nature of reality.......my reality may not be your reality....what is true for me may not be true for you..but yet all of it is real and true.

Philosopher.



Thanks for playing.

reply to post by evolv


I'd just like to say that you have saved me the effort of debunking the obvious 'sophistry of this guy's post. In the first case he is guilty of what Philosopher Gilbert Ryle labelled a category mistake. namely creating an 'either/or' position on the subject of philosophy and metaphysics. As you stated there is no polarity of positions here.
You cannot limit a term to a single definition because it happens to suit a particular position. Especially with a broad term like metaphysics. I'm doing my best not to troll anybody here but the simple fact is that his whole post, while sounding impressive to somebody lacking a basic knowledge of philosophy and science, is pseudo-intellectual claptrap ! After the briefest of scans it becomes readily apparent that it doesn't make sense.
I'm new to this website and the first posting I read was the one you answered. This is why I replied to you. It was obvious that you had some grounding in the relevant subjects, certainly enough to see through that twaddle. I consider myself to be a rationalist inasmuch I adhere to Occam's razor i.e. the obvious, simplest answer is usually the right one, and in this case the simple answer is this guy is full of it !

Originally posted by MamaJ
reply to post by NorEaster

 

Loved....I mean....LOVED your thoughts this morning.

It seems as if I am a Meta-Philosopher. I am both.....

I think I use both for reasoning.

Hope everyone has a grrrrreat day today and even better night.

Peace and love to you all!!!! xoxoxox

Jenn

The Truth is an absolute. This causes the boundaries between metaphysics and philosophy to blur. Those on the real sojourn, drenching themselves in the Presence of the Truth will always be cautious against pinning themselves into a pigeon holed label.

What makes the Truth impossible to exchange is everything we output is in a finite format. The Truth is in infinite format. Can't place infinite on a finite microscope slide to hand to someone else for anyone to examine.