It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by entelechy
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 NorEaster
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.
Originally posted by smithjustinb
Originally posted by NorEaster
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.
Subjectivity is an invention of the human intellect? Seriously? You mean we're the only ones that have an imagination? Prove it.
Personally, I'm going to have to strongly disagree. To deny all other living beings of being capable of some degree of subjective reality is an error. I will venture out to say that the more complexly intelligent a being gets, their degree of subjective experience also increases, but due to the being's capacity for knowing the outside world, so too does their objective viewpoint also increase.
Think about dreams. Our brain takes objective memories and introduces them to subjective imagination in an objective kind of way so that usually, you aren't dreaming about something that is outside the realm of possibility or probability in the objective world, but it is still something that you are just imagining. I think this is a testament to the balanced nature of subjective and objective experiencing for any individual being. If your brain is tainted, I believe you would have a wild subjective imagination, and I also believe that the way you perceive the external world would be erroneous. If your brain is healthy and in good shape, then you will imagine possible objective realities subjectively and be able to bring that internal subjective imagining out into the external objective world. That is a brain that thinks in balance.
Or perhaps I'm off. Maybe, like in a dream when you have objective memories mixed with subjective imagination to bring about a probable objective experience experienced subjectively, you also have, in the objective world, subjective imagination mixed with objective probabilities to bring about a possible subjective experience experienced objectively.edit on 21-8-2011 by smithjustinb because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by davidgrouchy
A philosopher would say objects fall because they want to.
A metaphysicist would say objects fall for the same reason that planets orbit.
"So, are you a philosopher or a metaphisicist?"
So, I guess it'd be a good thing if a person could take a moment and get to know where they line up in this sense of what they bring to the table here. So, are you a philosopher or a metaphisicist?
And what would you have suggested to describe the kind of seeker who doesn't impose his/her own version of reality upon all that he/she views?
Perhaps I am a metaphisicist in training to become a philosopher.
Originally posted by underspace
reply to post by Netties Hermit
No worries about being too critical in thought of this. I don't want to exhaust myself either. Didn't mean it directly to you, it just seemed in this thread not many knew that metaphysics had its origin in philosophy. But I agree in the 'nowadays' there is a distinction to be made between thinking metaphysically and other mainstream flavors. Hell, even neuroscience renders psychology pseudoscience in some regards (should it?). The more empirical we become with our approach the more we distance ourselves with the subjective experience of things like intuition, dreams....consciousness itself. Questioning reality. That's what metaphysics is about, then and nowedit on 31-8-2011 by underspace because: (no reason given)