>metaphysics is dead
When will this shit meme end?
when people stop jerking it to ethics
When we dispel the false notion of it being alive in the first place.
>>915951
>When will this shit meme end?
It's been dead for 50 fucking years.
>>916018
Only if you read continentals
>>916021
I wouldn't say it's dead. It's just become more interegrated into real world concepts rather than meaningless drivel. Will to Power is metaphysics but it can also be discussed just easily as a psychological fact or a social force.
What's dead is pie-in-the-sky metaphysics.
What's the analytic side of metaphysics look like anyway? Aren't they still going with crazy ideas like multiple worlds, proving the existence of God?
>>916007
This.
No-one can know the thing-in-itself, and there's really no point in saying anything beyond that.
>>916047
Analytic metaphysics has been alive and thriving for decades now. The metaphysics of modality is a part of it sure, but time, mind, identity, abstract objects, etc. also has a vast analytic literature devoted to it. In the end it's hilariously ironic how people will tell you continentals saved philosophy from the grasp of logical positivism when really it's just the opposite. Nietzsche, for one, did criticize traditional metaphysics. Analytic philo these days has a much more specialized focus on metaphysics and epistemology, while continentals like to pontificate about ethics and politics and useless garbage
>>916062
I can though.
>>916018
>being this much of a pleb
Like dude. What if you could like seperate the essence of the wetness of water from the substance of water!
Metaphysical is like totally not alchemy!
>>916047
>Aren't they still going with crazy ideas like multiple worlds, proving the existence of God?
Yes! Yes they are!
Don't forget identity and Thesius' ship though!
>>916064
>while continentals like to pontificate about ethics and politics and useless garbage
Is the existential movement and absurdism dead then?
>>916523
>he thinks alchemy wasn't a symbolic language referring to things of the spirit
plebbbbb
>>916631
What next? Philosopher Stone was a Jesus?
What actually is metaphysics? I usually hear it when people talk about ancient philosophers and always assumed it was something like alchemy or astrology.
Metaphysics that isn't informed by the last century of science is dead.
>>916661
So, like atoms and shit? Isn't that more in the realm of science?
>>916678
No. Not fundamental particles. Fundamental principles. "What grounds what"
>>916678
It's meta about physics.
Part of the reason metaphysics sucks so much dick today is that there are rarely people that know both advanced physics and philosophy, while when metaphysics was originally conceived they were taught along side.
To give an example of metaphysics look at the Ship of Theseus puzzle. Heraclitus and Aristotle each give a different answer. Now consider that since at the atomic level the ship of Theseus is happening non-stop. The puzzle cannot be solved by science, science can only describe the puzzle.
>>916763
This is the problem with analytical philosophy and identity
Identity doesn't fucking exist
It's a blanket term that we use in language to talk about things simply
>>916792
nice opinion
>>916643
My understanding is that it's the study of our perceptions; our ability to actually grasp the external world.
>>916792
> This is the problem with analytic philosophy and identity
> Describes a position argued for at length with some actual rigor by analytic philosophers.
>>916763
Eh not really. Physics is a certain form of mathematical abstraction about what is quantifiable, metaphysics is about touching upon what grounds what/what is foundational/ what it would mean to be foundational, it is about "being qua being" rather than "being qua quantifiable being". In some cases, like the metaphysics of "natural laws" knowing physics is required, but in some cases it just isn't that important to know physics to do metaphysics.
>>916801
Considering metaphysicians spends all day arguing about what it is and how it can persist without showing any empirical proof behind that line of reasoning, I'd say it was pretty much confirmed fact
>>916823
>Describes a position argued for at length with some actual rigor by analytic philosophers.
Yeah, I knew someone would trip me up for that
I'm the same with morality
>>916830
What would constitute for you acceptable empirical evidence for the existence of identity? Do you not have one?
>>916830
>empirical proof
>>916838
Show something specific that could not be explained without objective identity.
Before you jump to stating that my opinions are proof of my collective identity, consider a computer with an algorithm that could churn out responses to certain inputs
Considering such a device could be made without electronics even, I'd say this didn't count as objective identity (though again, it'd be useful to refer to it as a particular thing to save time)
Also consider that time is completely necessary concept to talk about in relation to identity, as you can't have identity without persistence conditions. But since time has basically been proven relative at this point, that would imply persistence conditions were relative leading to identity being relative
And identity being relative is the same as it not existing
>>916859
If you could prove a system of logic, I'd let you use that
>>916866
>>>identity being relative is the same as it not existing
>>916892
Well that's more because I don't have time to write an entire paper on 4chan
But the difference is arbitrary
>>916866
I don't know what you're trying to say here. Identity is identity. It's a way to describe things, absolutely, but it refers to a property of objects. They are individual existing things.
>time has basically been proven relative at this point
No, it hasn't been.
>>916907
>but it refers to a property of objects. They are individual existing things
That's what I take issue with.
So take Thesius' ship, the question revolves around which ship can be said to be Thesius' ship (I know there are several questions, this is the one I'm choosing to focus on) - the reconstruction of the old parts or the new parts replaced
And there are several solutions, most of which seem fundamentally flawed. But it all revolves around persistence conditions, how much change can an object go through before it changes identity?
Okay, cool
But if we say the identity is nothing more than a label, then this becomes an irrelevant question.
Both ships are Thesius' ship depending on who's asking and context.
But if the question is 'which ship is literally the ship that Thesius owned and sailed?" then, aside from a presupposition failure which I'll get to, neither one is since the atoms have changed.
But it would be ridiculous to say that as soon as an object no longer 100% resembles how it was, we can no longer call it the same thing. And this is because that "thing" is a construct we invent to talk about the world.
The presupposition failure is assuming that Thesius had one ship in the first place, when he simply sailed on ever-changing combinations of wood.
But the ship never has a consistent property of being a particular ship. The ship might have different properties than the wood would have by itself. But because these properties are not permanent or even well-defined, it can't be said that they enforce a collective identity
>>916830
meta-physics is beyond emperisism. After philosophy figured out that certain things can and cannot be emperical it created the scientific method to deal with empirical matters, leaving them more time to deal with the other matters.
The scientific method itself isn't empirically founded but is supported by non-empirical philosophy. Essentially the grand heierachy of thought
philosophy>empiricism>scientific method. This is the case because each one is dependent on the other.
>>916838
And just asking the question already shows the problem of positivism. The problem of identity presumes the existence of identity. Since empiricism cannot be empirically shown to be true any attempt to restrict thinking to an entirely positivist stance results in a paradox. This is basically the giant fail that is positivism.
>>916866
>Also consider that time is completely necessary concept to talk about in relation to identity, as you can't have identity without persistence conditions. But since time has basically been proven relative at this point, that would imply persistence conditions were relative leading to identity being relative
This is as absurd as saying a car stops being a car when it moves faster or slower.
>And identity being relative is the same as it not existing
what?
Not the guy you were responding to.
You also have empirical evidence you are conscious, have free will, and have no reason to deny that unless you are actually a p-zombie. You seem to be the type of person
protip: just because an action is determined ahead of time and can be predicted does not mean there was no free will involved. Compatiblism is the best will model. Iin fact, if choices aren't predetermined and able to be predicted, free will is less likely.
Here is a formal proof to counter your retarded opinions about empiricism. Do you want some kind of "Identity particle?"
Qualia don't have any physical evidence but clearly exist. Our observations tell us this. To deny this, is to deny all observations of the world. There is no evidence suggestion qualia dont exist, and the fact you can percieve these leters is proof they do. Even if qualia are caused by neurons firing there is nothing in studying those neurons that actually explain what seeing green is like.
Why can't identity be like qualia?
>>916907
>>time has basically been proven relative at this point
>No, it hasn't been.
He hasn't realized physics itself is relative!
He hasn't realized everything is fucking relative!
The path up the hill and the path down are one in the same bro!
>>916999
Trips confirm Herodotus as the one true philosopher
>>916990
>This is as absurd as saying a car stops being a car when it moves faster or slower.
I don't say that because I say the car never existed in the first place as anything more than a perception
The person who believes in identity would have to explain this though as clearly the car has different properties when it'sin motion (and I swear to god... if someone mentions temporal parts - inconsistent fucknuggets that let us say that a tree on tuesday is the same thing as a dog on wednesday)
>Qualia don't have any physical evidence but clearly exist. Our observations tell us this.
Qualia doesn't exist bro
It's a meme to make us think we're special
>>917015
What suggests Qualia don't exist?
If you are going to deny your own perceptions, which certainly suggest some kind of elusive property such as qualia, then how can you trust any of your other perceptions that your empirical method so depends on?
Are you a P-Zombie?
>>917033
>What suggests Qualia don't exist?
Qualia as a specific feeling that can only be attained through experience doesn't exist
It would be impossible to distinguish between false memories and real memories
