>there are people on this board RIGHT NOW who unironically believe in metaphysics
>>8109391
What the fuck do you mean "believe in" metaphysics?
That's a meaningless statement.
>>8109391
No metaphysics = no physics dumbshit.
This is good bait if it's actually bait. I suspect you might genuinely just be some stem undergrad who looked at a wiki article and has the most shallow understanding of metaphysics possible.
>>8109391
Define metaphysics. I guarantee you will get it wrong.
>>8109828
You are dumb as fuck bro, where do you live, retardland I would guess LMAO
>>8109400
Came here to post this
>>8109391
The basic premise of metaphysics is sound.
The only way you could possibly have a total disbelief in metaphysics, is a total belief that our sensory organs (with which we perceive the world and 'reality) are infallible. Ergo, you would therefore belief yourself to have a true and absolute perception of the world as it is.
Any magic act, or experience with alcohol/drugs, will prove you wrong.
>>8109989
savage
>>8110004
>The only way you could possibly have a total disbelief in metaphysics, is a total belief that our sensory organs (with which we perceive the world and 'reality) are infallible. Ergo, you would therefore belief yourself to have a true and absolute perception of the world as it is.
No, that is the very definition of metaphysics -- the idea that there is a real world that exists -- beyond what is constructed from sensory experience -- and that we can have knowledge about.
>>8110042
You seem to have misread that post. What he was saying is if you believe the physical world is all there is and that your sensory organs can perceive it with absolute perfection then some drugs or another perception warping experience would prove your sensory organs to be imperfect.
like, who have faith in metaphysics? they believe in metaphysics like a mom tells her kid she believes in him before the spelling be? Or who believe that metaphysics exists as am abstract concept? Because it objectively does?
>>8110064
Was this even english?
>>8110055
No, I didn't misread the post. Your point about drugs is a point AGAINST the existence of metaphysics. It suggests we have no access to the noumenal realm.
>>8110106
Theres plenty of people who say they've experienced a transcended form of being and thinking while on drugs. Metaphysical experiences are sort of proof of the metaphysical. A world exists outside of our physical world which we can access freely but drugs which take us away from the physical help us in doing this.
>muh story plebs bashing non fiction
>mfw
>>8110122
What do you mean by world, and how is it distinguishable from delusion or hypnosis?
>>8110004
>a true and absolute perception of the world as it is
Are those two adjectives necessarily coimplied?
>>8110122
You have no idea what you're talking about. None of that rubbish has anything to do with metaphysics.
>>8110147
In the physical world we have everything that can be touched and things that can be measured, physics. In the metaphysical world we have things that can't be touched or measured, ideas, delusions, beliefs, gods, hypnosis, being, knowing, the concept of time, the concept of space, etc. We know these things exist because if we alter our physical perceptions we are still able to perceive the metaphysical world. Just because someone is high off their ass doesn't magically remove their ability to be or form concepts. You can create ideas which have no form in the physical world, Ideas and concepts exist in the metaphysical. Our sensory organs absorb the physical world, while our brain, our thinking, and our ability to know that we exist absorbs the metaphysical.
>>8110042
>No, that is the very definition of metaphysics -- the idea that there is a real world that exists -- beyond what is constructed from sensory experience -- and that we can have knowledge about.
No, metaphysics is about the POSSIBILITY that there is a real world that exists. The whole idea of noumenon/Thing-in-itself has been contentious as fuck, for example; with the likes of Schopenhauer having gotten into a lot of philosophical trouble for proposing/defending it.
The questions surrounding it are to the effect of, why do we not assume everything is noumenon? If our senses are fallible, how could we recognize noumenon, and distinguish it from phenomenon? If we cannot, then what is the point of the distinction? Does (or can) our consciousness (and general mental faculties) exist independently of our senses? And if not, given that our senses are fallible, does it not follow that our consciousness (and general mental faculties) are fallible to? And if so, can we even ask these questions and propose these things?
>>8110106
>It suggests we have no access to the noumenal realm.
There are no grounds for saying so. We have no way of knowing if such experiences are merely a variation on phenomenon, or in fact the phenomenon.
Hypothetically, for example, our sober perception of the would might simply be an experience of phenomenon; whilst the way we perceive the world in an intoxicated state, may in fact be the experience of noumenon.
We arguably have no objective grounds/definition/basis on which to distinguish between noumenon and phenomenon; and so trashing metaphysics from the outset is a perfectly sound course of action.
Nonetheless, its arguments are logically sound and so the alternative (to consider them) is sound as well.
>>8110171
Metaphysics is about thinking, being, knowing, the things that cant be given physical form. You cheeky cunt.
example: Souls, Concepts, Ideas
>>8109391
You can't escape metaphysics. Naive realism and materialism require the same metaphysical leap of faith as any other view. Darwinism, for example, is often unwittingly raised to the level of metaphysics and religion by people who think they are being fully rational and objective
>>8110175
*in fact the noumenon
>>8109391
>believe in metahpysics
What did he mean by this?
>>8110175
>Hypothetically, for example, our sober perception of the would might simply be an experience of phenomenon; whilst the way we perceive the world in an intoxicated state, may in fact be the experience of noumenon.
That's trippy, but I guess it's true.
We take the 'sober state of mind' for granted; as if the way in which we experience things within it is the true/clear/real one, a priori.
I like the thought of seeing things as they really are when I'm off my face.
>>8110195
>Shitposting
If you'd read Kant, you'd know his argument revolves around sensory perception.
>>8110179
No, just no. Those things have nothing at all to do with metaphysics. Stop talking out your ass, pseud.
>>8109391
no metaphysics = solipsism retard
>>8110203
>calls someone a pseud
>is a pseud
Topics of Metaphysics:
1) The nature of space, time, and spacetime
2) The nature of causation and physical law
3) The nature of substance and ontology
4) The nature of material constitution and composition
5) The nature of modality (necessity and possibility)
6) The nature of properties (universals and tropes)
7) The nature of abstract objects (numbers and structures)
Not Topics of Metaphysics:
1) Whoah dude, I just took some mescaline and like, maybe physics is all a dream
I don't believe in metaphysics or philosophy, it's all superstition and u falsifiable sophistry. science and rationality for the win!
>>8110236
>being part of an institution devolving into irrationality even as we speak
>>8110230
>nature
>>8110203
It is always a pointer someone is an idiot without any knowing of the given subject if he is unable to point to the direction which it is, when claiming that something isn´t
>>8110252
What?
>>8110230
>maybe physics is all a dream
>maybe
I believe in metaphysics, prove me wrong OP
>>8109391
you don't have to worry OP, everything we do is ironic
>>8110230
I don't believe in any of those. take it elsewhere
>>8110284
Yeah you do.
Some recommended works of metaphysics:
D.M. Armstrong - 'A Theory of Universals: Volume 2: Universals and Scientific Realism' (1978)
D.M. Armstrong - 'What Is a Law of Nature?' (1983)
David K. Lewis - 'Philosophical Papers, Volume I' (1983)
David K. Lewis - 'Papers in Metaphysics and Epistemology' (1999)
James Ladyman - 'Every Thing Must Go: Metaphysics Naturalized' (2007)
John Earman - 'World Enough and Space-Time: Absolute vs. Relational Theories of Space and Time' (1989)
Peter van Inwagen - 'Ontology, Identity, and Modality: Essays in Metaphysics' (2001)
Steven French - 'The Structure of the World: Metaphysics and Representation' (2014)
Sydney Shoemaker - 'Identity, Cause, And Mind: Philosophical Essays' (1984)
Theodore Sider - 'Four-Dimensionalism: An Ontology of Persistence and Time' (2001)
Theodore Sider - 'Writing the Book of the World' (2011)
Tim Maudlin - 'The Metaphysics Within Physics' (2007)
>>8110293
Hey, you missed out my diary.
>>8110290
>muh nature of reality
take your hocus pocus elsewhere m9
>>8110309
The word "elsewhere" presupposes the existence of space, asshat.
You materialist fags realize that believing the sun will rise tomorrow depends on a metaphysics of a consistent, orderly universe. Metaphysical beliefs are unavoidable
>>8110369
Materialism is a metaphysical thesis, anon. Any attempt to characterize the most basic categories of being is by definition metaphysics.
>>8110293
>no schopenhauer
>>8110386
>Any attempt to characterize the most basic categories of being is by definition metaphysics
I'd go further and say that even conceiveing categories of being is metaphysics.
>>8110411
For the same reason you won't see Michael Faraday books on your Physics syllabus. Doesn't mean he didn't advance the ball in his own time.
>>8110251
Spooks are metaphysics
>>8110122
>dude what if like it's like possible we can sense another world with our unreliable senses if we just take drugs maaannn
there are people right now who don't believe an assortment of ideas
>>8111973
Where is reading? Show me reading
>>8112045
>hurr reading is anything more than taking in sensory data
>>8112201
Where is it?
>>8112201
Where is logic?
>>8112282
Yeah that's almost the definition of metaphysics. Structure that is not physical.
>>8112286
and that structure does not exist, asking where something is when it is nowhere doesn't change that
>>8112292
Then wtf is Logic. Logic is a real non physical structure. What do you call something like that? You just choose not to have a word for it?
>>8112292
>structure isn't manifested as physical entity
>therefore doesn't exist
wew
>>8112253
It's up your ass.
>>8112286
Your head is a physical object, dumbfuck.
>>8112340
Then crack it open and show me logic
>>8112286
No, you're confused. If it is physical, then it belongs to the realm of metaphysics.
>>8112344
I'm not sure we'd find much logic going on inside your skull, actually.
>>8112346
That's not true. Not by Greek definition
>>8112351
We believe in nothing libowsky
>I can think of it
>therefore it is real
Metaphysics.
