How Important is Metaphysics as a Foundation for Philosophy and Ethics?

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"). Those kind of questions can be asked in the off-topic section.
snt
Posts: 110
Joined: June 2nd, 2022, 4:43 am

Re: How Important is Metaphysics as a Foundation for Philosophy and Ethics?

Post by snt »

Pattern-chaser wrote: June 16th, 2022, 11:26 am
snt wrote: June 16th, 2022, 11:15 am Ethical rules and politics are empirical in nature...
No, I don't think they are. Ethical rules and politics are abstract, not empirical. They are human social creations, although their application might well have empirically-detectable consequences.
Empirical adjective - Relying on or derived from observation or experiment; Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment; Guided by practical experience and not theory (especially in medicine).
A previously cited citation of 🕮 Immanuel Kant would be applicable again (I know that you are against such citations, but it shows that human motives are considered to belong to empirical reality).

"We cannot too much or too often repeat our warning against this lax and even mean habit of thought which seeks for its principle amongst empirical motives and laws; for human reason in its weariness is glad to rest on this pillow, and in a dream of sweet illusions (in which, instead of Juno, it embraces a cloud) it [empirical] substitutes for morality a bastard patched up from limbs of various derivation, which looks like anything one chooses to see in it, only not like virtue to one who has once beheld her in her true form."

When it concerns the creation of ethical rules or politics, the origin of the creation process may well involve a magical moral compass or Kant's metaphysical Categorical Imperative (CI), but that would not matter. The ethical rules and politics is of a form that can be written down in books and is therefore empirical.

Pattern-chaser wrote: June 16th, 2022, 11:28 am
snt wrote: June 16th, 2022, 11:15 am The discovery of good is what morality is ultimately all about.
I have always thought that morality referred to how each one of us treats others. Other humans, and probably other living things too.
That would be human morality. The answering of the question from the perspective of the human, which has interests, but who also has a unique humanly relation with its outer world.
User avatar
3017Metaphysician
Posts: 1621
Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am

Re: How Important is Metaphysics as a Foundation for Philosophy and Ethics?

Post by 3017Metaphysician »

JackDaydream wrote: June 16th, 2022, 11:57 am
3017Metaphysician wrote: June 16th, 2022, 10:15 am
JackDaydream wrote: June 14th, 2022, 7:29 pm I have been thinking about this after reading an essay by Iris Murdoch, 'A House of Theory', in the volume of her writings, 'Existentialists and Mystics: Writings on Philosophy and Literature'(1997). She describes a void and a need for 'A House of Theory' as there has been an increasing tendency towards an 'elimination of metaphysics'. A key passage from the essay which I wish to offer as a source for thought and contemplation is as follows,
'In the past philosophers have invented concepts expressive of moral belief and presented them as if they are were facts concerning the nature of the mind or of the world. Philosophy since Hume has, in opposing dogmatic rationalist metaphysics in general, been critical of this tendency, but in varying ways. Briefly, criticism of metaphysics may proceed along Humian, Kantian, or Hegelian lines. Hume, who wished to maintain as rigorously as possible that we know only what our senses tell us, denied the existence of moral "facts" or "realities", analysed moral concepts into non-rational feelings and imaginative habits, and was prepared to let basic empirical empirical concepts suffer the same fate.
Kant, anxious to defend both the reality of our empirical knowledge and the dignity of our moral imagination into "categories", or fixed formal modes of apprehension which if directed upon empirical data would yield knowledge'.

What I find significant is the way in which Murdoch sees Kant, Hume and Hegel as so important in a move towards the empirical, which is much greater in the twentieth first century. It seems rather paradoxical that the writers she sees as important as eliminating former metaphysics have almost been rejected for being too metaphysical. Of course, there has been Wittgenstein's critique of the limits of language in understanding, as well as the movement of logical positivism. In addition, there has been the postmodern movement, with its deconstruction of language and meanings.

So, my purpose is to consider what is the importance of metaphysics in philosophy of the present time. I am aware that there is the underlying question of what is metaphysics, and that there was a thread on that topic previously. So, I will give a working definition from Donald Palmer's 'Looking at Philosophy: The Unbearable Heaviness of Philosophy Made Lighter'. He defines metaphysics as, 'The branch of philosophy that attempts to construct a general, speculative worldview; a complete, systematic account of all reality and experience, usually involving an epistemology, an ontology, an ethics and an aesthetics.

It may be that speculation is queried by some, but even with science there is a need for thinking conceptually to formulate hypotheses and to interpret the findings. However, metaphysics as a way of constructing a worldview may be central to all else, including ideas about morality and politics. So, how useful is a basic metaphysics for thinking about how we live, and as a foundation for values and ethics?
Hello Jack!

Hume, ironically enough, recognized the metaphysic's of conscious existence. In his Treatise of Human Nature, he woefully conceded to the metaphysic's of the Will (and related human sentient desires) hence:

Hume held that passions rather than reason govern human behaviour, famously proclaiming that "Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions."[12][14] Hume was also a sentimentalist who held that ethics are based on emotion or sentiment rather than abstract moral principle.

One could then interprete that as him being a Voluntarist. For example, in cognitive science:

Voluntaristic theories of psychology represent men primarily as beings who will certain ends and whose reason and intelligence are subordinate to will. The outstanding classical representatives are Thomas Hobbes, David Hume, and Arthur Schopenhauer.

And so, he's suggesting the Will takes primacy over reason. He recognized that particular piece of the existential human condition. My personal view is that it is an illogical mix of both (logic and will) but I agree it's more Will than logic. And that's primarily due to choice and the intrinsic need for happiness and purpose. The Will to be, is something beyond mere instinct to live. Our volition allows us to live, or not live. Quality (Qualia) of life matters.

Metaphysic's seem to matter after all... LOL
The relationship of Will and human nature to metaphysics is an important area. I do have a copy of Hume's Treatise on Human Nature, which I have been meaning to read for some while, so I will try to have a read of that later today and see how that fits into this thread topic.

Regarding Schopenhauer it is hard to know where he stands as a metaphysician. He brought Kant's ideas down to human experiences. I was reading of his ideas recently in Alasdair MacIntyre's 'A Short History of Ethics', in which he interprets Schopenhauer in the following way,
'The world is the expression of blind striving or Will. We know our own inner nature as Will in direct experience; thought is but one of the outward forms or direct disguises taken by Will. Life is blind, cruel and meaningless; but we cling to life through extremes of pain and suffering. The natural world bears witness to the continuous reproduction of the species, and the continuous destruction of the individual. The forms remain the same; the individuals who exemplify them continually perish. (In this we get a hint of Schopenhauer's relation to Plato and Kant.) Thus experience testifies to the way in which the world is pervaded by pain and destruction, while religion and philosophy try to construct justifications for the universe which will show that pain and destruction have not the last word, and in so doing, they testify to the force of Cosmic Will, which has its aim the continuing existence of this desire for for continued existence.'

It seems as if the Schopenhauer's picture of reality, or Will, is far more in line with what Darwin describes as ' the survival as the fittest', with its emphasis on the fight for survival in it's most grim form. Of course, Schopenhauer is recognised as having a pessimistic approach. It probably does involve a choice about volition and a will to live, which has both a conscious and subconscious aspect, as well as the gravitation towards happiness.

It may connect to Freud's understanding of the Eros and Thanatos, and how this works as an energy force beyond the individual psyche. It is hard to work out to what extent we act or are acted upon by external forces, especially in relation to the concepts of good and evil, which were traditionally seen as metaphysical forces but more commonly seen as human constructs. This probably applies to all the opposites, and gets back to the issue of qualia, with the question of how experiences tie up with the nature of reality as experienced by conscious beings. Many discussions of consciousnes focus on the nature of neuroscience and the physical technicalities, but where science, including physics, is not able to explain fully, it may bring back some of the gaps and the basic questions of metaphysics as ones which still prevail.
Good analysis Jack. I'll only quickly add that Schop brought metaphysical phenomena (the Will) not only down to existential finitude, but the upside were his views on a kind of "Cosmic Will" which you suggested. Meaning, in that sense, one can easily analogize (to biology) to genetically coded emergent properties that were designed to propagate and are endowed with a limbic system that feels emotion.

In the alternative, we can analogize once again to...'that which breath's fire into the equations' ala Hawking. The Will, seems to be inferred as the informational energy logically necessary bringing those equation's to life (inert matter to animate matter). As Paul Davies admits, science doesn't have a clue on how to incorporate those qualities (Qualia) of consciousness into the equation's .
“Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter.” "Spooky Action at a Distance"
― Albert Einstein
User avatar
JackDaydream
Posts: 3220
Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm

Re: How Important is Metaphysics as a Foundation for Philosophy and Ethics?

Post by JackDaydream »

3017Metaphysician wrote: June 16th, 2022, 1:17 pm
JackDaydream wrote: June 16th, 2022, 11:57 am
3017Metaphysician wrote: June 16th, 2022, 10:15 am
JackDaydream wrote: June 14th, 2022, 7:29 pm I have been thinking about this after reading an essay by Iris Murdoch, 'A House of Theory', in the volume of her writings, 'Existentialists and Mystics: Writings on Philosophy and Literature'(1997). She describes a void and a need for 'A House of Theory' as there has been an increasing tendency towards an 'elimination of metaphysics'. A key passage from the essay which I wish to offer as a source for thought and contemplation is as follows,
'In the past philosophers have invented concepts expressive of moral belief and presented them as if they are were facts concerning the nature of the mind or of the world. Philosophy since Hume has, in opposing dogmatic rationalist metaphysics in general, been critical of this tendency, but in varying ways. Briefly, criticism of metaphysics may proceed along Humian, Kantian, or Hegelian lines. Hume, who wished to maintain as rigorously as possible that we know only what our senses tell us, denied the existence of moral "facts" or "realities", analysed moral concepts into non-rational feelings and imaginative habits, and was prepared to let basic empirical empirical concepts suffer the same fate.
Kant, anxious to defend both the reality of our empirical knowledge and the dignity of our moral imagination into "categories", or fixed formal modes of apprehension which if directed upon empirical data would yield knowledge'.

What I find significant is the way in which Murdoch sees Kant, Hume and Hegel as so important in a move towards the empirical, which is much greater in the twentieth first century. It seems rather paradoxical that the writers she sees as important as eliminating former metaphysics have almost been rejected for being too metaphysical. Of course, there has been Wittgenstein's critique of the limits of language in understanding, as well as the movement of logical positivism. In addition, there has been the postmodern movement, with its deconstruction of language and meanings.

So, my purpose is to consider what is the importance of metaphysics in philosophy of the present time. I am aware that there is the underlying question of what is metaphysics, and that there was a thread on that topic previously. So, I will give a working definition from Donald Palmer's 'Looking at Philosophy: The Unbearable Heaviness of Philosophy Made Lighter'. He defines metaphysics as, 'The branch of philosophy that attempts to construct a general, speculative worldview; a complete, systematic account of all reality and experience, usually involving an epistemology, an ontology, an ethics and an aesthetics.

It may be that speculation is queried by some, but even with science there is a need for thinking conceptually to formulate hypotheses and to interpret the findings. However, metaphysics as a way of constructing a worldview may be central to all else, including ideas about morality and politics. So, how useful is a basic metaphysics for thinking about how we live, and as a foundation for values and ethics?
Hello Jack!

Hume, ironically enough, recognized the metaphysic's of conscious existence. In his Treatise of Human Nature, he woefully conceded to the metaphysic's of the Will (and related human sentient desires) hence:

Hume held that passions rather than reason govern human behaviour, famously proclaiming that "Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions."[12][14] Hume was also a sentimentalist who held that ethics are based on emotion or sentiment rather than abstract moral principle.

One could then interprete that as him being a Voluntarist. For example, in cognitive science:

Voluntaristic theories of psychology represent men primarily as beings who will certain ends and whose reason and intelligence are subordinate to will. The outstanding classical representatives are Thomas Hobbes, David Hume, and Arthur Schopenhauer.

And so, he's suggesting the Will takes primacy over reason. He recognized that particular piece of the existential human condition. My personal view is that it is an illogical mix of both (logic and will) but I agree it's more Will than logic. And that's primarily due to choice and the intrinsic need for happiness and purpose. The Will to be, is something beyond mere instinct to live. Our volition allows us to live, or not live. Quality (Qualia) of life matters.

Metaphysic's seem to matter after all... LOL
The relationship of Will and human nature to metaphysics is an important area. I do have a copy of Hume's Treatise on Human Nature, which I have been meaning to read for some while, so I will try to have a read of that later today and see how that fits into this thread topic.

Regarding Schopenhauer it is hard to know where he stands as a metaphysician. He brought Kant's ideas down to human experiences. I was reading of his ideas recently in Alasdair MacIntyre's 'A Short History of Ethics', in which he interprets Schopenhauer in the following way,
'The world is the expression of blind striving or Will. We know our own inner nature as Will in direct experience; thought is but one of the outward forms or direct disguises taken by Will. Life is blind, cruel and meaningless; but we cling to life through extremes of pain and suffering. The natural world bears witness to the continuous reproduction of the species, and the continuous destruction of the individual. The forms remain the same; the individuals who exemplify them continually perish. (In this we get a hint of Schopenhauer's relation to Plato and Kant.) Thus experience testifies to the way in which the world is pervaded by pain and destruction, while religion and philosophy try to construct justifications for the universe which will show that pain and destruction have not the last word, and in so doing, they testify to the force of Cosmic Will, which has its aim the continuing existence of this desire for for continued existence.'

It seems as if the Schopenhauer's picture of reality, or Will, is far more in line with what Darwin describes as ' the survival as the fittest', with its emphasis on the fight for survival in it's most grim form. Of course, Schopenhauer is recognised as having a pessimistic approach. It probably does involve a choice about volition and a will to live, which has both a conscious and subconscious aspect, as well as the gravitation towards happiness.

It may connect to Freud's understanding of the Eros and Thanatos, and how this works as an energy force beyond the individual psyche. It is hard to work out to what extent we act or are acted upon by external forces, especially in relation to the concepts of good and evil, which were traditionally seen as metaphysical forces but more commonly seen as human constructs. This probably applies to all the opposites, and gets back to the issue of qualia, with the question of how experiences tie up with the nature of reality as experienced by conscious beings. Many discussions of consciousnes focus on the nature of neuroscience and the physical technicalities, but where science, including physics, is not able to explain fully, it may bring back some of the gaps and the basic questions of metaphysics as ones which still prevail.
Good analysis Jack. I'll only quickly add that Schop brought metaphysical phenomena (the Will) not only down to existential finitude, but the upside were his views on a kind of "Cosmic Will" which you suggested. Meaning, in that sense, one can easily analogize (to biology) to genetically coded emergent properties that were designed to propagate and are endowed with a limbic system that feels emotion.

In the alternative, we can analogize once again to...'that which breath's fire into the equations' ala Hawking. The Will, seems to be inferred as the informational energy logically necessary bringing those equation's to life (inert matter to animate matter). As Paul Davies admits, science doesn't have a clue on how to incorporate those qualities (Qualia) of consciousness into the equation's .
The idea of Schopenhauer turning metaphysics 'upside down' is very important because it does seem that many philosophers had previously seen it as more of a relationship which came from 'above', as an external source. The idea of imminence as opposed to transcendence seems critical here. This applied to the idea of God in particular. The idea of internal processes in relation to external is essential, and while many philosophers had gone too far in seeing reality as being connected to metaphysics which could be known to the mind, through intuition or reason primarily, some of the thinking of the present time may have gone too far in attention to the external through the empirical sciences. However, some of the physicists do recognise as an essential link between mind and matter at the quantum level.

In connection with this the metaphysical emphasis on the soul vs the emphasis on the self may be important too, especially in relation to the link between metaphysics and ethics. The idea of the 'soul' was often linked to a belief in the source of knowledge within, whereas the present day thinking about the self is more focused upon the basis for ethics being based on the facts and situation factors. It may be that the two need to be combined because the inner and outer may have parallel aspects.

The upside down model may focus ethics on consequences, as opposed to the idea of inner virtue and even though Kant did have an emphasis on a priori reason as a starting point for morality it did have human values as the central aspect. This was in his emphasis on people being treated as ends rather than means. Also, the idea of the categorical imperative was about universalisation which did incorporate a consideration of the outer effects of morality.

One other aspect which may be important is the metaphysical link which some writers may see between aesthetics and goodness. However, this could lead to a certain kind of romanticism, in which the nitty gritty aspects of working out ethics in the world may become simplified too much. The idea of the 'good' may be an important starting point, but there are so many grey areas of life which make binary thinking ot black and white thinking inadequate in many situations to deal with the complexity of human life and, especially the idea of self and others. Here, may be where the tension between egoism and altruism come into play in everyday social, cultural and political affairs.
User avatar
3017Metaphysician
Posts: 1621
Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am

Re: How Important is Metaphysics as a Foundation for Philosophy and Ethics?

Post by 3017Metaphysician »

JackDaydream wrote: June 16th, 2022, 2:13 pm
3017Metaphysician wrote: June 16th, 2022, 1:17 pm
JackDaydream wrote: June 16th, 2022, 11:57 am
3017Metaphysician wrote: June 16th, 2022, 10:15 am

Hello Jack!

Hume, ironically enough, recognized the metaphysic's of conscious existence. In his Treatise of Human Nature, he woefully conceded to the metaphysic's of the Will (and related human sentient desires) hence:

Hume held that passions rather than reason govern human behaviour, famously proclaiming that "Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions."[12][14] Hume was also a sentimentalist who held that ethics are based on emotion or sentiment rather than abstract moral principle.

One could then interprete that as him being a Voluntarist. For example, in cognitive science:

Voluntaristic theories of psychology represent men primarily as beings who will certain ends and whose reason and intelligence are subordinate to will. The outstanding classical representatives are Thomas Hobbes, David Hume, and Arthur Schopenhauer.

And so, he's suggesting the Will takes primacy over reason. He recognized that particular piece of the existential human condition. My personal view is that it is an illogical mix of both (logic and will) but I agree it's more Will than logic. And that's primarily due to choice and the intrinsic need for happiness and purpose. The Will to be, is something beyond mere instinct to live. Our volition allows us to live, or not live. Quality (Qualia) of life matters.

Metaphysic's seem to matter after all... LOL
The relationship of Will and human nature to metaphysics is an important area. I do have a copy of Hume's Treatise on Human Nature, which I have been meaning to read for some while, so I will try to have a read of that later today and see how that fits into this thread topic.

Regarding Schopenhauer it is hard to know where he stands as a metaphysician. He brought Kant's ideas down to human experiences. I was reading of his ideas recently in Alasdair MacIntyre's 'A Short History of Ethics', in which he interprets Schopenhauer in the following way,
'The world is the expression of blind striving or Will. We know our own inner nature as Will in direct experience; thought is but one of the outward forms or direct disguises taken by Will. Life is blind, cruel and meaningless; but we cling to life through extremes of pain and suffering. The natural world bears witness to the continuous reproduction of the species, and the continuous destruction of the individual. The forms remain the same; the individuals who exemplify them continually perish. (In this we get a hint of Schopenhauer's relation to Plato and Kant.) Thus experience testifies to the way in which the world is pervaded by pain and destruction, while religion and philosophy try to construct justifications for the universe which will show that pain and destruction have not the last word, and in so doing, they testify to the force of Cosmic Will, which has its aim the continuing existence of this desire for for continued existence.'

It seems as if the Schopenhauer's picture of reality, or Will, is far more in line with what Darwin describes as ' the survival as the fittest', with its emphasis on the fight for survival in it's most grim form. Of course, Schopenhauer is recognised as having a pessimistic approach. It probably does involve a choice about volition and a will to live, which has both a conscious and subconscious aspect, as well as the gravitation towards happiness.

It may connect to Freud's understanding of the Eros and Thanatos, and how this works as an energy force beyond the individual psyche. It is hard to work out to what extent we act or are acted upon by external forces, especially in relation to the concepts of good and evil, which were traditionally seen as metaphysical forces but more commonly seen as human constructs. This probably applies to all the opposites, and gets back to the issue of qualia, with the question of how experiences tie up with the nature of reality as experienced by conscious beings. Many discussions of consciousnes focus on the nature of neuroscience and the physical technicalities, but where science, including physics, is not able to explain fully, it may bring back some of the gaps and the basic questions of metaphysics as ones which still prevail.
Good analysis Jack. I'll only quickly add that Schop brought metaphysical phenomena (the Will) not only down to existential finitude, but the upside were his views on a kind of "Cosmic Will" which you suggested. Meaning, in that sense, one can easily analogize (to biology) to genetically coded emergent properties that were designed to propagate and are endowed with a limbic system that feels emotion.

In the alternative, we can analogize once again to...'that which breath's fire into the equations' ala Hawking. The Will, seems to be inferred as the informational energy logically necessary bringing those equation's to life (inert matter to animate matter). As Paul Davies admits, science doesn't have a clue on how to incorporate those qualities (Qualia) of consciousness into the equation's .
The idea of Schopenhauer turning metaphysics 'upside down' is very important because it does seem that many philosophers had previously seen it as more of a relationship which came from 'above', as an external source. The idea of imminence as opposed to transcendence seems critical here. This applied to the idea of God in particular. The idea of internal processes in relation to external is essential, and while many philosophers had gone too far in seeing reality as being connected to metaphysics which could be known to the mind, through intuition or reason primarily, some of the thinking of the present time may have gone too far in attention to the external through the empirical sciences. However, some of the physicists do recognise as an essential link between mind and matter at the quantum level.

In connection with this the metaphysical emphasis on the soul vs the emphasis on the self may be important too, especially in relation to the link between metaphysics and ethics. The idea of the 'soul' was often linked to a belief in the source of knowledge within, whereas the present day thinking about the self is more focused upon the basis for ethics being based on the facts and situation factors. It may be that the two need to be combined because the inner and outer may have parallel aspects.

The upside down model may focus ethics on consequences, as opposed to the idea of inner virtue and even though Kant did have an emphasis on a priori reason as a starting point for morality it did have human values as the central aspect. This was in his emphasis on people being treated as ends rather than means. Also, the idea of the categorical imperative was about universalisation which did incorporate a consideration of the outer effects of morality.

One other aspect which may be important is the metaphysical link which some writers may see between aesthetics and goodness. However, this could lead to a certain kind of romanticism, in which the nitty gritty aspects of working out ethics in the world may become simplified too much. The idea of the 'good' may be an important starting point, but there are so many grey areas of life which make binary thinking ot black and white thinking inadequate in many situations to deal with the complexity of human life and, especially the idea of self and others. Here, may be where the tension between egoism and altruism come into play in everyday social, cultural and political affairs.
Jack!

Some would argue that Schop attempted to reason through the metaphysical Will as being a top-down/bottom-up world view or model (The World as Will). Top-down meaning that biological propagation/genetically coded emergence is that which is fixed; bottom-up meaning consciousness and finitude being Existential to the species. In both instances, the metaphysical Will is the cause and effect both macro and micro, respectively.
“Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter.” "Spooky Action at a Distance"
― Albert Einstein
User avatar
JackDaydream
Posts: 3220
Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm

Re: How Important is Metaphysics as a Foundation for Philosophy and Ethics?

Post by JackDaydream »

3017Metaphysician wrote: June 16th, 2022, 3:10 pm
JackDaydream wrote: June 16th, 2022, 2:13 pm
3017Metaphysician wrote: June 16th, 2022, 1:17 pm
JackDaydream wrote: June 16th, 2022, 11:57 am

The relationship of Will and human nature to metaphysics is an important area. I do have a copy of Hume's Treatise on Human Nature, which I have been meaning to read for some while, so I will try to have a read of that later today and see how that fits into this thread topic.

Regarding Schopenhauer it is hard to know where he stands as a metaphysician. He brought Kant's ideas down to human experiences. I was reading of his ideas recently in Alasdair MacIntyre's 'A Short History of Ethics', in which he interprets Schopenhauer in the following way,
'The world is the expression of blind striving or Will. We know our own inner nature as Will in direct experience; thought is but one of the outward forms or direct disguises taken by Will. Life is blind, cruel and meaningless; but we cling to life through extremes of pain and suffering. The natural world bears witness to the continuous reproduction of the species, and the continuous destruction of the individual. The forms remain the same; the individuals who exemplify them continually perish. (In this we get a hint of Schopenhauer's relation to Plato and Kant.) Thus experience testifies to the way in which the world is pervaded by pain and destruction, while religion and philosophy try to construct justifications for the universe which will show that pain and destruction have not the last word, and in so doing, they testify to the force of Cosmic Will, which has its aim the continuing existence of this desire for for continued existence.'

It seems as if the Schopenhauer's picture of reality, or Will, is far more in line with what Darwin describes as ' the survival as the fittest', with its emphasis on the fight for survival in it's most grim form. Of course, Schopenhauer is recognised as having a pessimistic approach. It probably does involve a choice about volition and a will to live, which has both a conscious and subconscious aspect, as well as the gravitation towards happiness.

It may connect to Freud's understanding of the Eros and Thanatos, and how this works as an energy force beyond the individual psyche. It is hard to work out to what extent we act or are acted upon by external forces, especially in relation to the concepts of good and evil, which were traditionally seen as metaphysical forces but more commonly seen as human constructs. This probably applies to all the opposites, and gets back to the issue of qualia, with the question of how experiences tie up with the nature of reality as experienced by conscious beings. Many discussions of consciousnes focus on the nature of neuroscience and the physical technicalities, but where science, including physics, is not able to explain fully, it may bring back some of the gaps and the basic questions of metaphysics as ones which still prevail.
Good analysis Jack. I'll only quickly add that Schop brought metaphysical phenomena (the Will) not only down to existential finitude, but the upside were his views on a kind of "Cosmic Will" which you suggested. Meaning, in that sense, one can easily analogize (to biology) to genetically coded emergent properties that were designed to propagate and are endowed with a limbic system that feels emotion.

In the alternative, we can analogize once again to...'that which breath's fire into the equations' ala Hawking. The Will, seems to be inferred as the informational energy logically necessary bringing those equation's to life (inert matter to animate matter). As Paul Davies admits, science doesn't have a clue on how to incorporate those qualities (Qualia) of consciousness into the equation's .
The idea of Schopenhauer turning metaphysics 'upside down' is very important because it does seem that many philosophers had previously seen it as more of a relationship which came from 'above', as an external source. The idea of imminence as opposed to transcendence seems critical here. This applied to the idea of God in particular. The idea of internal processes in relation to external is essential, and while many philosophers had gone too far in seeing reality as being connected to metaphysics which could be known to the mind, through intuition or reason primarily, some of the thinking of the present time may have gone too far in attention to the external through the empirical sciences. However, some of the physicists do recognise as an essential link between mind and matter at the quantum level.

In connection with this the metaphysical emphasis on the soul vs the emphasis on the self may be important too, especially in relation to the link between metaphysics and ethics. The idea of the 'soul' was often linked to a belief in the source of knowledge within, whereas the present day thinking about the self is more focused upon the basis for ethics being based on the facts and situation factors. It may be that the two need to be combined because the inner and outer may have parallel aspects.

The upside down model may focus ethics on consequences, as opposed to the idea of inner virtue and even though Kant did have an emphasis on a priori reason as a starting point for morality it did have human values as the central aspect. This was in his emphasis on people being treated as ends rather than means. Also, the idea of the categorical imperative was about universalisation which did incorporate a consideration of the outer effects of morality.

One other aspect which may be important is the metaphysical link which some writers may see between aesthetics and goodness. However, this could lead to a certain kind of romanticism, in which the nitty gritty aspects of working out ethics in the world may become simplified too much. The idea of the 'good' may be an important starting point, but there are so many grey areas of life which make binary thinking ot black and white thinking inadequate in many situations to deal with the complexity of human life and, especially the idea of self and others. Here, may be where the tension between egoism and altruism come into play in everyday social, cultural and political affairs.
Jack!

Some would argue that Schop attempted to reason through the metaphysical Will as being a top-down/bottom-up world view or model (The World as Will). Top-down meaning that biological propagation/genetically coded emergence is that which is fixed; bottom-up meaning consciousness and finitude being Existential to the species. In both instances, the metaphysical Will is the cause and effect both macro and micro, respectively.
The idea of metaphysical Will does seem to bridge the gap between the direction of causes as being both upwards or downwards, as inner and outer, as well as visible and invisible. That would include sentient existence being seen as the way through which life is understood as emergent consciousness.

I also wonder how the idea of Jung's collective unconscious fits in here. It may be that there is a parallel between that and the Cosmic Will. The collective unconscious can be seen as encompassing a downward understanding of the instinctual realm as well as an emphasis on a source beyond. Jung drew upon Kant's idea of the limits of being able to see the transcendent directly. He thought that the experience of the numinous in religious experience and dreams was the basic intuitive grasp of this realm. It does come back to the issue of causation, as well as levels of conscious awareness. It is also likely that an understanding of causation and attention to developing conscious awareness are a basis for the development of ethics.
User avatar
JackDaydream
Posts: 3220
Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm

Re: How Important is Metaphysics as a Foundation for Philosophy and Ethics?

Post by JackDaydream »

snt wrote: June 16th, 2022, 1:02 pm
Pattern-chaser wrote: June 16th, 2022, 11:26 am
snt wrote: June 16th, 2022, 11:15 am Ethical rules and politics are empirical in nature...
No, I don't think they are. Ethical rules and politics are abstract, not empirical. They are human social creations, although their application might well have empirically-detectable consequences.
Empirical adjective - Relying on or derived from observation or experiment; Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment; Guided by practical experience and not theory (especially in medicine).
A previously cited citation of 🕮 Immanuel Kant would be applicable again (I know that you are against such citations, but it shows that human motives are considered to belong to empirical reality).

"We cannot too much or too often repeat our warning against this lax and even mean habit of thought which seeks for its principle amongst empirical motives and laws; for human reason in its weariness is glad to rest on this pillow, and in a dream of sweet illusions (in which, instead of Juno, it embraces a cloud) it [empirical] substitutes for morality a bastard patched up from limbs of various derivation, which looks like anything one chooses to see in it, only not like virtue to one who has once beheld her in her true form."

When it concerns the creation of ethical rules or politics, the origin of the creation process may well involve a magical moral compass or Kant's metaphysical Categorical Imperative (CI), but that would not matter. The ethical rules and politics is of a form that can be written down in books and is therefore empirical.

Pattern-chaser wrote: June 16th, 2022, 11:28 am
snt wrote: June 16th, 2022, 11:15 am The discovery of good is what morality is ultimately all about.
I have always thought that morality referred to how each one of us treats others. Other humans, and probably other living things too.
That would be human morality. The answering of the question from the perspective of the human, which has interests, but who also has a unique humanly relation with its outer world.
It is interesting to think how Kant's system of ethics relates to his metaphysics. Nietzsche claimed that Kant developed his system of metaphysics in order to provide a rationale for his views on morality. However, I am not certain that Nietzsche's view is true and he may trying to read Kant's own motives.

Generally, the idea of a priori reason is essential to Kant's system of ethics is about moral duty as an inner aspect of virtue. However, the categorical imperative is about thinking of effects and consequences. The only problem with the idea is that while it points to consideration of the universalisation of an act as a measure it may be that it is could be too concrete and does not allow for specifics of situations. It may be logical but it may not give enough scope for juggling the variables of life. In that respect, it may be rather abstract.
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: How Important is Metaphysics as a Foundation for Philosophy and Ethics?

Post by Pattern-chaser »

snt wrote: June 16th, 2022, 1:02 pm A previously cited citation of 🕮 Immanuel Kant would be applicable again (I know that you are against such citations...
It's not that I have anything against quoting others. It's when someone's posts contain only quotes from others, and appears to have no ideas or beliefs of their own. In such circumstances, we could simply read the author being cited, and ignore the poster concerned. ;)


snt wrote: June 16th, 2022, 1:02 pm The ethical rules and politics is of a form that can be written down in books and is therefore empirical.
OK, that's a meaning of "empirical" that is, er, not typical, IME.

Would you say, then, that quantum theory is empirical: it can be described in books...? What about the possibility that we might be brains-in-vats? That too can be described in books. When almost anything can be captured in a book, it seems a little rash to say that all such things are "empirical", don't you think?


snt wrote: June 16th, 2022, 1:02 pm That would be human morality. The answering of the question from the perspective of the human, which has interests, but who also has a unique humanly relation with its outer world.
Is there a form of morality other than "human morality"?
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
3017Metaphysician
Posts: 1621
Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am

Re: How Important is Metaphysics as a Foundation for Philosophy and Ethics?

Post by 3017Metaphysician »

JackDaydream wrote: June 17th, 2022, 6:51 am
3017Metaphysician wrote: June 16th, 2022, 3:10 pm
JackDaydream wrote: June 16th, 2022, 2:13 pm
3017Metaphysician wrote: June 16th, 2022, 1:17 pm

Good analysis Jack. I'll only quickly add that Schop brought metaphysical phenomena (the Will) not only down to existential finitude, but the upside were his views on a kind of "Cosmic Will" which you suggested. Meaning, in that sense, one can easily analogize (to biology) to genetically coded emergent properties that were designed to propagate and are endowed with a limbic system that feels emotion.

In the alternative, we can analogize once again to...'that which breath's fire into the equations' ala Hawking. The Will, seems to be inferred as the informational energy logically necessary bringing those equation's to life (inert matter to animate matter). As Paul Davies admits, science doesn't have a clue on how to incorporate those qualities (Qualia) of consciousness into the equation's .
The idea of Schopenhauer turning metaphysics 'upside down' is very important because it does seem that many philosophers had previously seen it as more of a relationship which came from 'above', as an external source. The idea of imminence as opposed to transcendence seems critical here. This applied to the idea of God in particular. The idea of internal processes in relation to external is essential, and while many philosophers had gone too far in seeing reality as being connected to metaphysics which could be known to the mind, through intuition or reason primarily, some of the thinking of the present time may have gone too far in attention to the external through the empirical sciences. However, some of the physicists do recognise as an essential link between mind and matter at the quantum level.

In connection with this the metaphysical emphasis on the soul vs the emphasis on the self may be important too, especially in relation to the link between metaphysics and ethics. The idea of the 'soul' was often linked to a belief in the source of knowledge within, whereas the present day thinking about the self is more focused upon the basis for ethics being based on the facts and situation factors. It may be that the two need to be combined because the inner and outer may have parallel aspects.

The upside down model may focus ethics on consequences, as opposed to the idea of inner virtue and even though Kant did have an emphasis on a priori reason as a starting point for morality it did have human values as the central aspect. This was in his emphasis on people being treated as ends rather than means. Also, the idea of the categorical imperative was about universalisation which did incorporate a consideration of the outer effects of morality.

One other aspect which may be important is the metaphysical link which some writers may see between aesthetics and goodness. However, this could lead to a certain kind of romanticism, in which the nitty gritty aspects of working out ethics in the world may become simplified too much. The idea of the 'good' may be an important starting point, but there are so many grey areas of life which make binary thinking ot black and white thinking inadequate in many situations to deal with the complexity of human life and, especially the idea of self and others. Here, may be where the tension between egoism and altruism come into play in everyday social, cultural and political affairs.
Jack!

Some would argue that Schop attempted to reason through the metaphysical Will as being a top-down/bottom-up world view or model (The World as Will). Top-down meaning that biological propagation/genetically coded emergence is that which is fixed; bottom-up meaning consciousness and finitude being Existential to the species. In both instances, the metaphysical Will is the cause and effect both macro and micro, respectively.
The idea of metaphysical Will does seem to bridge the gap between the direction of causes as being both upwards or downwards, as inner and outer, as well as visible and invisible. That would include sentient existence being seen as the way through which life is understood as emergent consciousness.

I also wonder how the idea of Jung's collective unconscious fits in here. It may be that there is a parallel between that and the Cosmic Will. The collective unconscious can be seen as encompassing a downward understanding of the instinctual realm as well as an emphasis on a source beyond. Jung drew upon Kant's idea of the limits of being able to see the transcendent directly. He thought that the experience of the numinous in religious experience and dreams was the basic intuitive grasp of this realm. It does come back to the issue of causation, as well as levels of conscious awareness. It is also likely that an understanding of causation and attention to developing conscious awareness are a basis for the development of ethics.
Jack!

Sure. As to your first point, (visible/invisible) we know in cosmology we have certain phenomena that appears somewhat invisible (Higgs/Boson, Black Hole information, Quantum tunneling). So in that macro sense, we have these mysterious things that, for a lack of a better word, Will's themselves into existence or being. The so-called top-down model of genetically coded propagation is set in motion. Then of course, speaking of motion, you have human Being (a verb) as we are set in motion and bestowed with consciousness that also has a Will. Perhaps in a metaphorical and material way, Paul Davies must have had a reason to call his book The Mind of God... . Materialism/immaterialism, subject/object, physical/metaphysical, a priori/a posteriori, etc. all of these opposites seem to need each other in order to make sense of the world (conscious requires a physical medium to produce the metaphysical feelings of the 'color red').

Anyway, I like where you're going with the Jung/Kant connection. Broadly speaking, many philosophers were venturing into modern day cognitive science theories from/in their respective philosophy's. I think Kant was one of them (the synthetic a priori). Much like the Will, we have this fixed thing (a priori) that indeed causes humans to discover things through our sense of wonderment. And wonderment, in an of itself, can be fully explained or appreciated solely by way of materialism (how does one explain 'wonder'). Synthetic propositions are almost always used in physics to discover something new. It is essential for intellect and associated quality (Qualia) of life stuff.

In summary, the concept of causation is fascinating, both micro and macro.

Finally, as a kind of footnote (perhaps worthy of another thread), the block universe model seems to transcend all of that micro/macro phenomena. That 4th dimension-model of space-time posits all of existence in a timeless forward-backward, micro-macro way of being. Maybe do a thread on ' The Existential implications of the Block Universe model'. That idea could also open up yet other possibilities to the so-called 10-dimensions (from String theory models) that could have practical implications:
After all, with respect to your OP, Time itself is Metaphysical.
“Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter.” "Spooky Action at a Distance"
― Albert Einstein
snt
Posts: 110
Joined: June 2nd, 2022, 4:43 am

Re: How Important is Metaphysics as a Foundation for Philosophy and Ethics?

Post by snt »

Pattern-chaser wrote: June 17th, 2022, 7:55 am
snt wrote: June 16th, 2022, 1:02 pm The ethical rules and politics is of a form that can be written down in books and is therefore empirical.
OK, that's a meaning of "empirical" that is, er, not typical, IME.

Would you say, then, that quantum theory is empirical: it can be described in books...? What about the possibility that we might be brains-in-vats? That too can be described in books. When almost anything can be captured in a book, it seems a little rash to say that all such things are "empirical", don't you think?
An a priori aspect as ground for morality would not be definable and therefore cannot be written down in a book or in rules.

Morality as I perceive it would concern an everlasting quest into good in the face of an unknown future. The result of that quest is a sort of intellectual light into the world (from the inside out) that empirically can be described as the potential for reason-ableness.

With regard the attempt to address aspects of non-empirical nature at the foundation of reality. Chinese philosopher Laozi (Lao Tzu) has attempted it in book Tao Te Ching. The book starts with the following:

"The tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be named is not the eternal Name."

What is the meaning of an insight that logic would attempt to unlock (an insight into the origin of reason itself) when the insight that it unlocks cannot be Said?

One would enter the field of poetry that attempts to use language to transfer insight into experience that would then need to function as an addition to supplement logical reasoning to provide it with a ground to venture beyond the limit of its own origin.

The book Tao Te Ching is written as a poem for that purpose.

The French philosopher Emmanuel Levinas addresses it in his concept The duality of Saying and Said.

Pattern-chaser wrote: June 17th, 2022, 7:55 amIs there a form of morality other than "human morality"?
When an a priori aspect is the ground for morality then that would imply that humans are a mere subject that perform on behalf of it.
User avatar
JackDaydream
Posts: 3220
Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm

Re: How Important is Metaphysics as a Foundation for Philosophy and Ethics?

Post by JackDaydream »

[quote=3017Metaphysician post_id=414523 time=1655468372 user_id=50511]
[quote=JackDaydream post_id=414513 time=1655463107 user_id=50535]
[quote=3017Metaphysician post_id=414459 time=1655406628 user_id=50511]
[quote=JackDaydream post_id=414457 time=1655403225 user_id=50535]


The idea of Schopenhauer turning metaphysics 'upside down' is very important because it does seem that many philosophers had previously seen it as more of a relationship which came from 'above', as an external source. The idea of imminence as opposed to transcendence seems critical here. This applied to the idea of God in particular. The idea of internal processes in relation to external is essential, and while many philosophers had gone too far in seeing reality as being connected to metaphysics which could be known to the mind, through intuition or reason primarily, some of the thinking of the present time may have gone too far in attention to the external through the empirical sciences. However, some of the physicists do recognise as an essential link between mind and matter at the quantum level.

In connection with this the metaphysical emphasis on the soul vs the emphasis on the self may be important too, especially in relation to the link between metaphysics and ethics. The idea of the 'soul' was often linked to a belief in the source of knowledge within, whereas the present day thinking about the self is more focused upon the basis for ethics being based on the facts and situation factors. It may be that the two need to be combined because the inner and outer may have parallel aspects.

The upside down model may focus ethics on consequences, as opposed to the idea of inner virtue and even though Kant did have an emphasis on a priori reason as a starting point for morality it did have human values as the central aspect. This was in his emphasis on people being treated as ends rather than means. Also, the idea of the categorical imperative was about universalisation which did incorporate a consideration of the outer effects of morality.

One other aspect which may be important is the metaphysical link which some writers may see between aesthetics and goodness. However, this could lead to a certain kind of romanticism, in which the nitty gritty aspects of working out ethics in the world may become simplified too much. The idea of the 'good' may be an important starting point, but there are so many grey areas of life which make binary thinking ot black and white thinking inadequate in many situations to deal with the complexity of human life and, especially the idea of self and others. Here, may be where the tension between egoism and altruism come into play in everyday social, cultural and political affairs.
[/quote]

Jack!

Some would argue that Schop attempted to reason through the metaphysical Will as being a top-down/bottom-up world view or model (The World as Will). Top-down meaning that biological propagation/genetically coded emergence is that which is fixed; bottom-up meaning consciousness and finitude being Existential to the species. In both instances, the metaphysical Will is the cause and effect both macro and micro, respectively.
[/quote]

The idea of metaphysical Will does seem to bridge the gap between the direction of causes as being both upwards or downwards, as inner and outer, as well as visible and invisible. That would include sentient existence being seen as the way through which life is understood as emergent consciousness.

I also wonder how the idea of Jung's collective unconscious fits in here. It may be that there is a parallel between that and the Cosmic Will. The collective unconscious can be seen as encompassing a downward understanding of the instinctual realm as well as an emphasis on a source beyond. Jung drew upon Kant's idea of the limits of being able to see the transcendent directly. He thought that the experience of the numinous in religious experience and dreams was the basic intuitive grasp of this realm. It does come back to the issue of causation, as well as levels of conscious awareness. It is also likely that an understanding of causation and attention to developing conscious awareness are a basis for the development of ethics.
[/quote]

Jack!

Sure. As to your first point, (visible/invisible) we know in cosmology we have certain phenomena that appears somewhat invisible (Higgs/Boson, Black Hole information, Quantum tunneling). So in that macro sense, we have these mysterious things that, for a lack of a better word, Will's themselves into existence or being. The so-called top-down model of genetically coded propagation is set in motion. Then of course, speaking of motion, you have human Being (a verb) as we are set in motion and bestowed with consciousness that also has a Will. Perhaps in a metaphorical and material way, Paul Davies must have had a reason to call his book The Mind of God... . Materialism/immaterialism, subject/object, physical/metaphysical, a priori/a posteriori, etc. all of these opposites seem to need each other in order to make sense of the world (conscious requires a physical medium to produce the metaphysical feelings of the 'color red').

Anyway, I like where you're going with the Jung/Kant connection. Broadly speaking, many philosophers were venturing into modern day cognitive science theories from/in their respective philosophy's. I think Kant was one of them (the synthetic a priori). Much like the Will, we have this fixed thing (a priori) that indeed causes humans to discover things through our sense of wonderment. And wonderment, in an of itself, can be fully explained or appreciated solely by way of materialism (how does one explain 'wonder'). Synthetic propositions are almost always used in physics to discover something new. It is essential for intellect and associated quality (Qualia) of life stuff.

In summary, the concept of causation is fascinating, both micro and macro.

Finally, as a kind of footnote (perhaps worthy of another thread), the block universe model seems to transcend all of that micro/macro phenomena. That 4th dimension-model of space-time posits all of existence in a timeless forward-backward, micro-macro way of being. Maybe do a thread on ' The Existential implications of the Block Universe model'. That idea could also open up yet other possibilities to the so-called 10-dimensions (from String theory models) that could have practical implications:

[yid=p4Gotl9vRGs][/yid]

After all, with respect to your OP, Time itself is Metaphysical.
[/quote]

The concept of causation at the macro and micro level is important and it is likely that it requires thinking and drawing upon the natural sciences, especially physics and the social sciences, particularly cognitive science. It may be that the task of the philosopher as a metaphysician is to join the dots together to compose a synthetic based on the the most clear empirical knowledge.

I have been reading David Hume and finding his writing extremely helpful. One essential aspect relevant to causation and metaphysics is what is known as Hume's fork. He stated that 'since we can't cross the fork, nothing is both certain about the world, only one or the other, and so it is impossible to prove something about the world with certainty'. The scope of facts vs ideas may be one of the biggest conundrums for philosophy. Hume also pointed to the limits of reason as the foundation for moral thinking, saying 'if reason is not responsible for our ability to distinguish moral goodness from badness, then there must be some other capacity of human beings that enables us to make moral distinctions.

Kant emphasises intuition and imagination in judgments. Jung speaks of the four human functions of sensation, feeling, intuition and reason. It may be that trying to incorporate the four functions, because some people have developed these in greater ways than others, may be important in developing a more helpful metaphysical or philosophical understanding of existence.
User avatar
JackDaydream
Posts: 3220
Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm

Re: How Important is Metaphysics as a Foundation for Philosophy and Ethics?

Post by JackDaydream »

:roll:

The layout in the boxes in the post above went a bit haywire so this was my specific post:


I have been reading David Hume and finding his writing extremely helpful. One essential aspect relevant to causation and metaphysics is what is known as Hume's fork. He stated that 'since we can't cross the fork, nothing is both certain about the world, only one or the other, and so it is impossible to prove something about the world with certainty'. The scope of facts vs ideas may be one of the biggest conundrums for philosophy. Hume also pointed to the limits of reason as the foundation for moral thinking, saying 'if reason is not responsible for our ability to distinguish moral goodness from badness, then there must be some other capacity of human beings that enables us to make moral distinctions.

Kant emphasises intuition and imagination in judgments. Jung speaks of the four human functions of sensation, feeling, intuition and reason. It may be that trying to incorporate the four functions, because some people have developed these in greater ways than others, may be important in developing a more helpful metaphysical or philosophical understanding of existence.
stevie
Posts: 762
Joined: July 19th, 2021, 11:08 am

Re: How Important is Metaphysics as a Foundation for Philosophy and Ethics?

Post by stevie »

JackDaydream wrote: June 15th, 2022, 9:49 am
stevie wrote: June 15th, 2022, 8:46 am
JackDaydream wrote: June 14th, 2022, 7:29 pm ... So, how useful is a basic metaphysics for thinking about how we live, and as a foundation for values and ethics?
If one needs a (speculative) theory about one's life to be able to live satisfactorily then some kind of metaphysics (either philosophy or religion) is inevitable. If one does not need such a theory to be able to live satisfactorily then such a theory is dispensable and may even be disturbing when living in a collective that cultivates such a theory (because social interactions will be necessarily affected).
I agree that it is problematic if someone needs a speculative theory in order to live, in the sense of seeking one. Life is being lived all the time and cannot be put on hold until the truly established 'truth' is found. I have to admit that I may be in danger of spending my life reading and writing and not living fully. So, philosophy and its questing can be a hindrance and even I hope to move on and see this stage of exploration because I am trying to rebuild my life because during lockdown etc my whole established life fell apart, and philosophy was the destination which I am at present.

Generally, it is likely that many people don't read or think much about philosophy, although I have always done so. However, it is likely that most people build up pictures of reality and existence in childhood and education which are more implicit assumptions, and they may get revised. So, people may inherit the cultural knowledge and influence of their specific background.


The need to question or explore metaphysics may be when there are clashes of ideas. For example, there may be conflicts between science and religious perspectives and this may be a common issue because the two strands have both been influential historically and some of the fuzzy areas have left confusion, or as Iris Murdoch describes, 'a void'. The twentieth first century may be like the post-postmodern wasteland.
See since both, Metaphysics and Ethics, are aspects of Philosophy I would transform your question
How Important is Metaphysics as a Foundation for Philosophy and Ethics?
into
How Important is Philosophy?
mankind ... must act and reason and believe; though they are not able, by their most diligent enquiry, to satisfy themselves concerning the foundation of these operations, or to remove the objections, which may be raised against them [Hume]
User avatar
JackDaydream
Posts: 3220
Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm

Re: How Important is Metaphysics as a Foundation for Philosophy and Ethics?

Post by JackDaydream »

stevie wrote: June 19th, 2022, 3:48 pm
JackDaydream wrote: June 15th, 2022, 9:49 am
stevie wrote: June 15th, 2022, 8:46 am
JackDaydream wrote: June 14th, 2022, 7:29 pm ... So, how useful is a basic metaphysics for thinking about how we live, and as a foundation for values and ethics?
If one needs a (speculative) theory about one's life to be able to live satisfactorily then some kind of metaphysics (either philosophy or religion) is inevitable. If one does not need such a theory to be able to live satisfactorily then such a theory is dispensable and may even be disturbing when living in a collective that cultivates such a theory (because social interactions will be necessarily affected).
I agree that it is problematic if someone needs a speculative theory in order to live, in the sense of seeking one. Life is being lived all the time and cannot be put on hold until the truly established 'truth' is found. I have to admit that I may be in danger of spending my life reading and writing and not living fully. So, philosophy and its questing can be a hindrance and even I hope to move on and see this stage of exploration because I am trying to rebuild my life because during lockdown etc my whole established life fell apart, and philosophy was the destination which I am at present.

Generally, it is likely that many people don't read or think much about philosophy, although I have always done so. However, it is likely that most people build up pictures of reality and existence in childhood and education which are more implicit assumptions, and they may get revised. So, people may inherit the cultural knowledge and influence of their specific background.


The need to question or explore metaphysics may be when there are clashes of ideas. For example, there may be conflicts between science and religious perspectives and this may be a common issue because the two strands have both been influential historically and some of the fuzzy areas have left confusion, or as Iris Murdoch describes, 'a void'. The twentieth first century may be like the post-postmodern wasteland.
See since both, Metaphysics and Ethics, are aspects of Philosophy I would transform your question
How Important is Metaphysics as a Foundation for Philosophy and Ethics?
into
How Important is Philosophy?
In some ways the thread question does come down to how important is philosophy. That is because traditionally metaphysics was the basis for philosophy itself. If philosophy were to be stripped of metaphysics completely what would be left remaining. It might exist like an appendix to science or in the form of critical thinking. I first wondered about this ever happening when I discovered that a large chain of bookshops in England stopped having a philosophy section or even a science one, with a new merged title called 'Smart Thinking'.

Although it is hard to know what will happen in philosophy, human thought, or even the future of humanity, it may be that there will be divergences. Some people may drift away from philosophy as it used to be while others will take an interest in the resurgence of traditional knowledge and ideas of the past, including the Stoics.

I know that you don't read philosophy in the traditional sense but you did join the philosophy site in the first place. Many people probably never glance at anything containing the word philosophy. However, they do still think about life. Some take an interest in science and some are hardly interested in that even. Some may see philosophy as being an academic pursuit and it does seem that many more are studying psychology and that may because it seems more applicable to everyday life or helpful as a career pathway.
stevie
Posts: 762
Joined: July 19th, 2021, 11:08 am

Re: How Important is Metaphysics as a Foundation for Philosophy and Ethics?

Post by stevie »

JackDaydream wrote: June 19th, 2022, 4:49 pm
stevie wrote: June 19th, 2022, 3:48 pm
JackDaydream wrote: June 15th, 2022, 9:49 am
stevie wrote: June 15th, 2022, 8:46 am

If one needs a (speculative) theory about one's life to be able to live satisfactorily then some kind of metaphysics (either philosophy or religion) is inevitable. If one does not need such a theory to be able to live satisfactorily then such a theory is dispensable and may even be disturbing when living in a collective that cultivates such a theory (because social interactions will be necessarily affected).
I agree that it is problematic if someone needs a speculative theory in order to live, in the sense of seeking one. Life is being lived all the time and cannot be put on hold until the truly established 'truth' is found. I have to admit that I may be in danger of spending my life reading and writing and not living fully. So, philosophy and its questing can be a hindrance and even I hope to move on and see this stage of exploration because I am trying to rebuild my life because during lockdown etc my whole established life fell apart, and philosophy was the destination which I am at present.

Generally, it is likely that many people don't read or think much about philosophy, although I have always done so. However, it is likely that most people build up pictures of reality and existence in childhood and education which are more implicit assumptions, and they may get revised. So, people may inherit the cultural knowledge and influence of their specific background.


The need to question or explore metaphysics may be when there are clashes of ideas. For example, there may be conflicts between science and religious perspectives and this may be a common issue because the two strands have both been influential historically and some of the fuzzy areas have left confusion, or as Iris Murdoch describes, 'a void'. The twentieth first century may be like the post-postmodern wasteland.
See since both, Metaphysics and Ethics, are aspects of Philosophy I would transform your question
How Important is Metaphysics as a Foundation for Philosophy and Ethics?
into
How Important is Philosophy?
In some ways the thread question does come down to how important is philosophy. That is because traditionally metaphysics was the basis for philosophy itself. If philosophy were to be stripped of metaphysics completely what would be left remaining. It might exist like an appendix to science or in the form of critical thinking. I first wondered about this ever happening when I discovered that a large chain of bookshops in England stopped having a philosophy section or even a science one, with a new merged title called 'Smart Thinking'.

Although it is hard to know what will happen in philosophy, human thought, or even the future of humanity, it may be that there will be divergences. Some people may drift away from philosophy as it used to be while others will take an interest in the resurgence of traditional knowledge and ideas of the past, including the Stoics.

I know that you don't read philosophy in the traditional sense but you did join the philosophy site in the first place. Many people probably never glance at anything containing the word philosophy. However, they do still think about life. Some take an interest in science and some are hardly interested in that even. Some may see philosophy as being an academic pursuit and it does seem that many more are studying psychology and that may because it seems more applicable to everyday life or helpful as a career pathway.
In the course of evolution the human brain has excelled many alternative processings of stimuli. The human brain has evolved an outstanding capacity of computation.
Every capacity has its drawbacks and side-effects.
Philosophy is an instance of the human brain's capacity being lead astray by itself.
mankind ... must act and reason and believe; though they are not able, by their most diligent enquiry, to satisfy themselves concerning the foundation of these operations, or to remove the objections, which may be raised against them [Hume]
User avatar
JackDaydream
Posts: 3220
Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm

Re: How Important is Metaphysics as a Foundation for Philosophy and Ethics?

Post by JackDaydream »

stevie wrote: June 19th, 2022, 6:00 pm
JackDaydream wrote: June 19th, 2022, 4:49 pm
stevie wrote: June 19th, 2022, 3:48 pm
JackDaydream wrote: June 15th, 2022, 9:49 am

I agree that it is problematic if someone needs a speculative theory in order to live, in the sense of seeking one. Life is being lived all the time and cannot be put on hold until the truly established 'truth' is found. I have to admit that I may be in danger of spending my life reading and writing and not living fully. So, philosophy and its questing can be a hindrance and even I hope to move on and see this stage of exploration because I am trying to rebuild my life because during lockdown etc my whole established life fell apart, and philosophy was the destination which I am at present.

Generally, it is likely that many people don't read or think much about philosophy, although I have always done so. However, it is likely that most people build up pictures of reality and existence in childhood and education which are more implicit assumptions, and they may get revised. So, people may inherit the cultural knowledge and influence of their specific background.


The need to question or explore metaphysics may be when there are clashes of ideas. For example, there may be conflicts between science and religious perspectives and this may be a common issue because the two strands have both been influential historically and some of the fuzzy areas have left confusion, or as Iris Murdoch describes, 'a void'. The twentieth first century may be like the post-postmodern wasteland.
See since both, Metaphysics and Ethics, are aspects of Philosophy I would transform your question
How Important is Metaphysics as a Foundation for Philosophy and Ethics?
into
How Important is Philosophy?
In some ways the thread question does come down to how important is philosophy. That is because traditionally metaphysics was the basis for philosophy itself. If philosophy were to be stripped of metaphysics completely what would be left remaining. It might exist like an appendix to science or in the form of critical thinking. I first wondered about this ever happening when I discovered that a large chain of bookshops in England stopped having a philosophy section or even a science one, with a new merged title called 'Smart Thinking'.

Although it is hard to know what will happen in philosophy, human thought, or even the future of humanity, it may be that there will be divergences. Some people may drift away from philosophy as it used to be while others will take an interest in the resurgence of traditional knowledge and ideas of the past, including the Stoics.

I know that you don't read philosophy in the traditional sense but you did join the philosophy site in the first place. Many people probably never glance at anything containing the word philosophy. However, they do still think about life. Some take an interest in science and some are hardly interested in that even. Some may see philosophy as being an academic pursuit and it does seem that many more are studying psychology and that may because it seems more applicable to everyday life or helpful as a career pathway.
In the course of evolution the human brain has excelled many alternative processings of stimuli. The human brain has evolved an outstanding capacity of computation.
Every capacity has its drawbacks and side-effects.
Philosophy is an instance of the human brain's capacity being lead astray by itself.
So, do you see thinking in the form of philosophy as a side-effect of the evolution of consciousness which human beings have? That would imply that the whole approach of thinking and reflection about life is almost entirely negative. It may be that human beings, in the present form have developed capacity for destructive capacity through war and ecological damage, which is more about the development of technical abilities through science rather than through philosophy.

However, it is like that your criticism is not necessarily about this when you speak of the brain 'being led astray by itself'. Is it that you think that there is no benefit of thinking about life. The other alternative is to see it the other way round and to see the evolution of consciousness in its many forms from plants, trees, animals and human beings as being about the evolution of consciousness. Humans have language, which gives the scope for conceptual thinking, sciences, art and philosophy. So, why do you see philosophy in such a negative way?

I know that you see speculation as being futile but that could be applied to any aspect. It would be possible to see aspects of nature in general as futile. It would be possible to query whether even survival has a purpose. As it is, many in the past and probably many in the future will speculate? What is so terrible about that? The other possibility would be a condition of reduced consciousness or, maybe, the better one of increased understanding though empirical science in conjunction with conceptual analysis.
Post Reply

Return to “General Philosophy”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021