flamingjimmy Posted November 1, 2010 Share Posted November 1, 2010 It takes a metaphysical leap of faith to rationalise the relationship between the self and experience. I get the leap of faith part, like I said, but I don't get why it's metaphysical. Stop just telling me 'it is so' when the question I'm asking is 'why is it so?' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
six45ive Posted November 1, 2010 Share Posted November 1, 2010 Arguing with you is as pointless as arguing with Grahame, neither of you are interested in a debate and the exchange of ideas. I didn't realise I was debating. This is not a political thread where you enter a debate from a certain ideological pov. This thread has become about the truth revealed through an understanding of knowledge as opposed to the falsehood of personal belief/interpretation of certain phenomena described as metaphysics. I'm simply pointing out your mistakes and correcting them. Just defending your preconceived notions with whatever rhetorical devices you find at your disposal. :hihi:That's a classic description of metaphysics if ever I've heard one. My standpoint as an atheist and scientist is the very antithesis of your quote as I'm sure you very well know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted November 1, 2010 Share Posted November 1, 2010 I get the leap of faith part, like I said, but I don't get why it's metaphysical. Stop just telling me 'it is so' when the question I'm asking is 'why is it so?' I am confused by your question? Are you saying the leap of faith required for a conception of the Self and of external reality is empirical? Surely such a view is self evidently contradictory? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted November 1, 2010 Share Posted November 1, 2010 I didn't realise I was debating. This is not a political thread where you enter a debate from a certain ideological pov. This thread has become about the truth revealed through an understanding of knowledge as opposed to the falsehood of personal belief/interpretation of certain phenomena described as metaphysics. I'm simply pointing out your mistakes and correcting them. :hihi:That's a classic description of metaphysics if ever I've heard one. My standpoint as an atheist and scientist is the very antithesis of your quote as I'm sure you very well know. You do realise you have contradicted yourself, in that you both imply you have no "certain ideological pov" and yet at the same time go on to say "truth revealed through an understanding of knowledge as opposed to the falsehood of personal belief/interpretation of certain phenomena described as metaphysics" which is an ideological viewpoint? Your summary of the arguments shows you have not understood what is being discussed. The points have been made quite clearly, everyone else has understood, go back and read what has been said, rather than simply self aggrandising to massage your ego. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted November 1, 2010 Share Posted November 1, 2010 Logical Positivists: Existentialists are not being sufficiently analytical. Existentialists: Logical Positivists are not being sufficiently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted November 1, 2010 Share Posted November 1, 2010 I am confused by your question? Are you saying the leap of faith required for a conception of the Self and of external reality is empirical? Surely such a view is self evidently contradictory? No I'm not saying it's empirical. Its just a leap of faith, it doesn't require belief in anything that's not physical. To a true solipsist surely the word physical is meaningless anyway? I'm quite happy to admit that I have faith in my senses, I can't really know that the information they're giving me is real. But seeing as solipsism leads to a dead end of understanding, I'm comfortable with just assuming that the world does in fact exist around me. I don't see how that is metaphysical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted November 1, 2010 Share Posted November 1, 2010 No I'm not saying it's empirical. Its just a leap of faith, it doesn't require belief in anything that's not physical. To a true solipsist surely the word physical is meaningless anyway? I'm quite happy to admit that I have faith in my senses, I can't really know that the information they're giving me is real. But seeing as solipsism leads to a dead end of understanding, I'm comfortable with just assuming that the world does in fact exist around me. I don't see how that is metaphysical. It is metaphysical in the sense that an understanding of "physical" requires some external justification. Literally the understanding of what physical is comes from something transcending the physical, something metaphysical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted November 1, 2010 Share Posted November 1, 2010 It is metaphysical in the sense that an understanding of "physical" requires some external justification. Literally the understanding of what physical is comes from something transcending the physical, something metaphysical. This is what I meant by just telling me 'it is so', you're doing it again! What external non-physical justification do I need? how does the understanding of what physical is come from something transcending the physical? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted November 1, 2010 Share Posted November 1, 2010 This is what I meant by just telling me 'it is so', you're doing it again! What external non-physical justification do I need? how does the understanding of what physical is come from something transcending the physical? How can it come from itself? Like in mathematics you can posit an internally consistent logical framework, but you can't define it in to existence. You need something external to the framework to fix it with reality. That is the flaw with the "Ontological Argument" for the existence of God. You can't allow the physical world to define itself in to existence any more than you can God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grahame Posted November 1, 2010 Share Posted November 1, 2010 "The ontological argument argument examines the concept of God, and states that if we can conceive of the greatest possible being (or anything else I presume), then it must exist." (Wiki) That is probably true for every invention going. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.