• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Metaphysics: Is metaphysics better than science?

cladking

Well-Known Member
nowadays metaphysics can revert to a younger state, that is art, because science emancipated it from the necessity of being true while not being capable of truth by definition.
that doesn't mean it can ignore truth - in which case it would be no more than buffoonery and decadance - it means it can become again the aesthetic blossoming over the rock of truth (only, this time, truth will be a critical truth, and not a revelation).

Yes, I agree that metaphysics must again be tied to reality. Where before a consideration of ancient science could not be considered and any tie to reality had to occur strictly through agreement with modern scientific theory, now I believe, it will become possible to ground metaphysics in two sciences. Science might be founded on the bedrock of reality itself as determined by two sciences. These sciences can operate in tandem helping each other over hurdles.

We can't possibly understand modern theory in terms of ancient metaphysics but there's every likelihood that computers can manipulate such a language.

Tying metaphysics to reality might seem like religion to some but the resemblance is merely superficial.
 

qaz

Member
Yes, I agree that metaphysics must again be tied to reality. Where before a consideration of ancient science could not be considered and any tie to reality had to occur strictly through agreement with modern scientific theory, now I believe, it will become possible to ground metaphysics in two sciences. Science might be founded on the bedrock of reality itself as determined by two sciences. These sciences can operate in tandem helping each other over hurdles.

We can't possibly understand modern theory in terms of ancient metaphysics but there's every likelihood that computers can manipulate such a language.

Tying metaphysics to reality might seem like religion to some but the resemblance is merely superficial.

reality, or truth, is a physical feature, therefore the domain of science and science alone. and not because of a methodological scruple or some kind of a disciplinary partition, but because only through observation and sensible perception we can distinguish between "true" and "false", between "real" and "imaginary".
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy"
but not everything must necessarly be true or false. is botticelli's primavera true or false? is the code of justinian true or false? why were the greeks the first ones capable of beauty in human history? because they never wanted their myths to pass off as factual, or even effective, they meant them as raw material for artistic creation. so we had the iliad from the sagas (the cyclic poem), which have been lost indeed.
"I hate the cyclic poem, nor do I take pleasure in the road which carries many to and fro" (callimachus)
the greeks first emancipated the myth from the ritual, thus inventing beauty itself, and love - which are european notions only.
nowadays, we must be able to do the same.
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
...but because only through observation and sensible perception we can distinguish between "true" and "false", between "real" and "imaginary".

In any other thread I wouldn't mention it but this just rubs me raw. You can't find reality or truth through observation.

Yes, one can acquire visceral knowledge and then create a science by combining that with proper observation. The results are reality and truth based upon that visceral knowledge but these truths and this reality must be adapted by other individuals who don't share your knowledge. It is real science but it is a personal science. Some personal sciences may have striking similarities to ancient science which was not a personal science but a species specific science.

Ah, metaphysics, thou art cruel and ephemeral but without you nobody knows anything. There is neither reality nor truth outside of you.
 

qaz

Member
i have no time to "formalize" it on here, but there is a difference between arbitrary opinions and objective facts. this violet on my table is blue, not yellow, this rose is red, not white, and this little marble bear is not cut in bronze, but marble. you can call these truths "trivial", as well as our entire science. and yet, they are true. and religion is not.
There is neither reality nor truth outside of you.
then, since everything is consciousness, there is nothing beyond it. your idea of "beyond-the-consciousness" is nothing but a random thought inside your head, not outside.
 
Last edited:

gnostic

The Lost One
Philosophy, like a person's views or opinions, or the person's personal belief and faith, are still by large, very subjective, no matter how much philosophers use logic and reasoning.

All philosophies are based on some sort of rationality, including metaphysics, and there are many different schools of philosophy, which compete against each other, so it is bound be defended by those philosophers in those different schools.

Hence biases existed in philosophies as much as there are biases among different religions or different religious sects.

And metaphysicians or metaphysicists are no exception.

Metaphysics is a philosophy, not science. Saying that metaphysics is the "basis of science" is actually meaningless, since nothing in any metaphysics school tell people to rely on observation, whether the observation be finding evidences outside of the labs or experiments being performed in the lab.

Metaphysical naturalism for instance, will only make assumption of something's existence while rejecting all supernatural causes, but metaphysics doesn't test what it is or how it work.
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
Philosophy, like a person's views or opinions, or the person's personal belief and faith, are still by large, very subjective, no matter how much philosophers use logic and reasoning.

You're still just talking words.

I am saying there is actually in reality a basis to science and I am trying my best to express this basis in words. I don't care a whit what others mean by "metaphysics" or don't mean by it. I care what the basis of science is in the real world and this basis is composed of the definitions and axioms with which it is executed and understood.

Without understanding these axioms and definitions it is impossible to understand science in context. We must think and we must use language to communicate these concepts as well as to formulate hypothesis or even to make observation. We can't possibly see anomalies without thought.

Ancient people didn't "think". They had no words for "thought". They didn't need to think because they had a metaphysical language with which they processed mental activities and by which they practiced science.
 

qaz

Member
Saying that metaphysics is the "basis of science" is actually meaningless,
i said excactly the oppisite tho. and yes, i agree that metaphysics (and philosophy, which is in included in metaphysics) is subjective, that was my whole point.
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
then, since everything is consciousness, there is nothing beyond it. your idea of "beyond-the-consciousness" is nothing but a random thought inside your head, not outside.

"Metaphysics" and "consciousness" are different things to us now days. Our consciousness is driven by language.

There is no science beyond metaphysics. There can be no science beyond the basis of science and there can be no construct without a foundation.
 

qaz

Member
Our consciousness is driven by language.
that's absolutely not true.
There is no science beyond metaphysics. There can be no science beyond the basis of science and there can be no construct without a foundation.
the foundation of science is not arbitrary, or conventional. its semantics is conventional, but semantics is marginal to science . and the fact that everything is consciousness doesn't mean (AT ALL) that everything is subjective or illusory. also, mysticism (or ontology) is a plain denial of consciousness, not an overcoming.
 
Last edited:

gnostic

The Lost One
"Metaphysics" and "consciousness" are different things to us now days. Our consciousness is driven by language.

There is no science beyond metaphysics. There can be no science beyond the basis of science and there can be no construct without a foundation.

Metaphysics only started with the Greeks of the 4th century BCE, not before 2000 BCE, a date that you had proposed the Tower of Babel.

There were no metaphysics among the Egyptians during the Chalcolithic (4th millennium BCE) and early Bronze Age (3rd millennium BCE), which would coincide with Predynastic cultures and then Early Dynastic and Old Kingdom periods.

Although Egyptians invented their hieroglyphs and hieractic in late 3rd millennium BCE (circa 3200 BCE), the evidences are scarce until the 5th dynasty and later. And writings in Egypt appeared more abundant in 2nd millennium BCE with the Middle Kingdom and then New Kingdom, and still no evidences of metaphysics.

There are no metaphysics in the 3rd millennium BCE of any civilisation at this stage in history.

All you are doing, cladking, is using anachronism, especially when you used the Pyramid Text. That much is made clear when quoted PT 2110b and cherrypick one word "I3.t-wt.t" to mean carbon dioxide.

You are using Egyptian transliteration of a hieroglyph which are written in Latin alphabet characters, using that as a code. Do you not serious understand how ridiculously absurd you sounds?

Egyptian hieroglyphs cannot be read as a code in Latin alphabet characters?
 

gnostic

The Lost One
i said excactly the oppisite tho. and yes, i agree that metaphysics (and philosophy, which is in included in metaphysics) is subjective, that was my whole point.
Sorry, my reply was directed at cladking.

We have been argument about metaphysics in another of thread. I created this thread to specifically focus on metaphysics.
 

Darkstorn

This shows how unique i am.
We have been argument about metaphysics in another of thread. I created this thread to specifically focus on metaphysics.

Talking about arguing metaphysics in another thread:

I've seen YOU make the mistake of conflating it with "belief in the supernatural" more than once. Only now you're actually arguing it like it is instead of presenting a straw man version. So, here's my observation:

Seeing you talk about metaphysics is a bit like seeing creationists talking about science: Their argument evolves, but in the end they're still making claims of knowledge instead of claims of belief. You're making the same mistake.

You are actually arguing from a side of a certain philosophical view:

Methodological naturalism is a philosophical view. Naturalism is a philosophical view. The view that everything can be explained with science or evidence alone IS a philosophical view in itself. And your defense is a bare claim of "gnosis." I.E You're acting like a gnostic methodological naturalist. Instead of an agnostic one. YOU are making a leap of faith by thinking that your world view is the correct one, even if based on evidence. Philosophical views don't require evidence, but you're trying to use evidence to propagate your philosophy.

Again, it's a bit like a Creationist using the bible for science. You cannot use evidence to argue the merits of a philosophical viewpoint. You DO have to use rationalization alone. Try explaining your view rationally instead of with one liners "oh yeah, but i have evidence!"

And i'm saying this as a methodological naturalist. I'd say welcome to the realm of discussing philosophy, though i fear you jumped in at the deep end of a pool of subjectivity and abstract concepts.

/E: I have a bit too much experience with philosophy as i almost majored in it. I think science and methodogolical naturalism explain reality better than any abstract metaphysics. But i can't justify a "gnostic" view regarding it. Claims of knowledge are almost always suspect to the Dunning-Kruger effect. People tend to claim to know a lot more than they really do.

/E2: The major thing i DID learn about philosophy in school is indeed this: Claims of knowledge regarding the truth value of a philosophical view are always wrong. Which is the reason i stopped studying it. They ALL have merit, and they all have none of it. Which is to say that we're all wrong. :D
 
Last edited:

Audie

Veteran Member
i

then, since everything is consciousness, there is nothing beyond it. your idea of "beyond-the-consciousness" is nothing but a random thought inside your head, not outside.

The big advantage of "metaphysics" and "theism" have
over science is that study is hard disciplined work.

Any fool can do theism or metaphysics, and a lot
of them do.
 

Darkstorn

This shows how unique i am.
The big advantage of "metaphysics" and "theism" have
over science is that study is hard disciplined work.

Any fool can do theism or metaphysics, and a lot
of them do.

Yeah but a lot of them aren't very good at it.

A more appropriate analogy would be painting: Anyone CAN do it.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Yeah but a lot of them aren't very good at it.

A more appropriate analogy would be painting: Anyone CAN do it.

Much easier of course to hide poor technique in "metaphysics"
than in oils on canvas.

RF-wise, is not "metaphysics" just a word to dress up woo woo?
 
Last edited:

Darkstorn

This shows how unique i am.
Much easier of course to hide poor technique in "metaphysics"
than in oils on canvas.

Disagree. If you were correct, then every single rhetoricist would also be good at hiding their faults at convincing others. And that depends entirely on the listener. I.E Why are you hitting yourself? :D

RF-wise, is not "metaphysics" just a word to dress up woo woo?

The beauty of metaphysics is that you can use any word to dress up anything if you put effort in it. But i suppose this is an example of the poor technique you were talking about.

/E: To get serious for a moment. Metaphysics is a bit more complex than some people think, maybe needlessly so. But it concerns itself with what it "means" to be something. Including, in this case, what it means to be a scientific concept like "proton." The existence of the proton IS fact and observed. But its nature, is explained using applied metaphysics when it was first hypothesized. I.E someone at some point used metaphysics that you benefit from, indirectly.

It IS something most people should stay out of, it'll just complicate your world view. Or it'll become a tool to abuse for lulzy jokes. But it has its place. Science wouldn't quite "be" what it is today without metaphysics. One could argue that since, it has supplanted most metaphysics.
 
Last edited:

cladking

Well-Known Member
Metaphysics only started with the Greeks...

You refuse to discuss the concept. You are creating strawmen and semantical arguments.

If "metaphysics" is defined as "the basis of science" and science began long after the Greeks it follows you are talking about something different.

That much is made clear when quoted PT 2110b and cherrypick one word "I3.t-wt.t" to mean carbon dioxide.

NO!!!

The ancient word for carbon dioxide is used many times in the Pyramid Texts and in every case it fits in context. It IS THIS CONTEXT ITSELF that shows the word means carbon dioxide. Words have always meant what the speaker believes they mean and if he uses them enough times in enough contexts then this meaning becomes quite clear. The ONLY DIFFERENCE with ancient words is that each one had only a single meaning. We must deconstruct sentences to determine which meaning is intended and unravel the sentence but Ancient Language sentences had only one possible meaning. I'm not sure why you refuse to discuss this, but believe you probably just don't understand me, so I keep trying.

If I'm wrong about ancient language being metaphysical I'd ask you how my deduction of the meaning of the Pyramid Texts allowed me to predict the existence of the thermal anomaly. How is it possible to make correct predictions from a misinterpretation while Egyptological interpretation has never predicted anything at all and has given rise to one mystery after another?

Science DOES HAVE A BASIS. ALL SCIENCE MUST HAVE A BASIS. The basis of any real science of any sort is "metaphysics". But you apparently believe in "magic". Math is magic, the laws of physics are magic, and science works by magic. This is most readily apparent when you equate experimentation with observation. Too many people today believe in Look and See Science and it's very dangerous in an era where are toys can be so destructive. "Observation" is wholly insufficient as a basis for science. We observe our beliefs preferentially to reality itself.

122a. For he is one who is unbound, he is indeed set free; for he is one who is seen, he is one who is indeed observed.

The ancient word for "metaphysics" is right in the PT. The word is "heka" but, of course it has been mistranslated and it's impossible to translate it at all because Ancient Language is completely different than our language. Their word "heka" was named rather than defined and was representative rather than symbolic. It stood in a sentence as the subject and represented everything they knew about metaphysics. It might be noted that it's ironic their metaphysics was so complex compared to ours' yet their understanding of it was exceedingly poor. They didn't know it worked on logic and perceived it was just a part of nature. In a sense it was but without understanding how it was logical they could never really understand how their science worked at all.
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
Talking about arguing metaphysics in another thread:

I've seen YOU make the mistake of conflating it with "belief in the supernatural" more than once. Only now you're actually arguing it like it is instead of presenting a straw man version. So, here's my observation:

Seeing you talk about metaphysics is a bit like seeing creationists talking about science: Their argument evolves, but in the end they're still making claims of knowledge instead of claims of belief. You're making the same mistake.

You are actually arguing from a side of a certain philosophical view:

Methodological naturalism is a philosophical view. Naturalism is a philosophical view. The view that everything can be explained with science or evidence alone IS a philosophical view in itself. And your defense is a bare claim of "gnosis." I.E You're acting like a gnostic methodological naturalist. Instead of an agnostic one. YOU are making a leap of faith by thinking that your world view is the correct one, even if based on evidence. Philosophical views don't require evidence, but you're trying to use evidence to propagate your philosophy.

Again, it's a bit like a Creationist using the bible for science. You cannot use evidence to argue the merits of a philosophical viewpoint. You DO have to use rationalization alone. Try explaining your view rationally instead of with one liners "oh yeah, but i have evidence!"

And i'm saying this as a methodological naturalist. I'd say welcome to the realm of discussing philosophy, though i fear you jumped in at the deep end of a pool of subjectivity and abstract concepts.

/E: I have a bit too much experience with philosophy as i almost majored in it. I think science and methodogolical naturalism explain reality better than any abstract metaphysics. But i can't justify a "gnostic" view regarding it. Claims of knowledge are almost always suspect to the Dunning-Kruger effect. People tend to claim to know a lot more than they really do.

/E2: The major thing i DID learn about philosophy in school is indeed this: Claims of knowledge regarding the truth value of a philosophical view are always wrong. Which is the reason i stopped studying it. They ALL have merit, and they all have none of it. Which is to say that we're all wrong. :D

Well said. Thank you.
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
...But you apparently believe in "magic". Math is magic, the laws of physics are magic, and science works by magic. This is most readily apparent when you equate experimentation with observation. Too many people today believe in Look and See Science and it's very dangerous in an era where are toys can be so destructive. "Observation" is wholly insufficient as a basis for science. We observe our beliefs preferentially to reality itself.

122a. For he is one who is unbound, he is indeed set free; for he is one who is seen, he is one who is indeed observed.

The ancient word for "metaphysics" is right in the PT. The word is "heka" but, of course it has been mistranslated and it's impossible to translate it at all because Ancient Language is completely different than our language. Their word "heka" was named rather than defined and was representative rather than symbolic. It stood in a sentence as the subject and represented everything they knew about metaphysics. It might be noted that it's ironic their metaphysics was so complex compared to ours' yet their understanding of it was exceedingly poor. They didn't know it worked on logic and perceived it was just a part of nature. In a sense it was but without understanding how it was logical they could never really understand how their science worked at all.

There are many supreme and sublime ironies disclosed by my work. Read the above and then consider that Egyptology translates "heka" as "magic".

Few people even understand our own simple metaphysics so it's not really surprising that the ancient word for it is mistranslated as "magic". Modern people are superstitious and can't tie their shoes without invoking numerous beliefs. Ancient people didn't even have words for "belief". They would no more understand the concepts of "believing" or "thinking" than a hummingbird. A bird doesn't need abstractions and beliefs to build a nest; they need the visceral knowledge and metaphysics they learned from their parents. They have no use for our stinky footed beliefs and they have no comprehension of the concept. A bird will no sooner believe in God than the theory of aerodynamics. They do what they do directed by a metaphysics created from consciousness and driven by simple language.

I don't think I can express this any more simply but then I keep finding new ways to put it ever simpler.

Reality is impossibly complex and so is the hummingbird. Modern humans are very simple though highly diverse because we each experience only our own beliefs.
 

Darkstorn

This shows how unique i am.
Well said. Thank you.

Don't thank me just yet. If you read into my post, it'll just complicate your worldview too.

/E: Here's the gist of it: You're wrong too. So am i. So which one should everyone believe? No one.
 
Last edited:
Top