stretch

Hi,

This is my first posting in the 'hard thinkers' part of the forum. I hope I don't get eaten alive

Anyway, I'm wondering what people think about the 'value' of metaphysics.

I like reading philosophy (purely an amateur pursuit) and am fairly widely read. Kind of Kantian in terms of my perspective in terms of what can be known via pure reason.

Nevertheless, I enjoy reading metaphysical works.

There are several reasons:

(1) I'm interested in the history of philosophy, so if you skip the metaphysicists, there's a big hole in terms of what's out there.

(2) Lots of interesting philosophy involves critiques of metaphysics, so reading metaphysics helps in terms of understanding what they're talking about.

(3) I've always found it interesting to see how other people try to make sense of the world, and lots of people try to make sense of things via 'semi-organized' reflection on what isn't directly 'knowable' ... just reading all the weird and wonderful stuff out there is fun.

So does anybody have any favourite metaphysical works that they like, regardless of whether or not they agree with the premises and/or conclusions?

jpbrooks

Don't worry. I'm not "bloodthirsty".

For me, ontological assumptions are unavoidable. Even philosophical positions that deny metaphysics assume that their very denials pertain to reality. The whole idea of value itself relies upon the existence of a "valuator". Thus, philosophical positions that take existence in the real world into account seem more important, or "valuable" (to me) than those that do not.

My views on Kant are still very much under development. There are things about his views that I find controversial such as his concepts, and things like his (Transcendental) Idealism which I find difficult to embrace wholeheartedly, though I occasionally like and agree with what Idealists have to say on certain issues.

I agree. An instructor in the Music department at UIC recently stressed to me the importance of examining the history of a subject area as part of a comprehensive study of the subject.

Exactly! A person who rejects Metaphysics altogether (in order to be consistent) would have to dismiss all of the writing and discourse about Metaphysics in the whole history of philosophy, including much of what has been written by scholars here in the Secweb library for example, as meaningless scribble and chatter.

I agree here also. Philosophy is fun, (that is coming to understand things in philosophy is fun. Coming across philosophical questions to which I can't find the answers no matter how much effort I apply toward the search is not quite as much fun for me.)

Francis Herbert Bradleycomes to mind. I haven't read all of his book (entitled Appearance And Reality), and don't agree with every specific thing that he espouses (for example, the way he relates God to "The Absolute"). But, in general, I liked what I read. (I lost my copy of Appearance And Reality, so I'll have to buy another one.)

Now, I'm hungry! I'll be back later.

John Phillip Brooks

Keith Russell

Greetings:

Metaphysics is very useful; mysticism is not.

Keith.

stretch

Keith,

Who would you consider to be a mystical 'philosopher'? Somebody like Meister Eckhart (sp?).

Personally, I'm not into reading 'mystics' ... as I do not think that it is possible to 'generalize' from mystical experiences. And most 'mystics' don't seem to have very 'disciplined' thought processes. The mathematician in me just can't relate very well to it.

stretch

My views on Kant are still very much under development. There are things about his views that I find controversial such as his concepts, and things like his (Transcendental) Idealism which I find difficult to embrace wholeheartedly, though I occasionally like and agree with what Idealists have to say on certain issues.

Thanks for the links. I've never found any philosopher who didn't have some views that I find to be controversial. Including Kant.

I agree here also. Philosophy is fun, (that is coming to understand things in philosophy is fun. Coming across philosophical questions to which I can't find the answers no matter how much effort I apply toward the search is not quite as much fun for me.)

Sometimes I think those are the most fun questions to look at ... twisting the brain until it hurts ... but then again, I like self-torture .. probably a result of too many years of kickboxing ....


Francis Herbert Bradleycomes to mind. I haven't read all of his book (entitled Appearance And Reality), and don't agree with every specific thing that he espouses (for example, the way he relates God to "The Absolute"). But, in general, I liked what I read. (I lost my copy of Appearance And Reality, so I'll have to buy another one.)

I've never read any original works of Bradley ... just synopses in history of philosophy works. Weird and wonderful stuff.

Lately I've been reading a lot of Aquinas ... slogging through the medievel disputation style of writing is sometimes painful. And the mix of theology and philosophy makes it hard sometimes to separate out the philosophical from the theological arguments.

Keith Russell

Greetings:

Well, there's one mystical philosopher: Aquinas.

Keith.

stretch

Keith.
Why do you classify Aquinas as mystical? How about an example of what you mean by that?

Thieving Magpie

I tend to find that the very best of mystics are really just philosophers in disguise.

jpbrooks

Sorry for the late reply. I have been having a great deal of trouble accessing this website recently.

Sure. I go through a lot of Google and MSN search engine list pages just looking for websites that provide basic information about the subject matter that I'm interested in. I'm finding that the WWW is a nice place to obtain information if you already have some basic background knowledge about the subject that you are researching. But if you are a novice in the subject you are researching, you will probably get more basic information by studying a number of basic textbooks on the subject. (Unfortunately for me, my financial resources are limited right now -- and I'm working to correct that problem -- so I don't currently have a lot of money to invest in textbooks.)

You're right of course. Logically, there is no "alternative" to choosing a particular "worldview" perspective. But my (overall) view is that all of our (human) "worldviews" (including the one that I am presenting here) are either inconsistent (at some point) or incomplete because they reflect the fact that we are not omniscient beings. So, I'm as interested in a view's (in this case, Kant's) opposing alternative positions as I am in the view itself. Thus, it usually takes me a long time (after reflecting on all of the alternative views that I know about) to come to align myself with a particular philosophical school of thought.

Well, yes. It's much more satisfying to arrive at answers on your own, of course. But I still like to get "hints" sometimes when I'm having a great deal of difficulty solving a tough puzzle or problem. The list of unanswered (and possibly unanswerable) questions can sometimes grow quite rapidly.

Really? What style(s) of kickboxing? (I only took one "Self defense" PE course, so I'm no expert in martial arts.)

I agree.

True. In fact, it is that "synthesis" of "faith and reason" that is the central characteristic of Scholasticism, which apparently ended with William of Occam. It was later revived as "Neo-Scholasticism".

stretch

This may be my last reply for a few days ... I have more time on the weekend than on weekdays to wax philosophical ... working for a living gets in the way of things sometimes

That's what libraries and used bookstores are for. Actually, I've got a really good 9-volume history of philosophy series that I almost left on the shelf of the bookstore because the author was Catholic and I figured that it would be too biased to be of any use to my then-agnostic mind ... but it turned out to be a really good general overview of a large cross-section of western philosophers. (And I'm not trying to convert anybody ... I often recommend authors such as Dawkins to Christians .... because he writes thoughtful, interesting stuff.) I've also got a great series of French-language books that are primarily made up of major excerpts of original writings with short commentaries on them. Splurging in the Cambridge (Oxford?) Dictionary of Philosophy, helped with a lot of the jargon that I wasn't used to.

And there's always more views to consider. A never-ending search for a semi-intellectually-satisfying way to make sense of the world around us.

If you want a nice short overview of some simple-to-solve and some more difficult questions .... there's a short book called "Paradoxes from A to Z" by Michael Clark ... some of them are trivial, some of them aren't.


My days of full-contact are over ... getting older. I've done some 'thai rules' stuff. Now it's more boxing and semi-contact karate (too much bursitis in the hips and other assorted injuries .... ) I also do a bit of grappling, but it really aggravates the hip.


As for the (neo-)scholastics, that's kind of interesting metaphysics. Essence and existence stuff. Substance and accidents. Potentiality and act. It's a different way of looking at the world. It's also kind of interesting to see how classical Islamic philosophy and Greek philosophy influenced Aquinas. And of course, philosophical systems such as that of Aquinas led to the Kantian critique of metaphyics. (I have a friend who did graduate work in philosophy and knows a lot about scholasticism ... we have some interesting discussions about how much can actually be 'known' via scholastic methods.)