jpbrooks

No problem. I know how time consuming weekday activities can be. Now, I try to view those activities as opportunities to put into practice and/or test the view(s) that I have been mulling over on the weekends. This tends to keep me from becoming bored and frustrated with those weekday activities that don't seem to be directly related to philosophy.

I know. I have obtained around 300 library books on philosophy alone. I prefer to own my books, so I usually do purchase them from used bookstores. But even used book price totals can add up quickly if one purchases a lot of used books.

I have had both Christian and non-Christian teachers, and I have learned a lot from them all. My own view is that if someone who doesn't share my views knows more than I know about some particular subject, then I'm not really helping myself by ignoring or dismissing everything that that person has to say.

Some Christian teachers take the position that their students who are new to the Christian faith shouldn't read the works of secular thinkers because they are afraid that the students would become confused by the secular authors or get led away from the faith. There may be some truth in that position, but it seems misleading, in general, to portray the views of those whose philosophical positions differ from one's own as so completely false (or evil) that nothing of any value can be learned from them. The student may eventually come to resent the teacher for having misled him or her.

Yes! The learning part is the fun part. In fact, I'm currently looking for "clues" about how to (if possible) reliably "mass produce" new "worldviews" to be critically examined, (thereby generating one's own "puzzles" to "solve"). This is much more satisfying and interesting than solving those "logic puzzles" that appear in the puzzle booklets one sometimes finds in the magazine racks in stores because it requires creative as well as critical thinking.

That title sounds very familiar. I think I already have that one (or one with a very similar title) from the Math library, but I'll have to check my stack of library materials. If I'm not mistaken, the hardback version of that book has a blue cover. If not, then that is certainly one I need to purchase.

It's good that you are not letting your injuries prevent you from safely working out.
I have heard (from practitioners, of course) that martial arts forms such as Tai Chi are good for people who have experienced injuries because the movements incorporated by those forms are not as "explosive" as are movements in other forms.
I have tried Tai Chi myself. But I found that the choreography was so complex that I ended up stumbling over my own feet. (Perhaps the class was too advanced for me.)
Actually, I forgot that I also took advanced "Self defense" in my second year of classes, where the emphasis was on Korean Karate (the instructor's specialty) and on "unlearning" everything our previous martial arts teachers had taught us.

Great! The Scholastics, and those thinkers that followed and critiqued their ideas, did seem to have left us with an abundant supply of philosophical material with which to work. It will be a pleasure becoming more acquainted with them all.
By the way, have you seen this site yet?

I have to run.

Thieving Magpie

As to whether metaphysics is useful or not:

I am of the persuasion that metaphysics is the first and greatest of all philosophical schools, and is therefore essential for any philosopher worth his or her salt.

It is the originator, of the un-originated, who's depths will never be known, but will always be counted.

fando

I think metaphysics is useful primarily because it provides a framework for useful discussion. Point #2 on the list.

My favorite metaphysical philosopher is Descartes, mainly because he tried to bridge idealism and materialism and failed.

It is also important to understand the differences between metaphysics and the trend in science towards unified theories (theories of everything). While the goals of each appear similar, the differences are primarily epistemological. There are also concepts that object that unified theories are real or meaningful. In particular, the concept of emergent phenomena in science poses a great dilemma for metaphysics and unified theories. The same concept also brings up the following question: Are sciences of unified theories dead ended? That is, does a theory of everything exist, or are there finer layers built upon even finer layers of physics--a fractal physics? We need metaphysics to discuss this, or at least a philosophy of science close to it which deals with unified theories.

stretch

Hi jpbrooks,

I waited until the work week was over and tried looking at the scholastic stuff on the link that you provided ... but that site is a little hard on the eyes (and since they only put a little bit in each page and don't use frames, the main parts of interest aren't easily extractable for viewing).

I have access to a major university library here with hundreds of volumes on thomistic thougth alone .... so I'll stick to the library.

I agree with you on the benefits of reading / listening to others with differing perspectives. I think that it is just as true for those who are at the beginning stages of faith as for those with a more matured faith as for those with no belief in God whatsoever. (Those who don't want you to read what 'others' are saying are like a lot of traditional martial arts instructors who insist that you shouldn't learn from anyone else since they don't have the 'true, best' way of fighting and they will just confuse you.)

Actually, one of the reasons why I like reading metaphysical works is that I don't agree with any of them ... but they make me think about things. I always end up saying to myself "that's not a valid conclusion that you're reaching" as I read it. Well, I guess it's more like "you can't reach that conclusion with certainty because there are limits to what we can know through 'pure reason' "

stretch

Hi Fando.

Descartes ... wow, that's an interesting choice.

I'm not sure whether I exist ... ok I'm thinking about whether or not I exist, so I must exist. Does anything else exist? Hmmm .... not sure whether or not this keyboard I'm touching exists ... but heck, since I know that the ability to think isn't something I gave myself, it must have come from somewhere else, so therefore, I'm sure that God exists. Still don't know whether or not this keyboard I'm touching exists ... heck, I don't even know if these fingers that I see typing on the keyboard even exist ....

And this fails to bridge the gap between idealism and materialism.


(I think that there are even weirder metaphysicists out there, but Descartes definitely ranks high on my list for weird ... right up there with Berkely.)