Contemporary Metaphysics

[Anonymous No.22682230]

What does the field of contemporary metaphysics look like?
What is left within metaphysical issues in contemporary discourse in philosophy?
Are philosophy of mind, philosophy of religion, phenomenology, recent scientific discoveries, and the field of theoretical physics to be considered as parts of metaphysics that have acquired a separate independent stature and have become separate fields, or are they still to be attributed instead to a unified metaphysical field?
Besides Sider and Schaffer, what other contemporary authors are advisable and considered worthy?

[Anonymous No.22682724]

bump

[Anonymous No.22682751]

Materialism won. There's literally nothing left but some bitching from postmodernists who are still angry they lost.

[Anonymous No.22682757]

Sider
Puntel
Priest
Pickstock
Desmond

[Anonymous No.22682786]

>>22682751
Physicalism doesnt really eliminate metaphysics

[Anonymous No.22682796]

>>22682751
>>22682786
>Doesn't know about vertical causality
iykyk

[Anonymous No.22682798]

>>22682786
It elimates the entire modern tradition of idealism which was all bullshit yes

[Anonymous No.22682918]

>>22682751
>>22682786
>>22682798
I'm surprised by physicalists. The prominence of physicalism and positivism are really baffling. It is quite literally the philosophical equivalent to flat earth theory -- in fact it is much worse since it destroys even the possibility of knowledge. Not only that, but the thing-in-itself is entirely inferred and mediated through consciousness, and yet physicalists take it as their fundamental principle and assert that consciousness must give an account of itself in physical terms.

Of course, there are some reasons one could put forward for this. First, there is great economic value in studying natural philosophy. The natural sciences have all sorts of economic implications in business, and great ability to transform society in a visible way. In comparison to this philosophy is "useless". Perhaps this leads to a sort of self-consciousness on the part of philosophers who then believe they will ennoble their discipline by kowtowing to science, and making science into a sort of all-encompassing worldview, when it is only a small and very limited subset of human knowledge.

Second, idealism is pretty much an initiatic worldview in the sense that in order to come to it one must entirely rethink every single assumption one has ever made. To realise the truth of idealism, one literally has to go insane in the conventional sense of the word, and that is not something most are willing to do. It is a spiritual, or moral, deficiency in physicalists that leads them to their position.

I suppose it has always been like this, apart from a brief golden age in Germany. That's what Plato's allegory of the Cave is meant to communicate. The road is narrow which leads to life, and those who take it will be in the mocked minority. It is true but at the same time baffling when you're actually living it.

[Anonymous No.22682928]

>>22682918
>thing-in-itself is entirely inferred and mediated through consciousness,

STILL trapped by the subjective mind virus I see. Surely you don't REALLY believe Locke knew fucking anything

>To realise the truth of idealism, one literally has to go insane in the conventional sense of the word,

Just go insane! Brilliant philosophy there

[Anonymous No.22682962]

>>22682928
>Just go insane! Brilliant philosophy there
Or just take your anti-depressants to deal with the soul crushing nature of physicalism and the satanic world economy it enables at every turn :^)

[Anonymous No.22683037]

>>22682230
>What does the field of contemporary metaphysics look like?
modal realism
perdurantism and endurantism
grounding

[Anonymous No.22683125]

>>22682928
>Just go insane! Brilliant philosophy there
The crazed eye of an idealist is testament to his radical honesty and commitment to the pursuit of truth. Idealists are idealists in both senses of the term. To allow oneself to *empty oneself out* so completely, to question every single assumption one has ever made in one's life, to, in a sense, take the 50,000 foot view of life and of oneself, is an absolutely radical project. It must be lived, it cannot merely be postulated textbook-like.

These are things which simply cannot be discussed with practical men like Samuel Johnson, at dinner parties, within the framework of the mundane. When I read idealist philosophy, I often think what it would be like to express these truths on a podcast like Joe Rogan's, and I always conclude it would be impossible. They are simply too profound, too foundational. You may laugh at Hegel for claiming his pen was writing the thoughts of God, but once you encounter these truths so deeply such statements really become possible, and laughter at anything becomes impossible.

Being an idealist is both a lonely and a tragic existence. It is like composing the most profound symphony and having it mocked by your fellow men, who cannot comprehend it. And yet the symphony *is* about your fellow men, it expresses their spirit in its most sublime state, and yet when it is made explicit to them they cannot comprehend it. They are like animals who fail to recognise their own reflections.

For this reason, there will never be longlasting consensus in philosophy: seeing the truth requires a moral and spiritual disposition which is radically elite. There will be golden ages, such as Platonism and German Idealism, but there will never be full agreement like in the sciences.

[Anonymous No.22683143]

>>22682230
>What does the field of contemporary metaphysics look like?
i think they are trying to go beyond modality

[Anonymous No.22683165]

As far as I'm aware the only two meaningful strains of metaphysical thought out there today are Speculative Realism and various forms of Theoretical Physics. To be fair, Theoretical Physics actually produces results and Speculative Realism is all about figuring out how to use math to solve problems, so you can see why they're favored over abstract theorization and "useless" navel gazing.

[Anonymous No.22683489]

>>22683165
>SR
Literally a meme for braindead zoomers. Gtfo of here

[Anonymous No.22683512]

>>22683489
Why do you say that?

[Anonymous No.22683518]

>>22683512
It's been DOA since the first texts and all the founders have disavowed it. All that remains is a few meme blogs. Most meme kiddos have since moved on to acc or trad which are similarly braindead.

[Anonymous No.22683535]

>>22682918
You're right anon. We're right. Materialist hubris will undo itself and philosophy will inevitably return to honesty.

[Anonymous No.22683543]

>>22683535
Idealism can have it's happy fun play time but in the end you'd rather have a computer than inagine you had one

[Anonymous No.22683552]

>>22683543
My brain outdoes any computer. The path of positivism is nihilism and extinction. We must kill the AI God in its cradle. Death to the evil empire of capital. Retvrn to huperborean wisdom

[Anonymous No.22683555]

>>22683552
-- space man

[Anonymous No.22683559]

>>22683552
Why did you type this when you could just manifest it in your brian spirit? Aren't you admitting material recognition of your (nihilistic, incoherent) desires is important after all?

[Anonymous No.22683568]

>>22682751
Physicalism/materialism is dumb and hard on numerous unwarranted assumptions. It's mainly based on what giant canard: an appeal to material sciences, when what the volumes of materialist metaphysics does is not in anyway material science.
And I'm not talking about a physicist who doesn't care about philosophy and just holds a materialist worldview as a default, but trained philosophers who are not scientists.

[Anonymous No.22683572]

woo

[Anonymous No.22683592]

>>22683568
>Physicalism/materialism is dumb
Average idealist

[Anonymous No.22683602]

>>22683543
>>22683552
Religiosity and offshoots like idealism are the overarching sources of creativity and innovation, overwhelmingly moreso than materialism-positivism does.

Newton, Gauss, and Einstein, are the greatest fundamental mathoscience figures, and each had religious impulses. Einstein affirmed Kant's adage that belief and rationality both had crucial roles in society. Nevermind that materialism itself is fundamentally a belief that cannot explain its own underpinnings.

Anon is right in pointing out materialism-positivism is gradual species suicide.

[Anonymous No.22683633]

>>22682230
The notion that there is a field in which progress can be achieved, that philosophy is in itself an object of study is absolutely absurd, so absurd that only an Anglo who's never had a philosophical thought in his life and never bothered to ask a genuine question, expecting an answer would come up with.

Every single one of you in this retarded thread has fallen victim to this narrative by naming x person or proclaiming the superiority of y genre or school.

Philosophy is about answering questions. We have anachronistically started sorting texts and such answers by their likeness, method and chronology.
Sometimes philosophy is about arguing about the correctness of one such answer, other times it is about creating an answer, further it is about asking the questions in the first place.
The worst thing to happen to philosophy was the Humboldt University system (which we study in and have studied in since the 1830s with the Berlin invention of the [modern] university, representing this term) and the rise of natural sciences rather definitely imposing itself upon philosophy, in some ways very correct, in others overreaching and entirely out of place and irrelevant. The mistake philosophy has made was not to capitalize on the technical advancement and post war cultural, media and most recently digital developments, in production other than shallow poemic essais praising the taste or sight or some other sense, or very concepts like power or oppression, as if pseudo literary aesthetics in the already-literature of philosophy would improve or change, or open new insights by being half systematic, half train of thought and nothing whole by the end of it.
Phenomenology was the last truly philosophical invention because it built on the arts, on media, on sociology, anthropology, history, psychology as newly evolving modern disciplines and technical products. We've been spinning in circles unable to ask, answer or argue in any manner at all because we cannot make sense of our world, we do not bother at all to make sense of it, to ask questions, we like to stick our heads in the sand of academia to make ourselves busy, to fill our heads with nomenclature and a most meaningless historiography, detached from all history and actuality--because we are afraid, we do not want to work, we like it easy; and that is what this world has bred and educated and built us to be like. We are utterly unable to perceive possibility because we do not have reality, we do not have actuality further, we are in a vacuum of our own making.
No LARP ideology, no Super-Logicism will solve that. Go out and fucking talk to a tree, Nigger. He's just as much wood as your head, you might for the first time connect with something real and ask yourself a significant question about anything being.

[Anonymous No.22683639]

>>22683633
>Philosophy is about answering questions
No it isn't. You're a verbose dipshit.

[Anonymous No.22683642]

>>22683639
>Go out and fucking talk to a tree, Nigger.

[Anonymous No.22683644]

>>22683639
You don't know what a question is, what an answer is. You can't even read.

[Anonymous No.22683658]

>>22683633
>Philosophy is about answering questions.
Lmao, completely ignoring that asking the questions is obviously more fundamental. Your opinion about philosophy presumes that some questions even have answers which the human intellect can provide.

Sheer hubris and hilariously dumb of a misstep.

[Anonymous No.22683671]

>>22683639
What happens that makes these dolts so impetuous?

[Anonymous No.22683731]

>>22683639
>>22683658
Not everything deserves a question. Every genuine questions deserve an answer. All we do is question, but that seemingly hasn't worked so well, now has it, if you look at contemporary philosophy.

>cool let me just take the first sentence and not read the rest
That's what you critique I am stating. If you were at all adept at askin questions then you wouldn't answered that way.
And do you think the reliance on mirroring our impression of what Greek philosophy was and what you therefore think questioning is, has any merit or value to actual philosophical practice?

I typed something up. I am willing to admit that. I don't think "go out and talk to a fucking tree, nigger" especially hinted at my argumentation being thought out and thorough.
Of course, it all starts with the question, at least for the individual. You have to ask the question... in Philosophy. I could retort now and say that, indeed, Philosophy *has* all those questions philosophical which are in the scope of a mode of questioning, predisposing it of some form of answer.
The assumption you put forth that all answers have to be true and that answering is not in itself a method is very indicative of what you would think of the relation between truth - fact - correctness. Such that "they are all the same" and "true is what is correctly fact", or someone other logicism an idiot like Dennet would give for the sake of ever winning the eternal argument without result. That is the disease of our times. The death of history, the death of story, the death of process, the death of failure. You're just as good as the professor you hate for their archaic and simple viewpoints. Good luck, you'll get tenure.

[Anonymous No.22683737]

>>22683731
>Not everything deserves a question. Every genuine questions deserve an answer.
But humanity isn't able to determine that without asking questions first. And they have to ask questions per question. You're blindly emotionally invested and overcommitted to a bad unsustainable position. Stop being German and start from philosophical beginnings.

[Anonymous No.22683748]

>>22683731
Such that "they are all the same" and "true is what is correctly fact", or someone other logicism an idiot like Dennet would give for the sake of ever winning the eternal argument without result.
I can't understand your poor grammar, and I'm starting to think you're a bot, so you should work on that too. At least we agree Dennett is an idiot.

[Anonymous No.22683754]

>>22683731
>Such that "they are all the same" and "true is what is correctly fact", or someone other logicism an idiot like Dennet would give for the sake of ever winning the eternal argument without result.
I can't understand your poor grammar, and I'm starting to think you're a bot, so you should work on that too. At least we agree Dennett is an idiot.

[Anonymous No.22683755]

>>22683671
The eternal Anglo sails to Sea, looks upon the Coast, and says he has the World in his grasp conquered.
He has a ship, a ship is fast, a ship can go everywhere.


Your race is an insult.

[5 am posting No.22683762]

>>22683748
>>22683754
The bot says what?

[Anonymous No.22683764]

>>22683755
What are you talking about? I'm not the materialist, or Anglo. I'm asking what makes materialists so impetuous

[Anonymous No.22683827]

>>22682230
metaphysics is dead (and rightly so)
if you don't have a phenomenology and ontology instead you're about a century out of touch
>>22682928
you're too far ahead they can't even see it

[Anonymous No.22683831]

>>22683827
Metaphysics has been reduced to right and wrong, for now.

[Anonymous No.22683834]

>>22683827
>>22682928
double digit iq circlejerk

[Anonymous No.22683843]

What I’m taking away from this thread is that I should study mathematics instead of philosophy

[Anonymous No.22683877]

this thread reeks of pseudery

[Anonymous No.22683880]

>>22683843
If you want anything even remotely like an answer to metaphysical problems you should study physics. Math as a pre-req I suppose. Although, there's also no point doing this unless you already understand metaphysical quandries. Really you're going down the road of ontology. Do you care enough about a problem you will likely never solve to spend the rest of your life looking at computer models of objects so small and so distant they might as well not exist? That's what scientists actually do.

[Anonymous No.22683997]

>>22683843
math is down stream of metaphysics, its an archetypal language that is discovered, not invented.

[Anonymous No.22684925]

>>22683843
Yes

[Anonymous No.22685101]

Was philosophy of religion a branch of metaphysics?
Or is philosophy of religion still metaphysics in the contemporary times?

[Anonymous No.22685108]

>>22682786
Doesn't physicalism augmented with genetics and neuroscience do, though? What remains is just anthropology, the study of social norms, essentially. There is no METAphysics left to speak of.

[Anonymous No.22685133]

>>22685108
You're like one of those victorian gentleman who were like oh yes we're quite done with science we've completely figured it out it's all a lovely lil clockwork or smthn by jove long live britannia

Protip: they were all wrong

Anyway the sciences come from philosophy and still need the influence lest they be dumb/blind

There's a reason higher ed calls it a Philosophy doctorate

Meta questions will always remain. Gaps will always remain.

What scientific reason do you have to think that we will ever attain absolute knowledge? Isn't that the sort of thing that so called rationalist (moreso strict empiricist but it is confused among lay) people make fun of idealists like Hegel for?

And especially the social sciences need philosophical questioning and influence!!!

[Anonymous No.22685148]

>>22685133
>Anyway the sciences come from philosophy and still need the influence lest they be dumb/blind
Sure, except philosophy isn't synonymous with metaphysics. This is a misnomer. Ultimately, the Sophists, not the Platonists, are the ones who have survived the scrutiny of scientific endeavor.

>And especially the social sciences need philosophical questioning and influence!!!
Dialectics is all bullshit that asks irrelevant questions.

[Anonymous No.22685167]

>>22682230
I'm reading a contemporary introduction to metaphysics and the farther I get, the more Platonist I become

[Anonymous No.22685175]

>>22685148
Do you know what dialectics is? Sure. Hegel is a castle in the sky. But in a platonic sense, the dialoguing of ideas, nothing wrong with that.

Questions of method and presuppositions are always philosophical

I do agree that modern metaphysics requires modern science

Unfortunately philosophers are oft ignorant of science

And scientists are oft ignorant of philosophy

But there are some doing good work and mixing the two

And the questions of morals will always remain

Does your social science give you any oughts from its isness?

How do we optimize society?

Political philosophy this will certainly stay too!

>sophists won
I agree. Reread Plato. Him and Socrates were sophists.
>muh atomism or smthn
Smthn smthn subatomic invalidates classical atomics
>voids n clinamens
The clinamen is not the issue here

[Anonymous No.22685226]

>>22682751
Materialism became the dominant paradigm, dogmatically enforced from above, sure. But it shows serious strains itself.

For example, physicalism, as most people conceive of it, the world being reducible to "little balls of stuff," is largely dead in physics proper. Davies "From Immaterialism to Materialism and Back," in "Information and the Nature of Reality," is good on this. Reductive materialism seems unable to explain both phenomena in quantum mechanics that make the part (particle) definable only in terms of the whole (the field) and the emergence of first person perspective. The latter, the "Hard Problem of Consciousness," receives more attention, but IMO the limits of classical physicalism are better exemplified in the reasons that it is no longer dominant as a "philosophy of physics," in that specialized field. The emergence and primacy of ontic structural realism and "It From Bit," Immaterialism in physics speaks world's about the future of physicalism long term. The edifice only survives because philosophy has become so specialized that paradigm shifts in the philosophy of physics and biology only very slowly get felt in the wider world of philosophy.

Relational models, e.g. Rovelli's Helgoland meanwhile give quite well with Wheeler's "It From Bit," and these both take a fundementally process view to metaphysics (Heraclitus winning over Parmenides), and you see this in the rise of pancomputationalism and/or pan semiotics (Deutsche, Vestal, Davies, Tegmark, Lloyd, etc.).

This stuff still has a real effect on the sciences as well. For example, the success of the Many Worlds Interpretation as of late owes to it seeming to be a solution to the Fine Tuning Problem in the philosophy of religion (I don't think it actually is, it just begs the question of "why this one particular universe production mechanism that leads to conciousness?)

The idea that perspective is a basic part of existence ("Asymmetry: The Foundations of Information," "entanglement is a dance for three) also contrasts with mainstream physicalism, the "view from nowhere."

The positivist contention that objectivity approaches truth at the limit has been shredded. Is the "real view of the world," how one conceives of it without a mind? How something looks without eyes?

Physicalism only holds on because physicalist philosophy of mind is well supported, it just happens to import a lot of unjustified baggage. Particularly, neuroscience has tended to import Kant's dogmatic assumptions, then act shocked that they run into the same problems. But of course, this is no shock if you suppose "faculties create the vision of seeing a tree," "separate from the world." The problem is they don't, man in a vacuum is a corpse. Experience involves interaction with the world, "being seen" is a relation a tree can have. The division only seems so stark because it gets dogmatically presupposed. Hegel was spot on in this critique.

[Anonymous No.22685241]

>>22683518
this
>t. half trad half acc-er

[Femboy4Prez !!QtZ5ahYRiUC No.22685266]

This has to be one of the worst contemporary philosophy threads I've seen in a long time. Absolutely flabbergasted by how little you must read to believe anything in this thread.
Anyway;
>>22682230
I think there aren't many broad characterizations you can apply to contemporary metaphysics besides a vague commitment to ontological parsimony and naturalism. Ontological parsimony describes the concern that we should postulate as few kinds of entities as possible. Naturalism is an even more vague notion that can't be boiled down to physicalism or materialism, but which essentially distrusts any suggestion that there are indications of a "higher order" in the world.
There's also the distrust of systematic philosophy which I think is a byproduct of the way all academia is structured. Anyway, here are some contemporary metaphysicians;
David Lewis, Paul Boghossian, Penelope Maddy, David Hilbert, Wittgenstein (he's all the rage at the moment).

[Anonymous No.22685275]

>>22685266
>a lil knowledge is a dangerous thing
At least >>22682757 gave some interesting answers although oddly ignoring the "new materialism(s)" so to speak which seems to have supplanted SR

[Anonymous No.22685285]

>>22685266
Shut up tripfaggot pseud. Your post is even thinner of content.

[Femboy4Prez !!QtZ5ahYRiUC No.22685296]

>>22685275
I'm a huge Priest fan but OP wanted to know what contemporary metaphysics is like and Priest is an exception of an exception. I've never heard of this SR thing. Sounds like another popular attempt to move past analytic philosophy that will die like every philosophy hoping to exist without challenging everything which perpetuates academia's structure and institutions

[Anonymous No.22685297]

>>22685266
>tripfag undergrad tries to show off
It's like watching a clown holding a shotgun fall down a flight of stairs and blow his head off by accident at the landing

[Anonymous No.22685314]

>>22685133
>Gaps will always remain.
Completely arbitrary historicist assessment

Way to attack positivism and then make the exact same fucking error

[Anonymous No.22685320]

>>22683543
This is what I meant in my previous post. A supreme example! You assert the superiority of science *BECAUSE OF ITS ECONOMIC USEFULNESS*. You are ashamed to be a philosopher, a practitioner of a “useless discipline”, by which is meant something that generates no economic goodies, so you kowtow to science and make a worldview out of scientism. But here you chose a bad example: computers were invented by purely rational a-priori mathematical speculation, and not positivist empiricism. But I know, your types also include mathematics in the category of “noble disciplines” because mathematics too has economic implications, even though its form is more akin to philosophy than science. If it had no such implications you would likewise call it useless navel gazing. Pursuit of truth does not matter to you, only consumer goodies. You are a typical bourgeois.

[Anonymous No.22685323]

>>22685266
>>22685296
>>22685297
Gotchu; added this moronic pseud to the filter.

[Femboy4Prez !!QtZ5ahYRiUC No.22685326]

>>22685275
Lmao the wikipedia has a quote of Brassier shitting on the whole project. This is literally just object-oriented ontology with a rebrand.
>>22685285
>>22685297
There's actually no way you're reading the same thread as I am. I refuse to believe you're not an elaborate creation of a personality self gaslit into oblivion

[Anonymous No.22685335]

>>22685320
>computers were invented by purely rational a-priori mathematical speculation,
Why do you say this when you mean binary logic

[Anonymous No.22685342]

>>22685335
Which is non-empirical… what’s your point?

[Anonymous No.22685364]

>>22685342
Besides the actual physicality of the computing machine itself which you conveniently ignore, the fact the computer can replicate binary logic demonstrates the MATERIAL CONSTRUCTIVISM of the logic system itself.

[Anonymous No.22685383]

>>22682918
If you’re wondering why contemporary philosophy is so bad in comparison to the past, consider that we have dropped about 15 average IQ points since the early 19th century, we have lost religion and a unifying view of life, and academic institutions have turned away from a disinterested pursuit of truth to visions of themselves as “research institutions” which help businesses to push out new exciting products or find talented young employees. The times we are living in are honestly baffling, and must be of great importance with respect to the totality of God’s world-historical drama.

[Anonymous No.22685384]

>>22685364
Computers don't "think," though. They perform a nested set of millions of functions in tandem that humans progressively say "Yes, that is what I wanted you to do" to, from the lowliest binary logic switch firing "correctly" to the major components of the computer to the kernel to the OS to the GUI to the applications. Every step of a computer's functioning is the result of decades of humans saying "Yep, works correctly" to things THEY built and intended to work a certain way, so that they could REPRESENT human intent and human tasks on a computer. Your computer doesn't "compute logic" or something, in some secret place deep within itself, it is basically a rube goldberg machine made of switches and meta-switches for switches and meta-meta-switches (etc.). The relationship is analogous to a "mechanical Turk" that is made to emulate human behavior only because humans "told" it what human behavior is: humans sound like this, so let me adjust your vocoder to sound "better"; humans move like this, so let me give you this range of movement; humans say "How do you do?" and not "LJK;FDSHGASGKLJASDH" so let me make that one of your stock expressions.

Adding algorithms and neural nets to this changes nothing in principle. The algorithms and neural nets are themselves human-approved. Just because they are black boxes for humans does not mean they are black boxes in principle, does not mean there is anything "going on" inside the black box. It just means that we can't COMPUTE and thus "track" what's going on.

The ultimate source of computing is still human consciousness. The computer is a retarded metaphor for understanding the human mind because the computer is nothing but a mechanism built within the human mind and imposed on dead matter. The only thing in computing that comes close to a theory of consciousness is a Turing complete machine and that's purely notional, it's a thought experiment that is isomorphic with a theory that gives consciousness ontological status. Most invoke it in question-begging ways, like it's a magic totem to shoo away idealists.

"Natural selection + computers science = consciousness" is a just-so story.

[Anonymous No.22685393]

In universities, it’s ignored entirely. The prevailing dogma is that it’s not helpful so shouldn’t be paid attention to. This is the fundamental presupposition of the scientism cult that is pervasive across elite society in Western countries.

[Anonymous No.22685394]

>>22685364
It demonstrates that Forms are materially instantiated, something idealists have known for thousands of years. (Otherwise, the logic my computer runs is not the same logic your computer runs, right? I mean they are materially different!)

[Anonymous No.22685404]

>>22685364
double digit iq midwit spotted

[Anonymous No.22685412]

>>22685101
If by philosophy of religion you mean theology, then I think it would be accurate to say that metaphysics is a branch of philosophy and a branch of theology because theology makes use of philosophy. The fundamental basis of theology is really that philosophy is good, but insufficient for real wisdom. So if you’re doing theology, you’re also doing philosophy but if you’re doing philosophy that doesn’t necessarily mean you’re doing theology. Both imply metaphysics.

[Anonymous No.22685443]

>>22685314
>arbitrary
>historicist
So? Are you Hegel? You have an ahistorical presuppositionless science? Fuck off tard. You've obviously never thought about philosophy of science in your life

[Anonymous No.22685500]

>>22685383
I don't think that's quite it. I think it's because higher education and so-called "intellectual discourse" has become more accessible to lower-class families from minority backgrounds.
I've noticed that a lot of people whom I went to college with were literally country boys who'd never lived in "the big city" before. They grew up in small towns, in some cases even in villages, where there are no bookstores and nothing to do for fun except riding horses and killing wild animals. A lot of these people literally never had any time for philosophical speculation because they never had a peaceful moment in their lives. Nobody ever stimulated them to write with a pen on paper for its own sake.
In contrast, if you look at old-school intellectuals back in pre-WWI Germany, you'd notice many of them came from deeply devout families that wanted their children to become priests, lawyers, or teachers. They were usually rather well off, with a large estate and plenty of servants. Lord Bertrand Russell, despite his naïve materialist metaphysics, is actually a good example of what pre-war European intellectuals were like, stuffy, raised in a large household full of books, educated by great schoolmasters and tutors who nurtured a love for the classics, music, painting, and other arts, and who had more spare time than duties throughout most of their life. Similar tales can be told of people like Arthur Schopenhauer (who came from a rather well-off merchant family) and Karl Marx (who came from a wealthy family of rabbis and merchants).
I wouldn't say that the average IQ has gone down so much as we've actually gotten a better idea of what the average IQ is for the masses of common people, you know, inner-city blacks, people from the Mexican countryside, people who grew up in the villages of India, etc. All of these people were not around in white neighborhoods 2 generations ago, and now we have them in universities, in high-ranking managerial positions, all over the media, etc.

[Anonymous No.22685667]

>>22685500
I suppose I’m one of those people you describe. From a working class immigrant family who are quite anti-intellectual but managed to get top grades in everything and go to a world class uni. But I am a total spiritual and philosophical outlier amongst my bourgeois classmates. I can’t stand their materialism and pretended epistemological modesty which they use as a cover for soullessness.

No, I think it is a spiritual/cultural issue, not a class one. The bourgeoisie after all IS the technocratic “practical” class which has no time for useless “navel gazing”.

[Anonymous No.22686162]

>>22685667
It depends, sometimes people who study are described as the bourgeoisie because they study but they don't know nothing, while the others say they are the real practical class..

[Anonymous No.22687704]

>>22685394
I admit you caught me off guard anon. Do you think atomic structures are different when they share identical properties?

[Anonymous No.22687707]

>>22685443
Are you Hegel?
Yes. My name is literally Hegel Two
Why did you ask this question

[Anonymous No.22687751]

Philosophy only has problems to solve because of an abandonment of God. God is the only way to make sense of reality. Everything else is flawed.

Materialism is obviously false, but idealism is basic-tier alternative and doesn't answer "conscious of WHAT?" Unless you are a solipsist, there is still an external reality and other beings to explain.

Reality is within God's mind. Our perceived reality is obviously mediated and constructed by our senses, but that is as-designed and wouldn't make sense any other way. For all intents and purposes it is "physical" just as much as we are "physical." "Physical" is the medium of our experience but not the underlying reality. What else is there to say?

[Anonymous No.22687763]

>>22687751
What's it like being Kant in 2023 AD?

[Anonymous No.22687797]

>>22687763

idk good I guess.

[Anonymous No.22687806]

>>22682230
>What does the field of contemporary metaphysics look like?
Hahahahahahhahahhaaha
Doesn't exist anymore.

[Anonymous No.22687962]

>>22683827
>you're about a century out of touch
>>caring about "being in touch"
So it's all just a fad to you?

[Anonymous No.22687992]

Notice materialists argue like this,
>metaphysics is over because we've won
So what are your arguments?
>The argument is that we say metaphysics is over, so it's over.
>SCIENCE!
But they're not actually proving that through science. Or philosophy. It's pure dogmatism.
What I'm saying is that metaphysical materialists are witches who need to be staked.

[Anonymous No.22689075]

>>22682230
metaphysics ended with Kant... just read him and you know where we are these days...

[Anonymous No.22689097]

>>22685226
Deutsche mentioned
based

[Anonymous No.22689111]

>>22685667
you're correct, the anon you are replying to made a truly idiotic point

[Anonymous No.22689120]

>>22685175
>Does your social science give you any oughts from its isness?
No, but here's the issue: metaphysics no longer derives oughts from any isness, but from other oughtnesses. That's my concern with metaphysics.

What are we even referring to with metaphysics?

[Anonymous No.22689151]

>>22683568
Clinging to views is dumb. Philosophical perspectives are not birth right citizenship card carrying ideologies but tools in a tool box switched out in routine with minimal regard to fashion.
What some call materialism is not materialism. What some call materialism is materialism but that also is irrelevant. A physicist can make weight pronouncements 80 to 90% on the mark. Our ancient heritage as a species has not caught up to this life changing development. It has humbled the preisthoods. It has made balk the dreamers. Normal people shiver that knowledge is near. The face of the knower is one who is accepting an ignorance in exchange for a query to ignore all that is not his query until he reaches his answer. An austere physicist making idealized environments in a lab is called a materialist by the preist. An addicted greedy shopaholic is called a materialist by the crowd. Neither truly captured what the attitude of things themselves. These are feminine words not worth salt. To say better one would see where the physicist is coming from and why as a learner he is content with ignoring daily experience and daily aspirational thought by the power of his craft. A bad purchaser is not a materialist because the bad purchaser is a greedy dumb vainglorious bitch. She has an allocation of values for time and status that is obtuse and philosophically bankrupt.

[Anonymous No.22689171]

>>22689151
Just as 0 and 1 are the binary basis for computing we are continually alternating from internal locus and external locus. Absolving this distinction is the highest point of awareness. You see yourself both in third person and first person. You then see your environment in third person and first person. Neurologists find this path. Mathematicians are more idealistic. Historians are more materialistic. Neither are wrong.

[Anonymous No.22689185]

the real question is why metaphysics was taken seriously by anybody? Of course smart people never took these ramblings seriously, but why NPCs did?

[Anonymous No.22689190]

>>22689171
Buddhism confronts Nihilism with
"It hits different"
Bushido confronts Buddhism with
"It hits"
Confucianism confronts Bushido with
"It ought to I ask and here's how we ask as a family"

[Anonymous No.22689197]

>>22689185
Metaphysics was always a process of cognition like an artform of antiquity omening presagiage to science.

[Anonymous No.22689206]

>>22687751
>Our perceived reality is obviously mediated and constructed by our senses
yes
>but that is as-designed and wouldn't make sense any other way
and your argument for why this should be is?

[Anonymous No.22689247]

>>22682918
>I'm surprised by physicalists.
It's literally just untcritical scientism.

>we put a man on the moon therefore...
>iPhones exist, therefore...
>get with the times bruh, look at all this PROGRESS we've made, therefore...

[Anonymous No.22689249]

>>22689206

Because our reality is our reality. We can't perceive what we can't perceive. We are limited, yes. So what? What's the point of all this metaphysical talk?

[Anonymous No.22689273]

>>22689249
Mathematicians invoke the metaphysical often by asking what is the source of mathematics. If it is discovered then it is metaphysical. If it is not discovered then it is invented and it is a custom for ease of habit to agreeable computation.
Artists invoke the metaphysical when they ponder their art process. This is the most obnoxious to discuss but the most pleasant to observe.

[Anonymous No.22689276]

>>22689249
“What is the “what” of that which we say we cannot perceive?” What makes this a bad question to ask?

[Anonymous No.22689286]

>>22689273
Example: sine waves are physical. Perhaps the most immediate concept that even conceiving it tunes your mind itself by physically altering the broadband brainwave itself.
Arcsine is custom of concept for more elaborate computation.
Secant is abstruse and not evidently invented nor evidently discovered. Then there is something as mysterious as arm mechanics and walking the task of reciprocal identity and reciprocal domains.
Metaphysics asks:
Did the universe give me the domaine for arcsecant?
Epistemology answers:
You conventionally chose a period that is interchangable around the origin with a few other possible periods to pick from to define the tile for tilings. The UNIVERSITY gave you the inverse of this reciprocal identity. Reciprocation is not the save as vice versa. Put them together and you have logically exhausted most logicians save for the most studious of sages who have exerted themselves to a higher custom a higher standard.

[Anonymous No.22689291]

>>22689286
Anyone can elicit a response, it doesn't prove or disprove free will

[Anonymous No.22689302]

>>22689276

It is God's direct sustenance of all reality. We can't name it because we can't perceive it as it is. It is God's mind. The actualization of possibilities.

[Anonymous No.22689306]

>>22682230
I will never understand why people choose to read that kind of airport garbage instead of learning different languages and reading the superior brains.

[Anonymous No.22689317]

>>22689306
Airport Metaphysics, someone write this

[Anonymous No.22689321]

>>22689291
Sometimes im good with OOO OOO AAA AAA
>>22689317
This is what I mean by OooOOO AAAAA

[Anonymous No.22689331]

>>22689317
There's a lot of it on the market.

[Anonymous No.22689342]

>>22682751
>Materialism won.
Lol no materialism has completely lost and is thoroughly refuted because NDEs are actually solid proof of life after death, because anyone can have them if they come close to and survive death. And they are so extremely real to those who have them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U00ibBGZp7o

As this NDEr described their NDE:

>"Now, what heaven looks like? 'OMG' doesn't even describe how beautiful this place is. Heaven is, there are no words. I mean, I could sit here and just not say anything and just cry, and that would be what heaven looks like. There are mountains of beauty, there are things in this realm, you can't even describe how beautiful this place is. There are colors you can't even imagine, there are sounds you can't even create. There are beauties upon this world that you think are beautiful here. Amplify it over there times a billion. There are, it's incredibly beautiful, there's no words to describe how beautiful this place is, it's incredibly gorgeous."

And importantly, even dogmatic skeptics have this reaction, because the NDE convinces everyone:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mysteries-consciousness/202204/does-afterlife-obviously-exist

So anyone would be convinced if they had an NDE, we already know this, no one's skepticism is unique. And the book in pic related is known to convince even hardened skeptics that there is an afterlife.

>muh brain chemistry

Neuroscientists are convinced by NDEs too. What do skeptics think they understand that neuroscientists do not?

>muh DMT causes it

Scientifically refuted already, and NDErs who have done DMT too say that the DMT experience, while alien and really cool and fun, was still underwhelming to the point of being a joke when compared to the NDE.

[Anonymous No.22689347]

>>22689331
I want the book cover to be of a man at the airport reading "Airport Metaphysics"

[Anonymous No.22689367]

>>22689347
Is that automatic idiocy? Why do you use that?

[Anonymous No.22689370]

>>22689367
DALLE was free until it wasn't

[Anonymous No.22689376]

>>22689370
That's not an answer, anon

[Anonymous No.22689469]

>>22689075
> ended
More like started to get ignored. Del Noce is right. Modernity isn’t answering metaphysical questions. It’s refusing to grapple with them.

[Anonymous No.22689549]

>>22689376
Thats not a question, Anon

[Anonymous No.22689750]

You start here

[Anonymous No.22690179]

Is Phenomenology a failed scientific metaphysics?
Was Merleau-Ponty the best phenomenologist?

[Anonymous No.22690204]

>>22690179
Marion>Levinas>MP>Husserl>Heidegger

[Anonymous No.22690215]

>>22689750
Heraclitus v Parmenides?

Naw, Empedoclate yrself

[Anonymous No.22690312]

>>22682918
Good post

[Anonymous No.22690348]

>>22690215
Parmenides is pneumatic
Empedocles is psychic
Heraclitus is hylic

One man's pneuma is another's hyle tho

[Anonymous No.22691251]

Kantian+Thomistic moderate realism metaphysics

https://youtu.be/LWj2J3rw9Qk

[Anonymous No.22691347]

>>22683125
Please post in the Proclus thread.

[Anonymous No.22691442]

>>22689750
Retard Heideggerian with retarded understanding of philosophical history just like his guru. Leibniz alone, among others, fully solved the problem of non-being over 300 years ago.

[Anonymous No.22691476]

>>22685500
>Lord Bertrand Russell, despite his naïve materialist metaphysics,
Russel was never a materialist. You could actually read his works or even us read about them before making totally unfounded claims about his beliefs.

[Anonymous No.22692430]

>>22689247
>nooo how can you just scientificaly analyze reality???!!!

[Anonymous No.22692437]

>>22689342
>materialism has completely lost and is thoroughly refuted
What

[Anonymous No.22692446]

>>22689342
>Neuroscientists are convinced by NDEs too.
Yeah aliens and near death experiences heaven is real god is real jesus is real. METAPHYSIC philosophy is FUCKED
JESUS IS 4 REAL

[Anonymous No.22692448]

>>22690179
Yes phenomenology was a disaster.
>spirit wills it
Proof?
...
Next

[Anonymous No.22692553]

>>22691442
>shits on Severino
>hasn't even written a thousandth of what he wrote