Neglecting it is doing mankind no favours, greater destiny requires greater honesty, answers come from questions but we must always question where the answers come from! Great channel.
Perhaps the usefulness of Metaphysics is that it leads us to the understanding that ultimate reality is beyond words, beyond language and that the key to the door of understanding is an experience rather than a set of philosophical precepts?
Could be! And Bradley's attitude certainly admits its ultimate failure to express the nature of reality completely. But it also seems as though, even if reality is beyond words (better: thought) we still try to express things about it in ways that are not complete failures. This could be via poetry, literature, and, of course, scientific theories and metaphysical structures. And as my earlier video stated, Bradley ultimately believes reality *consists* of experience (Absolute experience).
Inner human need may be an artifact of language? In English we have the concept 'absolute' for example, so it is something we search for, something we can search for. I wouldn't be convinced in the universality of a metaphysical search unless all languages were examined for the existence of metaphysical concepts and how they are treated .
Years ago I picked a fight with the undisclosed aim of checking my suspicions and possibly finding a counter to what I thought most thought of philosophy broadly. I think the presentation you presented more than anything else I have ever read allows a proper defense of philosophy broaderly even the components that seem otherwise pointless. --- And now on to the fight... I enter the room and realize the goal of the gather during my engagement of greetings...and then... Setting: Duplex apartment with 4-bedrooms. Math/Philosophy major roommate having a discussion with three (3) philosophy classmates. ME: You guy do realize that the average man considers philosophers to be worthless. Them/Me: [Many back and forth volleys.] Them: You are aware that religious leaders are a form of philosopher. Me: You are right...and that is about the only potential subgroup of philosopher than any even vaguely acknowledge. Them/Me: [Many back and forth volleys.] Them: You might have a point, but you don't have standing to make the case. Me: [Trying to find a counter...] Me: Point. (I didn't have a single definition of common man wherein I could qualify nor an actual stats that I could reference.) I really do like philosophy, but I do think there are a relative few in the general public that appreciates what philosophy brings to humanity. I will acknowledge that I am not a fan of metaphysics in the way that such is often misused (at least this is my take), since various claimants often using the label metaphysics to make assertions while attempting to disguise such as something more than assertion.
Thanks for the comment. I haven't found what you say to be the case, but it may depend on whom you mix with. I tend to find people very receptive to discussions when they find out I'm a philosopher. Especially when I say my thesis is on the nature of truth. Maybe the general US perception of the discipline is different to that in the UK. Maybe it has something to do with Oxford's traditional strength in the area (I'm speculating here). As for your point about metaphysics. What do you mean by 'something more than assertion'? Of course metaphysical claims are assertions in the sense in which all factual disciplines make assertions. But I suspect you mean they are 'mere assertions', i.e. they are not justified or cannot be tested. If so, that is not the case. Analytic metaphysics has quite clear boundaries on what makes a metaphysical assertion justified (too clear in my opinion), but even in looser contexts, there are general principles such as being non-contradictory, capable of explaining experience or intuition, and the like. Maybe you have only met bad metaphysicians, for lots of people think of themselves as philosophers although they would never think of themselves as physicists (say).
@@AbsolutePhilosophy I hope you are right about simply having regularly met a bad subset of the population here in the US. However, I cannot be optimistic. Yes, I do mean mere assertion and perhaps this is an issue of the application, since I have mostly hear metaphysical claims being used as tools for theology, I would love a reference for what allows justification of metaphysical claims so I can address what is hopefully a point of ignorance on my part.
@@MyContext Well, you have to first buy-in to a method of metaphysics. Debates about that method are metametaphysical debates. In practice, there tends to be a framework within which metaphysical positions are debated in analytic philosophy, and issues of framework are set aside. For an idea about this (although maybe a little advanced) you could have a look at section 4 of this: plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/#MetMet
![[4K] Watch SpaceX Catch A Starship Rocket From Space!!! #IFT5](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/pIKI7y3DTXk/mqdefault.jpg)
Neglecting it is doing mankind no favours, greater destiny requires greater honesty, answers come from questions but we must always question where the answers come from! Great channel.
Thanks for the series. It's noble work you're doing
Thanks. Glad you are enjoying it!
Perhaps the usefulness of Metaphysics is that it leads us to the understanding that ultimate reality is beyond words, beyond language and that the key to the door of understanding is an experience rather than a set of philosophical precepts?
Could be! And Bradley's attitude certainly admits its ultimate failure to express the nature of reality completely. But it also seems as though, even if reality is beyond words (better: thought) we still try to express things about it in ways that are not complete failures. This could be via poetry, literature, and, of course, scientific theories and metaphysical structures. And as my earlier video stated, Bradley ultimately believes reality *consists* of experience (Absolute experience).
I resonate and simultaneously reject the idea due to the multi-context nature of the idea - understanding.
Inner human need may be an artifact of language? In English we have the concept 'absolute' for example, so it is something we search for, something we can search for. I wouldn't be convinced in the universality of a metaphysical search unless all languages were examined for the existence of metaphysical concepts and how they are treated .
Great stuff - I'm all for exploring the path between fanaticism and sophism.
Years ago I picked a fight with the undisclosed aim of checking my suspicions and possibly finding a counter to what I thought most thought of philosophy broadly. I think the presentation you presented more than anything else I have ever read allows a proper defense of philosophy broaderly even the components that seem otherwise pointless.
---
And now on to the fight...
I enter the room and realize the goal of the gather during my engagement of greetings...and then...
Setting: Duplex apartment with 4-bedrooms. Math/Philosophy major roommate having a discussion with three (3) philosophy classmates.
ME: You guy do realize that the average man considers philosophers to be worthless.
Them/Me: [Many back and forth volleys.]
Them: You are aware that religious leaders are a form of philosopher.
Me: You are right...and that is about the only potential subgroup of philosopher than any even vaguely acknowledge.
Them/Me: [Many back and forth volleys.]
Them: You might have a point, but you don't have standing to make the case.
Me: [Trying to find a counter...]
Me: Point. (I didn't have a single definition of common man wherein I could qualify nor an actual stats that I could reference.)
I really do like philosophy, but I do think there are a relative few in the general public that appreciates what philosophy brings to humanity. I will acknowledge that I am not a fan of metaphysics in the way that such is often misused (at least this is my take), since various claimants often using the label metaphysics to make assertions while attempting to disguise such as something more than assertion.
Thanks for the comment.
I haven't found what you say to be the case, but it may depend on whom you mix with. I tend to find people very receptive to discussions when they find out I'm a philosopher. Especially when I say my thesis is on the nature of truth. Maybe the general US perception of the discipline is different to that in the UK. Maybe it has something to do with Oxford's traditional strength in the area (I'm speculating here).
As for your point about metaphysics. What do you mean by 'something more than assertion'? Of course metaphysical claims are assertions in the sense in which all factual disciplines make assertions. But I suspect you mean they are 'mere assertions', i.e. they are not justified or cannot be tested. If so, that is not the case. Analytic metaphysics has quite clear boundaries on what makes a metaphysical assertion justified (too clear in my opinion), but even in looser contexts, there are general principles such as being non-contradictory, capable of explaining experience or intuition, and the like. Maybe you have only met bad metaphysicians, for lots of people think of themselves as philosophers although they would never think of themselves as physicists (say).
@@AbsolutePhilosophy
I hope you are right about simply having regularly met a bad subset of the population here in the US. However, I cannot be optimistic.
Yes, I do mean mere assertion and perhaps this is an issue of the application, since I have mostly hear metaphysical claims being used as tools for theology,
I would love a reference for what allows justification of metaphysical claims so I can address what is hopefully a point of ignorance on my part.
@@MyContext Well, you have to first buy-in to a method of metaphysics. Debates about that method are metametaphysical debates. In practice, there tends to be a framework within which metaphysical positions are debated in analytic philosophy, and issues of framework are set aside. For an idea about this (although maybe a little advanced) you could have a look at section 4 of this: plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/#MetMet
It was refreshing to hear the word "PERSONS" being used, when at present, most all use the incorrect term "PEOPLE". ;)