Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Which metaphysics before physics?
12 views
Skip to first unread message
pundit.har...@inderome.com
May 9, 2012, 12:20:20 PM5/9/12
to
If one means by metaphysics the conceptual and procedural foundation upon
which physics can be based, we have an answer.
In n. america it is called the history and philosophy of science. These are
departments mostly at the grad level.
R Kym Horsell
May 9, 2012, 12:31:39 PM5/9/12
to
I didn't see the OP, so this answer makes not much sense.
Whatever the term is taken to mean C21, metaphysics was known by ancient document managers and book nannies as τὰ μετὰ τὰ φυσικά -- roughly "what [Aristotle] wrote after Physics". It really had not other significance.
Humans being what they are, a "pattern" was detected in what some called a "hotch-potch" of writings, and it came to mean various kinds of spooky things like "the study of being qua being".
--
There is much pleasure to be gained from useless knowledge.
-- Bertrand Russell, 1872--1970
Zerkon
May 9, 2012, 1:22:35 PM5/9/12
to
In article <4faa9944$0$2701$1c46...@news.club.cc.cmu.edu>,
pundit.har...@inderome.com says...
I think the meta here is the conceptual understanding for a physical
entirety. So all sciences might be included. The procedural foundation I
think is the most interesting aspect here as this is the most enduring.
A person reaching the PhD level in whatever concentration is supposed to
have gone beyond the understanding of the already mastered physicality
of the subject.
pundit.har...@inderome.com says...
entirety. So all sciences might be included. The procedural foundation I
think is the most interesting aspect here as this is the most enduring.
A person reaching the PhD level in whatever concentration is supposed to
have gone beyond the understanding of the already mastered physicality
of the subject.
pundit.har...@inderoph.com
May 9, 2012, 1:44:16 PM5/9/12
to
> If one means by metaphysics the conceptual and procedural foundation upon
> which physics can be based, we have an answer.
>
> In n. america it is called the history and philosophy of science. These
are
> departments mostly at the grad level.
"I think the meta here is the conceptual understanding for a physical
entirety. So all sciences might be included. The procedural foundation I
think is the most interesting aspect here as this is the most enduring."
Agreed. To mention one science was not to exclude the rest.
> which physics can be based, we have an answer.
>
> In n. america it is called the history and philosophy of science. These
are
> departments mostly at the grad level.
"I think the meta here is the conceptual understanding for a physical
entirety. So all sciences might be included. The procedural foundation I
think is the most interesting aspect here as this is the most enduring."
"A person reaching the PhD level in whatever concentration is supposed to
have gone beyond the understanding of the already mastered physicality of
the subject."
why they do as they do in this regard.
Immortalist
May 9, 2012, 1:38:12 PM5/9/12
to
him in a round barrel and tell him to pee in the corner, instead you
merely ask; what is Metaphysics?
Metaphysics is that portion of philosophy which treats of the most
general and fundamental principles underlying all reality and all
knowledge.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10226a.htm
Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy concerned with explaining the
fundamental nature of being and the world, although the term is not
easily defined. Traditionally, metaphysics attempts to answer two
basic questions in the broadest possible terms:
"What is there?"
"What is it like?"...
...Prior to the modern history of science, scientific questions were
addressed as a part of metaphysics known as natural philosophy. The
term science itself meant "knowledge" of, originating from
epistemology. The scientific method, however, transformed natural
philosophy into an empirical activity deriving from experiment unlike
the rest of philosophy. By the end of the 18th century, it had begun
to be called "science" to distinguish it from philosophy. Thereafter,
metaphysics denoted philosophical enquiry of a non-empirical character
into the nature of existence...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics
Traditionally, metaphysics refers to the branch of philosophy that
attempts to understand the fundamental nature of all reality, whether
visible or invisible. It seeks a description so basic, so essentially
simple, so all-inclusive that it applies to everything, whether divine
or human or anything else. It attempts to tell what anything must be
like in order to be at all.
To call one a metaphysician in this traditional, philosophical sense
indicates nothing more than his or her interest in attempting to
discover what underlies everything. Old materialists, who said that
there is nothing but matter in motion, and current naturalists, who
say that everything is made of lifeless, non-experiencing energy, are
just as much to be classified as metaphysicians as are idealists, who
maintain that there is nothing but ideas, or mind, or spirit.
http://websyte.com/alan/metamul.htm
Metaphysics is a broad area of philosophy marked out by two types of
inquiry. The first aims to be the most general investigation possible
into the nature of reality: are there principles applying to
everything that is real, to all that is? Ð if we abstract from the
particular nature of existing things that which distinguishes them
from each other, what can we know about them merely in virtue of the
fact that they exist? The second type of inquiry seeks to uncover what
is ultimately real, frequently offering answers in sharp contrast to
our everyday experience of the world. Understood in terms of these two
questions, metaphysics is very closely related to ontology, which is
usually taken to involve both Ôwhat is existence (being)?Õ and Ôwhat
(fundamentally distinct) types of thing exist?Õ (see Ontology).
http://www.rep.routledge.com/article/N095
It is not easy to say what metaphysics is. Ancient and Medieval
philosophers might have said that metaphysics was, like chemistry or
astrology, to be defined by its subject matter: metaphysics was the
“science” that studied “being as such” or “the first causes of things”
or “things that do not change.” It is no longer possible to define
metaphysics that way, and for two reasons. First, a philosopher who
denied the existence of those things that had once been seen as
constituting the subject-matter of metaphysics—first causes or
unchanging things—would now be considered to be making thereby a
metaphysical assertion. Secondly, there are many philosophical
problems that are now considered to be metaphysical problems (or at
least partly metaphysical problems) that are in no way related to
first causes or unchanging things; the problem of free will, for
example, or the problem of the mental and the physical.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/
Giga
May 9, 2012, 3:34:08 PM5/9/12
to
<pundit.har...@inderome.com> wrote in message
news:4faa9944$0$2701$1c46...@news.club.cc.cmu.edu...
>
> If one means by metaphysics the conceptual and procedural foundation upon
> which physics can be based, we have an answer.
Metaphysics is wider than just aout the physical world. It could be about
> If one means by metaphysics the conceptual and procedural foundation upon
> which physics can be based, we have an answer.
the nature of numbers for instance, or minds etc
LudovicoVan
May 9, 2012, 4:06:36 PM5/9/12
to
> If one means by metaphysics the conceptual and procedural foundation upon
> which physics can be based, we have an answer.
No, those foundations rather are the *result* of a metaphysical
> which physics can be based, we have an answer.
investigation: its "output".
-LV
Arindam Banerjee
May 9, 2012, 6:20:38 PM5/9/12
to
On May 10, 6:06 am, "LudovicoVan" <ju...@diegidio.name> wrote:
> <pundit.hari.kumar...@inderome.com> wrote in message
True.
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
>
> -LV
> <pundit.hari.kumar...@inderome.com> wrote in message
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
>
> -LV
pundit.har...@inderoou.com
May 9, 2012, 6:21:15 PM5/9/12
to
> If one means by metaphysics the conceptual and procedural foundation upon
> which physics can be based, we have an answer.
"No, those foundations rather are the *result* of a metaphysical
investigation: its "output"."
How is that different then those ideas explored in schools of the history
> which physics can be based, we have an answer.
"No, those foundations rather are the *result* of a metaphysical
investigation: its "output"."
and philosophy of science?
LudovicoVan
May 9, 2012, 6:32:03 PM5/9/12
to
<pundit.har...@inderoou.com> wrote in message
news:4faaeddb$0$2696$1c46...@news.club.cc.cmu.edu...
The ideas are not the discipline, of course. OTOH, if you are complaining
about how philosophy is or is not learned in schools nowadays, then I'd be
with you...
-LV
news:4faaeddb$0$2696$1c46...@news.club.cc.cmu.edu...
about how philosophy is or is not learned in schools nowadays, then I'd be
with you...
-LV
pundit.har...@inderost.com
May 9, 2012, 6:36:48 PM5/9/12
to
>> If one means by metaphysics the conceptual and procedural foundation
upon
>> which physics can be based, we have an answer.
>
> "No, those foundations rather are the *result* of a metaphysical
> investigation: its "output"."
>
> How is that different then those ideas explored in schools of the history
> and philosophy of science?
"The ideas are not the discipline, of course. OTOH, if you are complaining
about how philosophy is or is not learned in schools nowadays, then I'd be
with you..."
Sorry, I don't follow. Can you expand on this?
upon
>> which physics can be based, we have an answer.
>
> "No, those foundations rather are the *result* of a metaphysical
> investigation: its "output"."
>
> How is that different then those ideas explored in schools of the history
> and philosophy of science?
"The ideas are not the discipline, of course. OTOH, if you are complaining
about how philosophy is or is not learned in schools nowadays, then I'd be
with you..."
LudovicoVan
May 9, 2012, 6:49:21 PM5/9/12
to
<pundit.har...@inderost.com> wrote in message
news:4faaf180$0$2696$1c46...@news.club.cc.cmu.edu...
I just don't really get what you are asking there: please ask precise and
qualified questions.
-LV
news:4faaf180$0$2696$1c46...@news.club.cc.cmu.edu...
qualified questions.
-LV
pundit.har...@indroas.com
May 9, 2012, 7:07:42 PM5/9/12
to
>>> If one means by metaphysics the conceptual and procedural foundation
> upon
>>> which physics can be based, we have an answer.
>>
>> "No, those foundations rather are the *result* of a metaphysical
>> investigation: its "output"."
>>
>> How is that different then those ideas explored in schools of the
history
>> and philosophy of science?
>
> "The ideas are not the discipline, of course. OTOH, if you are
> complaining
> about how philosophy is or is not learned in schools nowadays, then I'd
be
> with you..."
>
> Sorry, I don't follow. Can you expand on this?
"I just don't really get what you are asking there: please ask precise and
qualified questions."
The "school" bit.
> upon
>>> which physics can be based, we have an answer.
>>
>> "No, those foundations rather are the *result* of a metaphysical
>> investigation: its "output"."
>>
>> How is that different then those ideas explored in schools of the
history
>> and philosophy of science?
>
> "The ideas are not the discipline, of course. OTOH, if you are
> complaining
> about how philosophy is or is not learned in schools nowadays, then I'd
be
> with you..."
>
> Sorry, I don't follow. Can you expand on this?
"I just don't really get what you are asking there: please ask precise and
qualified questions."
LudovicoVan
May 9, 2012, 7:12:05 PM5/9/12
to
<pundit.har...@indroas.com> wrote in message
news:4faaf8be$0$2694$1c46...@news.club.cc.cmu.edu...
Very precise, totally unqualified. I still don't really get what you are
asking there, sorry.
-LV
news:4faaf8be$0$2694$1c46...@news.club.cc.cmu.edu...
asking there, sorry.
-LV
Arindam Banerjee
May 9, 2012, 9:01:28 PM5/9/12
to
I do hope all philosophers and in fact everybody who can read will
appreciate and less importantly buy my forthcoming book, that includes
metaphysics in its extended scope.
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
Zerkon
May 10, 2012, 9:18:52 AM5/10/12
to
In article <4faaacf0$0$2694$1c46...@news.club.cc.cmu.edu>,
pundit.har...@inderoph.com says...
than some important exceptiopns, a PhD seems more a title of paygrade
than what you are addressing.
pundit.har...@inderoph.com says...
> But this does not often happen. Most scientists don't/haven't questioned
> why they do as they do in this regard.
>
Yes. Sadly, when we get into the practical aspects of this issue, other
> why they do as they do in this regard.
>
than some important exceptiopns, a PhD seems more a title of paygrade
than what you are addressing.
and/or www.mantra.com/jai
May 10, 2012, 1:48:40 PM5/10/12
to
In article <a9f448c5-6813-4bab...@ri8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> posted:
> > is real, to all that is? – if we abstract from the
> > ‘what (fundamentally distinct) types of thing exist?’
> > unchanging things -- would now be considered to be making
Arindam Banerjee, I look forward to your book.
Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti
Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> posted:
> > particular nature of existing things that which
> > distinguishes them from each other, what can we know
> > about them merely in virtue of the fact that they exist?
> > The second type of inquiry seeks to uncover what is
> > ultimately real, frequently offering answers in sharp
> > contrast to our everyday experience of the world.
> > Understood in terms of these two questions, metaphysics
> > is very closely related to ontology, which is usually
> > taken to involve both ‘what is existence (being)?’ and
> > distinguishes them from each other, what can we know
> > about them merely in virtue of the fact that they exist?
> > The second type of inquiry seeks to uncover what is
> > ultimately real, frequently offering answers in sharp
> > contrast to our everyday experience of the world.
> > Understood in terms of these two questions, metaphysics
> > is very closely related to ontology, which is usually
> > ‘what (fundamentally distinct) types of thing exist?’
> > (see Ontology).
> >
> > http://www.rep.routledge.com/article/N095
> >
> > It is not easy to say what metaphysics is. Ancient and
> > Medieval philosophers might have said that metaphysics
> > was, like chemistry or astrology, to be defined by its
> > subject matter: metaphysics was the "science" that
> > studied "being as such" or "the first causes of things"
> > or "things that do not change." It is no longer possible
> > to define metaphysics that way, and for two reasons.
> > First, a philosopher who denied the existence of those
> > things that had once been seen as constituting the
> > subject-matter of metaphysics -- first causes or
> >
> > http://www.rep.routledge.com/article/N095
> >
> > It is not easy to say what metaphysics is. Ancient and
> > Medieval philosophers might have said that metaphysics
> > was, like chemistry or astrology, to be defined by its
> > subject matter: metaphysics was the "science" that
> > studied "being as such" or "the first causes of things"
> > or "things that do not change." It is no longer possible
> > to define metaphysics that way, and for two reasons.
> > First, a philosopher who denied the existence of those
> > things that had once been seen as constituting the
> > unchanging things -- would now be considered to be making
> > thereby a metaphysical assertion. Secondly, there are
> > many philosophical problems that are now considered to be
> > metaphysical problems (or at least partly metaphysical
> > problems) that are in no way related to first causes or
> > unchanging things; the problem of free will, for example,
> > or the problem of the mental and the physical.
> >
> > http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/
>
> Thanks, this was a very illuminating post.
>
> I do hope all philosophers and in fact everybody who can
> read will appreciate and less importantly buy my
> forthcoming book, that includes metaphysics in its
> extended scope.
>
> Cheers,
> Arindam Banerjee
Immortalist, thank you for your post.
> > many philosophical problems that are now considered to be
> > metaphysical problems (or at least partly metaphysical
> > problems) that are in no way related to first causes or
> > unchanging things; the problem of free will, for example,
> > or the problem of the mental and the physical.
> >
> > http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/
>
> Thanks, this was a very illuminating post.
>
> I do hope all philosophers and in fact everybody who can
> read will appreciate and less importantly buy my
> forthcoming book, that includes metaphysics in its
> extended scope.
>
> Cheers,
> Arindam Banerjee
Arindam Banerjee, I look forward to your book.
Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti
pundit.har...@inderoim.com
May 10, 2012, 2:17:17 PM5/10/12
to
As the post said science and philosophy per sey parted ways long ago.
Science as an empirical program requires evidence by which to answerany
question put to it. If there is no evidence there is no output.
Thus to return to my former point, the schools of the history and philosphy
of science in which this empirical program is given its conceptual support
is where its metaphysics is considered.
Any other metaphysics of any other historical consideration does not apply
if it does not include the first assumption an empirical program. It
cann't be science without it.
Given this any consideration of physics has no other metaphysics that are
relevant.
This becomes especially important when one considers that metaphyysics as
approached in philosophy is very much the product of the cultural context
in which it was constructed. Thus the metaphysics will vary as does the
culture.
Science and its metaphysical foundation seeks to divorce itself from that
cultural context. Formal physics is universal in this regard.
Arindam Banerjee
May 10, 2012, 8:47:00 PM5/10/12
to
On May 11, 3:48 am, use...@mantra.com and/or www.mantra.com/jai (Dr.
Jai Maharaj) wrote:
> In article <a9f448c5-6813-4bab-b116-1007d14df...@ri8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
> > > is real, to all that is? Ð if we abstract from the
It is in the works. Hopefully it will be for sale within two months
at the most.
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
Jai Maharaj) wrote:
> In article <a9f448c5-6813-4bab-b116-1007d14df...@ri8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
> > > particular nature of existing things that which
> > > distinguishes them from each other, what can we know
> > > about them merely in virtue of the fact that they exist?
> > > The second type of inquiry seeks to uncover what is
> > > ultimately real, frequently offering answers in sharp
> > > contrast to our everyday experience of the world.
> > > Understood in terms of these two questions, metaphysics
> > > is very closely related to ontology, which is usually
> > > distinguishes them from each other, what can we know
> > > about them merely in virtue of the fact that they exist?
> > > The second type of inquiry seeks to uncover what is
> > > ultimately real, frequently offering answers in sharp
> > > contrast to our everyday experience of the world.
> > > Understood in terms of these two questions, metaphysics
> > > is very closely related to ontology, which is usually
> > > taken to involve both Ôwhat is existence (being)?Õ and
> > > Ôwhat (fundamentally distinct) types of thing exist?Õ
at the most.
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
and/or www.mantra.com/jai
May 10, 2012, 11:01:19 PM5/10/12
to
In article <ef7c28ef-edac-4560...@vy9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1...@gmail.com> posted:
>
> Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
> > > > is real, to all that is? =D0 if we abstract from the
> > > > =D4what (fundamentally distinct) types of thing exist?=D5
Extra charge for autographed copies?
Will be available in e-book format?
Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1...@gmail.com> posted:
>
> Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
> > > > particular nature of existing things that which
> > > > distinguishes them from each other, what can we know
> > > > about them merely in virtue of the fact that they exist?
> > > > The second type of inquiry seeks to uncover what is
> > > > ultimately real, frequently offering answers in sharp
> > > > contrast to our everyday experience of the world.
> > > > Understood in terms of these two questions, metaphysics
> > > > is very closely related to ontology, which is usually
> > > > taken to involve both =D4what is existence (being)?=D5 and
> > > > distinguishes them from each other, what can we know
> > > > about them merely in virtue of the fact that they exist?
> > > > The second type of inquiry seeks to uncover what is
> > > > ultimately real, frequently offering answers in sharp
> > > > contrast to our everyday experience of the world.
> > > > Understood in terms of these two questions, metaphysics
> > > > is very closely related to ontology, which is usually
> > > > =D4what (fundamentally distinct) types of thing exist?=D5
> > Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
> > Om Shanti
>
> It is in the works. Hopefully it will be for sale within two months
> at the most.
> Cheers,
> Arindam Banerjee
Write on!
> > Om Shanti
>
> It is in the works. Hopefully it will be for sale within two months
> at the most.
> Cheers,
> Arindam Banerjee
Extra charge for autographed copies?
Will be available in e-book format?
Arindam Banerjee
May 10, 2012, 11:53:01 PM5/10/12
to
On May 11, 1:01 pm, use...@mantra.com and/or www.mantra.com/jai (Dr.
Jai Maharaj) wrote:
> In article <ef7c28ef-edac-4560-8eb1-8ed75d20f...@vy9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
Not come to that yet!
> Will be available in e-book format?
Yes.
Jai Maharaj) wrote:
> In article <ef7c28ef-edac-4560-8eb1-8ed75d20f...@vy9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
> Will be available in e-book format?
0 new messages