Is there any solid results of metaphysics or is just morons rambling about shit that can't be understood because of the nature of the topic and are as good as me making shit up?
 Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
 UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
90% of shit that isn't about material reality is usually schizo self felltio and "dude trust me" for 500 pages
You won't ever understand. Some people are so far behind in the race they actually believe they're ahead.
Yeah, the people OP is talking about
what do I need to understand?
like how can I verifty the validity of some methaphysical claim?
It's literally made up shit if it can't be verified.
Start by realising that the assertion "only that which is empirically verifiable can be known" is itself not empirically verifiable. Then you will be launched on your way to higher truth, providing you have it within you to transcend.
how do I learn to trust something that was simply made up?
You sound like a cult recruiter
yea umm the holocaust?? duh
metaphysics now replaced by real sciences. before "philosophers" sat around and thought and just fricking kNeW about the real nature of things. that's how that guy came up with 4 elements, and so on. these guys did ZERO EXPERIMENTS and thought that they could know reality without moving their asses. frick them. read real sciene.
epistemology and ethics are two other branches of philosophy which are still somewhat relevant. also theories of the mind to some small degree.
>epistemology and ethics are two other branches of philosophy which are still somewhat relevant
Epistemology, logic and ontology are very much utilized within scientific circles. Ethics is the only useless, and frankly, counterproductive aspect of philosophy. Both reason and ethics are incapable of reconciling--your choices are either logical or ethical, but not both.
Metaphysics is by definition a field where you cannot gain knowledge by direct experimentation frickwit
>solid results
Definitely
>as good as me making shit up
Also this is right. You are missing something very important that would be the phenomenology of particular metaphysical cosmovisions, this is when things get crazy, because suddenly you are literally thinking about "ideologies" but concerning the self.
The problem is that most people can't handle changing it, and they will get all defensive if you challenge that in any way. So letting people roll their own metaphysics doesn't seem like a good idea if they aren't able to handle such things.
So basically making shit up?
So I can make the metaphysics that black souls have the most masculine qualities and light skined eurasian females are the most feminine of all souls.
And the mixture of a black male soul with a white or east asian female is the purest sexual magical spell, because the contrast between their extremes, cause a superior offspring, because is provided with both the most masculine and the most femenine traits of all souls?
So basically can I make shit up like that in methaphysics?
Then you are just a coomer moron, you probably can't make sense out of what I just wrote. In the sense of it aligning with your own goals, being a coomer moron, won't even help you with being a coomer irl. And yes, you can make shit up, just consider that different views of the world will change your outlook in life.
If you are going through something difficult, as in a bad thing happened, it would help a lot that you adopt a world view that makes it so it wasn't your fault and it was what had to happen, and even better if that is "a good thing overall", considering that you have to move on and continue your life. If you want revenge or whatever, then it is better to interpret the same thing in a different way and so on.
Black person, you're missing my point.
How do I even can know you're not making shit up when you claim a methaphysical conclusion?
How can I be sure, is not just a thing you made up?
language is a thing that was made up yet you’re speaking it as if it could be empirically proved to have meaning, even though it can’t. The point is you can’t, and you shouldn’t.
so basically just making shit up.
Basically this:
It’s a whole world of made of shit, and you’re in it.
I'm just presenting a b***h ass basic skeptical argument.
Is an entire filosofical field so worthless is destroyed by a b***h ass skeptical counter argument?
You aren’t presenting anything in good faith.
I ask again.
Is there any solid conclusion to the entire field of methaphysics that can survive the argument of you just made it up?
People come up with problems and so on, but that doesn't fricking matter, that is the point. Because this would be the first frontier of knowledge, anything closer to "truth" would be coming from the science end and only after it has been "verified by their peers".
It has nothing to do with being made up or not, that doesn't matter, you have to think a theory before coming up with a way of testing it. You are pretending to be dumb, and keep asking the same question.
Even that doesn't really matter, because they are unfalsifiable, but it is literally a way of viewing things. They are as true as using energy as a concept to solve a physics problem instead of forces or whatever. Those things are all concepts that aid us to think about natural phenomena they are not the actual thing. The thing with metaphysics is that it can be useful to look at a bunch of things in different ways. I honestly don't care, I'm not paid to teach morons.
>Is there any solid conclusion to the entire field of methaphysics that can survive the argument of you just made it up?
Kind of, but it has to be "internally consistent". That seems like a copout, but it's basically like trying to put a Pokemon into a Dragonball episode. It's all made up, but made up systems still play by interally consistent rules.
The easiest way to arrive at a position that might necessitate "metaphysics" is a universal one: ask yourself, is there such thing as universal morality?
If you answer yes, you're tasked with providing some unchanging moral category. Which is impossible.
If you answer no, then the answer "there are no universal moral categories" is in itself a universal moral claim, and so something universal MUST exist even if we can't access the strict "truth value" of this phenomenon.
bro, just say It's mental masturbation to a mental videogame between intelectuals.
There's nothing wrong with saying is just like poetry or some shit.
Poetry is also made up shit and is very fun.
No need to pretend is like le deep reality beyond the matrix.
It's just a little game of making shit up.
>STEM bughomie can't read
color me surprised
Well yeah, I'll cop to that.
Metaphysics is a holdover from older philosophical systems, the "good" bits of which (the parts with predictive power in the material world) were folded into stuff like Psychology, Sociology, the Cognitive Sciences/Linguistics and so on. The same thing happens with "natural remedies" that become "medicine" once they're proven effective.
Which is not to say that metaphysics as a point of direct inquiry has uncovered anything you can ascertain through sense data.. But that doesn't mean it's entirely useless. An interesting part of the development of Newtonian physics was a quasi-metaphysical debate over the concept of "space" (the stuff your fat relatives take up on public transport), for example. Particularly what "empty space" would consist of (how do you conceive of "emptiness" without some referent?)
I can't speak for the other people in this thread, but I'm totally fine with saying that this shit is more art than science. In fact, the concept of "art" and what that constitutes is a very metaphysical inquiry, and one that can really broaden your horizons when it comes to extracting meaning from experience (the entire point of aesthetics).
But I'll try and make this appealing to you, because yes this is all bullshit by your standards. By engaging with something fundamentally unknowable, you're necessarily engaging with other people trying to answer that same question. When you try to ground metaphysical inquiry in some closed concept, it's pointless. But if you try and ground OTHER PEOPLE's conceptions of those empty categories, that's where you can find real world utility.
Put simply: yes this shit is all made up, but the world runs on vast systems of metaphysical bullshit. To go back to the Pokemon/DBZ analogy, it's like if some guy who really loved DBZ started making public policy on the basis of the unfalsifiable systems contained within it. You can't "know" the truth-value of that system (because it's unfalsifiable), but by knowing the system of bullshit you can predict how other people will move about their lives.
I'm daydrinking like the NEET homosexual I am so hopefully some of this makes sense.
ok, so methaphysics isn't inquiry beyond the realm of empirical evidence, but more like a mathematical axiomatic construction of philosophical constructs?
No, it can be, but it doesn't have to be. Some philosophers do that, but not all of them.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/#WordMetaConcMeta
Start studying if you are that curious about it.
You've nailed something crucial about metaphysics. It expresses a fundamental contradiction: how do you even try to speak of these unknowable, "perfect" categories in knowable, "imperfect" material language?
How do you "know" of the metaphysical when you can't even begin to describe it? As soon as our imperfect material systems try to describe it, we're doomed to wind up with a faulty conclusion.
I want to recommend Kierkegaard, particularly this lecture on his book Either/Or.
I think this lecture will tell you all you need to know about metaphysical systems. They really are more art than science, and that's where a lot of the crucial redemption is.
Kierkegaard is very compelling, because he's honest. He says that to be a moral person is not to "do right" because that entails an aesthetic consideration: what is "right"?
God is perfect, and so the fact that we have to rely on his "word", and so our interpretation of his word, to ascertain his nature is uh... Interesting, to say the least. Cruel you might say if you were in a bad mood, which I'm not!
So we read and know what is "right" by knowing the word, but knowing the word requires human interpretation, which pollutes God's word, and so we're back where we started.
So Kierkegaard poses two choices: Either/Or.
We either live the aesthetic life, embrace the world as a system of knowable things that we can extract imperfect meaning from...
OR
We throw out reason altogether, and embrace perfect "faith". Faith must require BLIND FAITH so as to be uncorrupted, necessarily: if you think, then you must doubt, and so you are undermining the word of God.
That's why these metaphysicians were cool. They contend with unfalsifiable problems, sure, but those problems move people at a very fundamental level.
Frick all this IQfy tradLARP shit, some of this stuff is very beautiful and these contradictions and conflicts lie at the heart of people's conceptions about "beauty", about "truth", about so much.
If you have to get into metaphysics for any reason, do it for the access it gives you to the minds of other people. Do it for the art of it.
God in heaven, why did you have to redditspace that?
We are NOT on reddit, please do not do that here.
Actually I'll put it more simply than my other post:
Plato figured out you can't draw a perfect circle. You still can't, the more you zoom in the more fidelity you uncover and the more pixels you have to "round".
However, the fact that our minds can conceive of "perfect" categories, that we can access these categories but not replicate them in our material world, must therefore mean that there is a world of "forms" (a metaphysical world) that we are gaining our knowledge of "perfect" things from.
That's the gist of metaphysics. It's about perfect categories, perfect stuff, perfect things, unchanging. From the artist trying to draw a perfect circle, to a man conceiving of a perfect "good" not tainted by real world contingency and circumstance.
You have to be pretending to act like a moron. There is no way someone is that fricking dumb. You can make a bunch of autistic moronation, but you work your way up from certain assumptions, that is basically how it works.
>entire field worthless
If you are skeptical, then you are committing to
, which is a stupid choice, ideally you are educated in multiple metaphysical systems, so that you can view the same thing in different ways depending on what you actually need at that moment. Instead of being stuck with "truth", which isn't even truth at all, frick truth, go for practical results.
>imagine being this stupid
I just said the only actual practical use of it, make that what you will. You have to be pretending to be fricking dumb, because people already answered that here.
I know it's bad form to criticize the questioner, muh ad hominems and all that, but can we please be real here for a second? You're a moron posting /misc/ "Black personcat" pictures and typing half sentences acting like you're a genius for determining that, because some people somewhere might have thought something that was full of shit, everyone everywhere is full of shit about everything. You are also retreating from and reducing every single complex argument or explanation provided to you with a bland "just making shit up" evasion, which is just downright anti-intellectual and not becoming of a poster on this board. You are not conversing in good faith (which should have been obvious from your images, so I guess good job trolling?).
No you can’t because there you can’t show the logical necessity of this claim. There are multitudes of counterexamples, even using the commonly accepted accepted definitions of masculinity and femininity. These aren’t even questions that can be properly explorer without a more fundamental inquiry I.e. an investigation of the general idea of a soul as opposed to particular kinds.
The more metaphysics you read, the more you realize that the range of shit you can say about a topic without spouting completely unjustified claims, or without invoking a whole multitude of other unexplained premises is very small. The whole point of metaphysics is that you are trying to reach the most fundamental true propositions by writing about the most general things (being, causation, experience) and thus “climbing the ladder” from particular to general. There is way more wiggle room to make up shit when talking about less fundamental topics (which is why continental theory is prone to word salad and “just trust me bro” type writings) instead of with more fundamental topics.
I feel like there’s a very obvious difference in these two claims:
>god is a supreme, infinite being
>god is a Flying Spaghetti Monster.
While both cannot be verified, there is a clearly different type of thinking which leads one to the first instead of the second.
Read Neville Goddard
And also, you can't have an actual (stable) ethical system if you are going to ground it on science. Just saying, because science is always discovering new shit and so on.
Try to conceive of universal categories, find that you can't conceive of them without them breaking down into some "material" (seeable/knowable) referent, from there you get to thinking about what a "perfect" "thing" would be like if things become imperfect by merely being at all (or something like it), then viola you're onto metaphysics (or something like it).
it has a lot of poetic value, but if you're interested in "truth" as it pertains to actual explanatory/predictive power, metaphysics is probably a waste of time.
A simpler explanation is probably this:
Physics is the study of stuff that changes. We live in a material world, everything is changing all the time. Everything moves.
Metaphysics is the "study" of stuff that DOESN'T move, that doesn't change, that is "perfect".
Metaphysical beliefs can affect emotions by influencing how people perceive and interpret events in their lives. For example, if someone believes that everything happens for a reason, they may be more likely to feel positive emotions when something good happens to them and less likely to feel negative emotions when something bad happens1. Similarly, if someone believes that their life is predetermined by fate or destiny, they may be more likely to feel helpless or fatalistic when faced with adversity2.
Beliefs about emotions can also influence how people regulate their emotions. For example, if someone believes that emotions are uncontrollable, they may be less likely to try to regulate their emotions when they experience negative emotions1. On the other hand, if someone believes that emotions are useful and informative, they may be more likely to use emotion regulation strategies when they experience negative emotions1.
Here are some truths out of metaphysics. I honestly have a hard thinking that you are that fricking stupid, I honestly hope that you are high or something. Either that or get a textbook and start studying.
>results of metaphysics
It alters the way you perceive reality, which is everything. Is there something beyond the relativity and becoming of the material world? Are the senses accurate judges of reality? These are things you’ll have to consult metaphysics about. A person with no metaphysical inclination is living only on the surface of things. Maybe there’s no point in trying to go deeper, but are you ready to sacrifice your chance at something more when you haven’t even tried?
The problem is there's no definitive answer, and all progress rests on the surface level to begin with.
just focus on predictive power
simple as
there is a reason physicists and chemists, you know, people with some real fundamental knowledge about the universe, created all these trillion dollar industries such as pharmaceutical, semiconductor, aerospace etc
their theories predict things
their methods predict how much, when, how and why
the rest is a cargo cult of 'wewuz smart n shiiet' and gypsy fortune telling, its a practical and efficient iq test, if you believe in philosophy or political science or sociology etc etc you are certified fricking 80 iq moron
Well yes, but like I tried to say earlier in the thread there is real predictive power in moral systems.
Moral questions cannot be answered by science. Science can help, but at the end of the day whether we launch the nukes on Japan for a third time or not rests on a series of decisions coming from people, all of whom generate their moral conclusions based on "feeling" no matter how informed by science they may be. Science may influence that decision, but the ultimate decision is a necessarily moral one.
And morality is some fricking gay ass, unfalsifiable, unscientific bullshit.
just laugh the morality away, like the normal people with triple digit iq
im telling you, all this side shit, this /x/ tier moron nonsense is for inferiority complex ridden pseuds who couldnt finish their math homework on time in highschool so now in their 30ies they are coming up with their alternative moron olympics and cargo cults (such as philosophy)
I agree it can be a waste of time, and I see so much of it on this website. People think that the more esoteric something is, the more truth it contains. I'm not unaware.
At the same time, I think it's worth reexamining some of these systems once you've outgrown them. As I've said a few times, it's more art than science, but people take science for granted. Art, people take that shit seriously. Even if it's nonsense.
So to speak to the "predictive" powers of all this nonsense, I'd say that there is very real predictive power in knowing and anticipating the nonsense that people believe in. People live and die for this shit, they forsake reason itself.
I'm drunk, and that's how I type.
I've been
on this website since
2007 Black person. If you have
a
problem with what I wr
ote then please contend with wha
t i wrote.
gay
got.
What if I don’t believe in any of the schizo /x/ tier shit, but I enjoy reading it at times? Philosophy systems are pseud shit though and I’d always rather see the inner workings, thoughts and ideas of an eccentric
Just read Nietzsche. He isn’t a moralgay or an I heckin love science midwit either.
>whether we launch the nukes on Japan for a third time
Are you fricking moronic
What the frick basis do you have for this? And how do you think your generation is even capable of such a thing? You're going to launch nukes against us? I don't think so. Your trannie military can't even figure out what bathroom to use.
>solid results of metaphysics
Where are we at with the metaphysical implications of a band like Level 42?
Are they good? What is "good", anyway? Very worth of consideration!
I've officially aged out of lit. What a shit thread.
Nice contribution.
Age out faster, spare your loved ones the pain of your being alive. Spare us all, in fact.
ITT: Hylics pretend they know more than thousands of years of philosophy