Metaphysics is a self delusional anadyne

[ruby sparks]

Originally Posted by ruby sparks
Our views on consciousness are lathered with spechul sauce, thus we are prone to self-delusions about it, and there is really no need or basis for that.

Congratulations on your use of "lathered". These views of ours on consciousness, as well as our musings called metaphysics, are lathered indeed. Lots of froth and little worth-while substance.

For most or many people, yes. Thankfully not so much in the relevant sciences. Though even there........

I put at least some of the blame on human vanity.

Oh and soaked is another good word. Drenched. Or perhaps marinated. Stewed even. Immersed. Pickled. All words which might apply to the effect on our thinking of millennia of supernatural religions and other superstitions, particularly certain types very popular in the 'west'.

Although that's a chicken and egg problem in some ways, given that we invented them.

 

[Grendel]

That's the problem, isn't it. Life doesn't seem to have an intrinsic meaning of life. We need to give that to it. If we don't, we'll be paralysed. If you get anything done in life it's because you have a life's purpose, a goal. You need a meaning of life, a grand over-arching narrative to it. Even if it's a lie. This is the main theme of Nietzsche's critique of Schopenhauer, and arguably the main point of his work. Aka, "affirmative nihilsm".

Just by making this thread you've proven yourself wrong.

I'm sorry, but you've mis-read me. Life has no purpose and I don't find it paralysing. The opposite, I find it filled with joi-de-vivre.

I suppose that when people hear the term Nihilism they automatically find it repulsive. And perhaps most forms of Nihilism are creeds of despair. I'm not a Nihilist, however I cannot ignore the truth because I may find it meaningless, that's cowardice. As I said I'm not a Nihilist but I do agree (100%) with Compositional Nihilism. Because it's true. Physically true that is.

I don't read too much, and nor should you, into the reasons I made this thread. It's not an issue I want to go to war over. Just a discussion.

By anthromorphic, I meant you see everything from a viewpoint that implies that humans are at the centre of the kalediscope. And the reason we're at the centre, impossible we could be anywhere else, is cuz god made us in his likeness.

Mea Culpa if anthromorphic was the wrong word.

 

[Grendel]

One physical material reality

Prove it.
EB

I will prove it if you define your idea of proof?

I don't have much time to post at the moment. About to drive 150km of dirt track. But I'm not ignoring you and I will reply later.

 

[Grendel]

How do you decide that some view is very nearly superstitious and another just right? How do you know that what you take to be your perception of a material world is not something else entirely? All you have is what you take for your perceptions. How could you possibly know that they are actual perception? I'm supposed to be very clever but I don't know how to answer that. Feel free to explain this to me.

As for me, it's much simpler. I know I think whenever I know I think. Just explain to me how I don't know I think whenever I know I think.
EB

I don't really buy this argument. How do I know I'm drinking Guiness Stout and not Turtle soup?

But to answer, my Daddy usta say, 'Don't believe anything you hear, an only half of what you see'. But then, he was a Crow, and I'm the son of a Crow.

Heheee

 

[DrZoidberg]

That's the problem, isn't it. Life doesn't seem to have an intrinsic meaning of life. We need to give that to it. If we don't, we'll be paralysed. If you get anything done in life it's because you have a life's purpose, a goal. You need a meaning of life, a grand over-arching narrative to it. Even if it's a lie. This is the main theme of Nietzsche's critique of Schopenhauer, and arguably the main point of his work. Aka, "affirmative nihilsm".

Just by making this thread you've proven yourself wrong.

I'm sorry, but you've mis-read me. Life has no purpose and I don't find it paralysing. The opposite, I find it filled with joi-de-vivre.

That just means you're lying to yourself. Rationally I'm a nihilist, but emotionally I'm not. I feel that life is deeply meaningful. My emotions tell me that I'll live forever. That random strangers opinions of me matter. But here's the kicker... my rational faculty is not in control of my life. My feelings are. The same is true for us all. Nobody would do things if it didn't feel right for them.

All this means is that you need to keep digging, to find what metaphysical thing you believe, deep down in your (non-existant) soul which is keeping you so motivated.

I suppose that when people hear the term Nihilism they automatically find it repulsive.

Only if you're raised in a religious society. I was raised in Sweden. So I did not find it repulsive.

And perhaps most forms of Nihilism are creeds of despair.

I don't think it is. I reached my nihilism by looking at the world and asking myself what it looks like. It looks like nihilism.

I'm not a Nihilist, however I cannot ignore the truth because I may find it meaningless, that's cowardice. As I said I'm not a Nihilist but I do agree (100%) with Compositional Nihilism. Because it's true. Physically true that is.

Compositional nihilism is an incredibly specific and obscure type of nihilism. I'm just curious how you came to know about it?

By anthromorphic, I meant you see everything from a viewpoint that implies that humans are at the centre of the kalediscope. And the reason we're at the centre, impossible we could be anywhere else, is cuz god made us in his likeness.

Mea Culpa if anthromorphic was the wrong word.

I believe the word you are looking for is "anthropocentric".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropocentrism

I'm not anthropocentric. Just like you I've wondered what the meaning of life is for flies, worms, birds, fish and monkeys, and concluded that I probably have the same meaning of life.

 

[Grendel]

That just means you're lying to yourself. Rationally I'm a nihilist, but emotionally I'm not. I feel that life is deeply meaningful. My emotions tell me that I'll live forever. That random strangers opinions of me matter. But here's the kicker... my rational faculty is not in control of my life. My feelings are. The same is true for us all. Nobody would do things if it didn't feel right for them.

This is a pretty big claim? Not everyone's emotions are in control of them at all. Perhaps in your world, but not in everyones. We are biologically selected-for to bond (mammals) and this will drive us to fiercely protect, even to our own death, those we have bonded with. But many many mammal species can and will do this. All species strive for the carrot. Opinion no longer plays a part in my life, I'm just a little monkey with a tiny brain.

Compositional nihilism is an incredibly specific and obscure type of nihilism. I'm just curious how you came to know about it?

I have enough grasp (for a little-brain) of quantum mechanics to realise compositional nihilism provides the first conceptual explanation for it. No other philosophy can do this. That's all.

 

[Lion IRC]

Grendel, when you look at the world around you, that is to say...the evidence of your senses,
do you think you perceive a clear picture of a fuzzy reality? Or a fuzzy picture of a clear reality?

 

[DrZoidberg]

That just means you're lying to yourself. Rationally I'm a nihilist, but emotionally I'm not. I feel that life is deeply meaningful. My emotions tell me that I'll live forever. That random strangers opinions of me matter. But here's the kicker... my rational faculty is not in control of my life. My feelings are. The same is true for us all. Nobody would do things if it didn't feel right for them.

This is a pretty big claim? Not everyone's emotions are in control of them at all. Perhaps in your world, but not in everyones.

Not really. It's well supported by research. We've capable of rational thought, but rational thought is not going to propel you to do things. Unless you attach that rational belief to some sort of emotionally nurturing pay-off, you're not going to do it. We can manipulate ourselves, which I guess is having the rational faculties in control, in a way. But it's more like emotional meta-motivation. If we don't somehow find a way to hook it into our emotions then you're rational eureka moment was wasted. Anybody who's tried being on a diet, knows how that works.

We are biologically selected-for to bond (mammals) and this will drive us to fiercely protect, even to our own death, those we have bonded with. But many many mammal species can and will do this. All species strive for the carrot. Opinion no longer plays a part in my life, I'm just a little monkey with a tiny brain.

Not sure what you mean?

Compositional nihilism is an incredibly specific and obscure type of nihilism. I'm just curious how you came to know about it?

I have enough grasp (for a little-brain) of quantum mechanics to realise compositional nihilism provides the first conceptual explanation for it. No other philosophy can do this. That's all.

I'm also a compositional nihilist, but it's not really saying much. It's like saying, whatever it is that created the world is God, so therefore God exists. Ok, fine. But you've said nothing.

 

[ruby sparks]

That just means you're lying to yourself. Rationally I'm a nihilist, but emotionally I'm not. I feel that life is deeply meaningful. My emotions tell me that I'll live forever. That random strangers opinions of me matter. But here's the kicker... my rational faculty is not in control of my life. My feelings are. The same is true for us all. Nobody would do things if it didn't feel right for them.

All this means is that you need to keep digging, to find what metaphysical thing you believe, deep down in your (non-existant) soul which is keeping you so motivated.

Actually I agree with that, to some extent, what you say about emotions and meaning.

I would just query whether the word metaphysics has anything much to do with it. Metaphysics, as I understand it, is not about 'the meaning of life'.

Part of the problem with the word is that nowadays (and ever since science emerged and gradually one branch of science or another took away something that metaphysics, indeed philosophy generally, pondered) it's incredibly vague.

 

[DrZoidberg]

That just means you're lying to yourself. Rationally I'm a nihilist, but emotionally I'm not. I feel that life is deeply meaningful. My emotions tell me that I'll live forever. That random strangers opinions of me matter. But here's the kicker... my rational faculty is not in control of my life. My feelings are. The same is true for us all. Nobody would do things if it didn't feel right for them.

All this means is that you need to keep digging, to find what metaphysical thing you believe, deep down in your (non-existant) soul which is keeping you so motivated.

Actually I agree with that, to some extent, what you say about emotions and meaning.

I would just query whether the word metaphysics has anything to do with it. Metaphysics, as I understand it, is not about 'the meaning of life'.

Part of the problem with the word is that nowadays (and ever since science emerged and gradually one branch of science or another took away something that metaphysics, indeed philosophy generally, pondered) it's incredibly vague.

As with most things in philosophy the name it gets is for historical reasons. When Aristotle coined the phrase he'd written a book on physics. Metaphysics was just the other stuff. When Aristotle wrote his physics book the context was that everybody assumed that the forces of nature was because of the machinations of gods or at least supernatural forces. As a thought experiment Aristotle made a descriptive model of the world with the divine explanation of why was left out. It was only the how. The why was in the second book, the metaphysics book. Strictly speaking the metaphysics is just "everything else".

So the meaning of life is certainly part of metaphysics.

Today's word usage has just been heavily influenced by Enlightenment ideas from the 18'th century. The war between religion and science. In that war everything metaphysical was bad, while nature was the only thing. Which misses the point of the terminology.

 

[Speakpigeon]

One physical material reality

Prove it.
EB

I will prove it if you define your idea of proof?

That won't be necessary. Just try your best and everybody here will judge on the face of it.

I don't have much time to post at the moment. About to drive 150km of dirt track. But I'm not ignoring you and I will reply later.

Take all the time you need.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

How do you decide that some view is very nearly superstitious and another just right? How do you know that what you take to be your perception of a material world is not something else entirely? All you have is what you take for your perceptions. How could you possibly know that they are actual perception? I'm supposed to be very clever but I don't know how to answer that. Feel free to explain this to me.

As for me, it's much simpler. I know I think whenever I know I think. Just explain to me how I don't know I think whenever I know I think.
EB

I don't really buy this argument. How do I know I'm drinking Guiness Stout and not Turtle soup?

The Cogito argument is that you don't need to pretend you know anything beyond your own thinking. If you don't know your own thinking, fair enough, there's nothing I can do for you. Just go see some doctor. The argument is that it's good enough to know your own thinking and when you know your own thinking then you are thinking and therefore you are. As Descartes was careful to explain, what you know you are in this juncture is just the thinking itself. Beyond your own thinking, you may have things like Guinness and Turtle soup that I agree in effect you know nothing about in themselves. All you have that you know are your ideas of them, ideas which are just a bit of thinking.

But to answer, my Daddy usta say, 'Don't believe anything you hear, an only half of what you see'.

It's OK to say you believe there's a physical world. I do it too. What's wrong with you is that you seem to want to argue (without ever doing it) that we know there's a physical world and that that's al there is. You certainly don't know that. If you want to believe it it's fine. It just shows you don't understand arguments to the contrary as obviously you don't understand Descartes' Cogito, if you even have read it in extenso.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

I only need to be right.

No shit. Who would have ever guessed it?

Sure, but that doesn't change the basic fact. You will have noticed that Grendel seems to limit himself to rhetorical sorties. We're still waiting for anything of substance, and this despite our many constructive replies. I'm not hopeful we're going to get anything more substantial from him.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Not really. It's well supported by research. We've capable of rational thought, but rational thought is not going to propel you to do things. Unless you attach that rational belief to some sort of emotionally nurturing pay-off, you're not going to do it. We can manipulate ourselves, which I guess is having the rational faculties in control, in a way. But it's more like emotional meta-motivation. If we don't somehow find a way to hook it into our emotions then you're rational eureka moment was wasted. Anybody who's tried being on a diet, knows how that works.

Yes. Rationality is a powerful tool but it's rather boring in itself and a hard job. We need to have an emotional motivation to support us if we're ever to work hard on rational things. No emotions means no work and therefore no achievements. And to some extent, you can sort of cynically tweak your own emotional life to fit that objective. So, yes again, there's some degree of mixing the two processes in support of each other.
EB

 

[ruby sparks]

So the meaning of life is certainly part of metaphysics.

Is it though? Certainly? Who says so?

I suspect that the word 'metaphysical' can be used for almost anything 'philosophical'.

 

[ruby sparks]

We're still waiting for anything of substance, and this despite our many constructive replies.

You've made a constructive reply? My internet must not be working. There are posts missing, or something.

Note that I do not necessarily agree with all that grendel is saying either.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Not really. It's well supported by research. We've capable of rational thought, but rational thought is not going to propel you to do things. Unless you attach that rational belief to some sort of emotionally nurturing pay-off, you're not going to do it. We can manipulate ourselves, which I guess is having the rational faculties in control, in a way. But it's more like emotional meta-motivation. If we don't somehow find a way to hook it into our emotions then you're rational eureka moment was wasted. Anybody who's tried being on a diet, knows how that works.

Yes. Rationality is a powerful tool but it's rather boring in itself and a hard job. We need to have an emotional motivation to support us if we're ever to work hard on rational things. No emotions means no work and therefore no achievements. And to some extent, you can sort of cynically tweak your own emotional life to fit that objective. So, yes again, there's some degree of mixing the two processes in support of each other.
EB

I actually don't think so at all. Successful people have figured out how to manipulate themselves emotionally into wanting to do rational things. But it requires a lot of work, and is fraught with potholes. Successful people do a lot of "spiritual work" and are all over the New Agey various workshops and whatnot. A lot of them realize that the stuff that the teachers are saying is mostly bullshit. But they keep coming back, because it works. That's hard to accept if we're supposed to be rational beings.

 

[ruby sparks]

But they keep coming back, because it works. That's hard to accept if we're supposed to be rational beings.

Wouldn't that be an example of being rational?

I do agree with you that we are not the supposedly rational beings we often think we are. It is arguably a cornerstone or a foundation stone for modern philosophy (and much ancient philosophy) that we are. It's almost an axiom. Undeserved, as you say. Possibly even delusional. At the very least awry. And undermined by science, especially psychology.

 

[DrZoidberg]

So the meaning of life is certainly part of metaphysics.

Is it though? Certainly? Who says so?

I suspect that the word 'metaphysical' can be used for almost anything 'philosophical'.

Aristotle said so. And he coined the term. Yes, and spiritual and whatever isn't covered by science and naturalism.

 

[DrZoidberg]

But they keep coming back, because it works. That's hard to accept if we're supposed to be rational beings.

Wouldn't that be an example of being rational?

I do agree with you that we are not the supposedly rational beings we often think we are. It is arguably a cornerstone or a foundation stone for modern philosophy (and much ancient philosophy) that we are. It's almost an axiom. Undeserved, as you say. Possibly even delusional. At the very least awry. And undermined by science, especially psychology.

Isn't it only idiots who think they are rational beings? No, it's not an example of being rational. If you were rational you'd just stop eating cake, stop smoking, stop drinking, stop coveting things you can't have, chose to be fun at parties. These people have realised that they're not rational, have accepted it, and using methods to fool their emotionally driven inner pilot to do rational things.

We have a capacity for rational thought. That's not the same thing as reason controlling our lives. The foundation for philosophy is that you enjoy thinking about stuff. If philosophy didn't trigger joy you wouldn't be doing it. People good at philosophy aren't necessarily smarter than people who aren't. I think the big kick from philosophy is that it gains you entry into sophisticated middle-class social groups from which you'd otherwise be barred. It's to massage your ego and vanity. But if you don't aspire for that or didn't care you wouldn't bother. That's a purely emotional goal.