ruby sparks
Contributor
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.
Now you've just confused me. Aristotle's original meaning is more or less redundant. And if you want to include non-naturalist spirituality, it's arguably only adding to the problems with using the word nowadays in that case.
- - - Updated - - -
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.
Hm. I specifically meant that those going back to it because it works as being an example of them at least being (more) rational ('because it works' being more of a pragmatic, reasoned thing, less of an emotional or aesthetic response).
Otherwise I agree with a lot of what you say. Some of it goes too far, as usual, talking about the foundation for philosophy being about 'purely emotional' goals for instance.
Anyhows, I thought it was genes that controlled us?
Last edited: