Metaphysics without 'Truth'

It's not really my field, but is aesthetics considered to be part of metaphysics? It's an area where truth is different to different people, since beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Your question prompted me to google "metaphysics" which came up with several contemporary offshoots such as "fractal metaphysics" and "process metaphysics". Both of these reject static set theory and conventional logic which involve a "truth" concept.

I think it is useful to make a distinction between "absolute truth" and "relative truth" when discussing this issue. The former tends towards religion and dogma, whist the latter tends towards functionalism and pragmatism. IMO some scientists ascribe "physical laws" to the wrong category, hence the term "naive realism" to which they riposte with "metaphysical speculation".

Thank you Fresco.

I got a lot about (and get) process metaphysics.
Fractal metaphysics seems to lack a succinct definition on the internet.

I agree about the distinction between the notions of absolute/relative truth. Certainly in the public sphere I would say that 'scientific truths' are taken as absolute, and truth is taken as a real 'objective' concept outside of the scientific realm.
Can you think of a society or a culture which has had a different attitude or notion of truth?

Nietzsche questioned the value of "truth" as an a priori. ( I don't know whether he qustioned the concept of "facts" ) The only angle I can think of which agrees with this concept is a Machiavellian position (epitomized in Orwell's "1984... Ministry of Truth"). The mere questioning of "truth" in the "Pontius Pilate" sense is off topic, as is the Eastern concept that "all is illusion". Both of these still require "truth" to kick against.

I wonder whether if someone told Nietzsche that his remark about Socrates was false, Nietzsche would have insisted he was right. And if he did, would it have been proper to tell him he was obsessed with the notion of truth? What do you think?

Can anyone provide me with a source on this 'fractal metaphysics'? Of course, there's Google, but I want to make sure I'm on the same page as you guys.

Even though this is an old thread, I want to make it clear that epistemology deals with truth, not metaphysics. You can't have true things, only true propositions or statements which correspond (or cohere, or both) with states-of-affairs.

I have no idea what Nietzsche was talking about.

http://kitoba.com/pedia/Fractal+Metaphysics+Defined.html

Seems very Leibnizian.

of course true things exist and that is bc existence is true, things are really happenings while what u think being all created is the way u want it to b, creations for u

like here what u said, truth is state of things, it is obvious that u invent that

were u this god that u mean in head by sayin this knowin or assuming that whatever is ur own statement about

but still what nietzche i guess meant is not what u r saying, what he meant is simply that metaphysics dont know since they are seekin still the truth while truth is now much more then any object seen
so i guess he was tryin to give an argument that could discredit metaphysical reasons about anything, that what any successful human do in the world by willin to save his business out of competition, as the philosopher of his time

And he has returned. My God man, Where you been? What 've you been up to?
Don't tell me. You were smoking the truth pipe.

Anytime.

I have a vague recollection that Nietzsche indicated there were no (apriori) truths only (constructed hechos) facts--also no explanations only demonstratons. I'll have to check this out later.
All is illusion, not in the sense that it is "wrong"; all is illusion in the sense that it exists because of our constructive efforts. It is created, not discovered.

when truth exist then creation cant exist, so it is all lies not illusions

anyone can guess how it works, forcin smthg really existin first to work for u, truth of the ground would still with it against ur will till the guy resign for whatever reason, then the guy is creatin u as a parallel existence of his true reality, by pointin ur will from his perspective being alive, then confirmin it once more makes u existin from his present right

then doin it more and more as professions then u attack nothing so absolute ground reality, space, why not u cant but win since u possess already an existin base to stand still
then once u shake nothing grounds u start by attackin true grounds

but truth has a lot of tricks even though lies see them and immediately reply by possessin their rights
actually truth has only one trick, superiority
which is obvious seein ur standards in ur gods about anything and everything

I don't know how far Nietzsche went along a "social reality" route, because "construction" can taken to involve common language (and language was his earlier specialty). In that sense "illusion" can be evoked by "an outsider" looking in, i.e relativistic rather than absolutist ( that we are all somehow "deluded")

there cant b illusion bc existence is objective fully, so only what stay is called being there, never what pass or perceived of a glimse
what is the maximum is the reference to wat is real, as what is real is the result of what is present and object superiority is always the reference to present reality

that is why in all ways it would b proven that u lie intentionnally directly willingly clearly always

and that is how u cant but call the world a universe or creative wills, so u act as if u cant see anything then u lie and say well it is bc of illusions i cant see, but if u know that u only think what do not exist, so why do u call it universe or creative possibilities, bc that is what u want by takin advantage of any right existing thing and through knowledge abuse

where lie are then truth is not then i guess logics are back even if truth could b watchin from up since truth is superiority always

so logically, wat is ur guess, is a liar able to b true???

accordin to u speak up, is a liar able to keep sayin the truth and alone ???

u know that it is impossible that is how u r by knowin it so u insist to stay as u r a liar,

now what guess would u make for the end of it???

u cant predict futur dont u bc futur is the most present true element, futur is the superiority always present

what most prove that u r liars and not deluded, is hypocrisy being an absolute fact anywhere

if smeone believe smthg being real it cant accept to deal with another at all who dont believe that thing existing, if he to himself really think that it is the truth so the reason of his being how could he manage to accept others in constant terms based on opposite beliefs
it is impossible the mind dont do it but bc the mind is to lies ways

lies are fast i admit faster then truth to communicate and pretend smthg

but truth is superiority always, so any honest sees ur lies clearly

superiority is freedom that exist objectively while being nothing at all, so the whole thing of ur means and moves are seen in result as they are abstractly as not physically, the truth of whatever u do

Meh, the original post of this thread is so old, I don't know whether or not replying to it is beneficial to anyone.



Nietzsche and his works are an interesting crossroads in the history of philosophy; it represents both the epitome, the fermentation, and the combination of many philosophical trends. Not to mention the fact, that he wrote quite a few, vastly different books with very different themes in so little time... It makes his general view hard to track, given that the views presented by those books are difficult to correlate. Frankly, his oeuvre is a legion of contradictions.

The easiest answer here, although not necessarily the neatest or the most accurate, is that he was a "perspectivist". "Truth" is a product of the individual's balance of belief and pragmatic advantage, socially organized, and also yet in service to the whole. That is, he was really a "vitalist".

@JLN

He did indicate that there were no "a priori" truths (or " facts"), but mainly raised doubt as to the value of truth or facts, both on a technical and temporal basis (since he judged the temporal assignation of facts dodgy), and on an ontological basis (as in what is vs. "what must be"). N. had a hard time differentiating between value and existence. It was a very "veil of Maya, but without Nirvana" POV. He did not doubt that 2+3=5; only that the "truth" value of that mathematical observation might be nil in comparison to the value of Copernicus's life. (PS: that's my comparison, not his. He probably would have gladly sacrificed Copernicus for the heliocentric hypothesis.)

That's just my interpretation, though.

If you are looking for non-Western approaches, specifically, philosophical Toaism is probably your best bet.

On the Nietzschean side of things, he tended not to be able to separate the moral and the "truthful". Thus the Socrates reference, and his obsession with decadence and renewal. If that rotation (and the hidden balance) between the two is agreeable, then Nietzsche, himself, isn't a bad place to start.

However, while American pragmatism can't claim to not be obsessed with the value of truth, and the history of it; it does not burden itself with a responsibility to the European, philosophical tradition about it. For pragmatism, truth is "what works." It is eclectic, rather than systematic. And in terms of analysis, experience is subject to experiment, more than cultural inheritance.

I can't help but think on what a bunch of bull that sentence (and the whole line of thought) carry's within...I am sorry I am not trying to be provocative n all, but how many times people will need to be reminded that whatever works works because it is the case...whether truth can be know or not pragmatism cannot be contrasted with any ontological stance about truth, it simply has no claim there...there's nothing eclectic about pragmatism regarding truth aside we don't give a sh** what is the case as long the engine keeps running...