Objective Knowledge

Simplistically,
Epistemology deals with what we know.
Metaphysics deals with how we know.

http://www83.homepage.villanova.edu/richard.jacobs/EDU%204290/index5.html

According to this, the debate about subjectivity/objectivity is ostensibly "metaphysical" because it appears to discuss modes and methods of "knowing". However, the fact that "what we know" in physics has been shown (by Heisenberg et al) to be necessarily limited immediately triggers "metaphysical questions"....obviously so!..(meta=beyond)...to the extent that "we" and "know" are subject to analysis. At this level subjectivity/objectivity become deconstructed.

As far as "logic" is concerned,it would appear that it belongs in the "metaphysical camp" because it is a tool in the "how we know" box, operating as it does on the assumption of "truth values" of its objects of focus.. Traditional logic is of course further subject to secondary metaphysical analysis within the area called "philosophy of logic". Unfortunately Joe tends to equate "logic" with "sense" and anything which questions logic as "nonsense", without recognizing that he himself is stuck in a metaphysical rut of his own making.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

Simplistically,
Epistemology deals with what we know.
Metaphysics deals with how we know.

http://www83.homepage.villanova.edu/richard.jacobs/EDU%204290/index5.html

Well, I guess I must congratulate you, fresco: you have managed to find the worst definition of "metaphysics" ever written. That it also happens to agree with your position is, I hasten to add, no coincidence.

Metaphysics doesn't deal with how we know -- that's part of epistemology also. I can only imagine that this strange definition owes something to the fact that it comes from a professor teaching at a Catholic university (and, incidentally, teaching a course in the Education department, not in the Philosophy department).

Regardless of its provenance, however, the definition is clearly flawed. "Metaphysics" deals with "ultimate reality" (or what Frank Apisa would have called "REALITY"), not with how we know what we know. "Metaphysics" deals primarily with that which is "beyond the physical," i.e. that which is ultimately not knowable either inductively or deductively.

fresco wrote:

According to this, the debate about subjectivity/objectivity is ostensibly "metaphysical" because it appears to discuss modes and methods of "knowing". However, the fact that "what we know" in physics has been shown (by Heisenberg et al) to be necessarily limited immediately triggers "metaphysical questions"....obviously so!..(meta=beyond)...to the extent that "we" and "know" are subject to analysis. At this level subjectivity/objectivity become deconstructed.

No they don't.

fresco wrote:

As far as "logic" is concerned,it would appear that it belongs in the "metaphysical camp" because it is a tool in the "how we know" box, operating as it does on the assumption of "truth values" of its objects of focus.. Traditional logic is of course further subject to secondary metaphysical analysis within the area called "philosophy of logic". Unfortunately Joe tends to equate "logic" with "sense" and anything which questions logic as "nonsense", without recognizing that he himself is stuck in a metaphysical rut of his own making.

Logic is not subject to a secondary metaphysical analysis. It isn't even subject to a primary metaphysical analysis.

0 Replies

For me, logic allows us to understand the veracity of statements.

0 Replies

Well I got this all wrong. I linked the A2K thread on Objectivity and Subjectivity rather than the link on the definitions of epistemology and metaphysics.Thanks, Fresco. I'm reincarnating this A2K thread; it may be useful in our attempts to come to understandings (ha! what a hope) in this thread on "Objective Knowledge".
In the A2K thread I appreciate Frank's comment that Joe is sometimes "dismissive." Frank is a pro with that stragety. I should perhaps give up on people who make every effort to MISunderstand my efforts. I try hard to contribute "thoughtful" comments only to have Joe (as Frank used to do) simply characterize them as wrong-headed, rarely explaining in what way.
I hate to personalize this but how often does Joe actually make a contribution to our philosophical threads other than to "dismiss" the contributions of "competitors"?. Too bad: it's a shame to waste a good mind.

By the way, Fresco, I've always thought that "metaphysics" has to do, ontologically, with the the foundational character of the world and "epistemology" with the nature of thought and knowing. You have it the reverse. Could you elaborate?
One possible way--off the top of this head--to resolve the distinction is to see "metaphysics" as the study of our most fundamental presuppositions ABOUT Reality (I think Collingwood suggested that once)--an ontological slant--and to see the examination of such presuppositions as an epistemological slant.

I see that the above paragraph is unnecessary since the Link affirms MY understanding. Epistemology has to do with knowing and metaphysics with Being.
Sorry for the confusion. Also I did not see the comments about "logic" before I wrote it. I'm going to do that now.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Thanks, Fresco. I'm reincarnating this thread; it may be useful in our attempts to come to understandings (ha! what a hope) in the later thread on "Objective Knowledge".

Wrong thread.

JLNobody wrote:

I appreciate Frank's comment that Joe is sometimes "dismissive." Frank is a pro with that stragety. I should perhaps give up on people who make every effort to MISunderstand my efforts.

On the contrary, I understand your comments. Indeed, because I understand them to be metaphysical rather than epistemological, I understand them much better than you do. I don't dismiss them, then, I'm just trying to make you understand your position as well as I do.

JLNobody wrote:

I try hard to contribute "thoughtful" comments only to have Joe (as Frank used to do) simply characterize them as wrong-headed, rarely explaining in what way.

Your comments, no matter how "thoughtful" they might be, are usually irrelevant, since you usually contribute metaphysical comments in non-metaphysical threads -- this one being one of the more obvious examples. If you said the same things in a thread devoted to Buddhism on the Religion and Spirituality forum, I wouldn't bother to comment.

JLNobody wrote:

I hate to personalize this but how often does Joe actually make a contribution to our philosophical threads other than to "dismiss" the contributions of "competitors"?. Too bad: it's a shame to waste a good mind.

As I said before, I don't dismiss your contributions. I just understand that they are usually misplaced.

0 Replies

Gasp.
All statements about the nature of things are metaphysical in their implications. My "metaphysical" utterances reflect my epistemological relativism, even if I am subjectively "certain" (convinced) of their truth (or at least their usefulness).
Perhaps what I need from you, Joe, is your understanding of the nature of "metaphysics."

0 Replies

Oops!, I see, Joe, that you did give some idea of your understanding of metaphysics. And, by the way, you are correct, as I see it, in your correction of Fresco's usages. You're still a jerk. Laughing

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Oops!, I see, Joe, that you did give some idea of your understanding of metaphysics. And, by the way, you are correct, as I see it, in your correction of Fresco's usages. You're still a jerk.

Well, two out of three ain't bad.

0 Replies

JLN, I've met and socialized with Joe several times, and he's no "jerk." He's not dull, stupid, or a fatuous person, although I've seen many on a2k.

0 Replies

C.I.., I say he's a jerk, and I can prove it. Indeed, this whole thread proves it--the way he's mistreated poor me. If you defend him you'll soon fall into the same category.

The Inquisitor Twisted Evil

0 Replies

JLN, If truth be told, I probably fit that word more than joe ever will. I know for a fact that I'm a reactionary with very little patience for stupidity and ignorance.

Some stupid and ignorant questions from conservatives:
How come liberals haven't offered any solution for Iraq?

FACTS:
1. Bush doesn't listen to suggestions from anybody that conflicts with his own ideas, and fires most of them if they speak publicly. He's already ignored the UN, General Shinseki, and the Iraq Study Group.
2. Bush created this quagmire in Iraq to the point any solution is probably impossible.
3. Bush already said "we're going to succeed in Iraq."

0 Replies

I hate the "debate" part of this forum, Philosophy and Debate. I prefer to simply make philosophical contributions for what they're worth and read those of others to see what I can get from them. Whether we "win" or "lose" means little for two reasons:
(1) one can win and still be wrong
(2) even if I "lose" this one, my spaghetti and chianti will taste just as good in a couple of hours.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

I hate the "debate" part of this forum, Philosophy and Debate. I prefer to simply make philosophical contributions for what they're worth and read those of others to see what I can get from them. Whether we "win" or "lose" means little for two reasons:
(1) one can win and still be wrong
(2) even if I "lose" this one, my spaghetti and chianti will taste just as good in a couple of hours.

Karl Popper was famous for saying: "I may be wrong and you may be right. Together we may get closer to the truth."

0 Replies

What fun !.....I did say "simplistically" Laughing

...but Joe's comment about "logic" is one of the most ignorant I have seen from a normally erudite guy... even reminds me of the "preachers" on the religion forum. Of course, when Joe decides to put in a little reading beyond his college years we might be spared the boredom of some of his intellectual cul-de-sacs.

0 Replies

As an example of Joe's reliance on his outmoded undergraduate notes a simple Google search immediately yields this

Quote:

Achille C. Varzi (Dept Philosophy NYU 2002)

0 Replies

JLN, Correct; logic ostensibly keeps our statements "honest."

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

As an example of Joe's reliance on his outmoded undergraduate notes a simple Google search immediately yields this

Quote:

Achille C. Varzi (Dept Philosophy NYU 2002)

Is that supposed to support your claim that "Traditional logic is of course further subject to secondary metaphysical analysis within the area called "philosophy of logic"? Because it doesn't.

Varzi says that metaphysics is subject to logical analysis. I agree. Anything that is expressed in language is subject to logical analysis, and that includes metaphysics. But just because logic can analyze metaphysics doesn't mean that metaphysics can analyze logic. Remember, a proposition can only be partially converted. Just because all men are mortal doesn't mean that all mortal beings are men. That's a pretty elementary logical error, so I'm not surprised you made it, fresco. And I didn't even have to dig through my college notes to figure that out.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

What fun !.....I did say "simplistically" ...but Joe's comment about "logic" is one of the most ignorant I have seen from a normally erudite guy... even reminds me of the "preachers" on the religion forum. Of course, when Joe decides to put in a little reading beyond his college years we might be spared the boredom of some of his intellectual cul-de-sacs.

<yawn>

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Is this why you appeared to have conflated epistemology (an aspect of which is logic) with metaphysics (statements about what is)?

Ooooh, JLN and fresco are actually disagreeing about something. This oughta be good!

0 Replies

Objective Knowledge

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know