The Future of Metaphysics

Reply Thu 6 Jan, 2011 08:04 pm
The future of metaphysics is largely in doubt although it appears that up to this point in history that metaphysics has been determined nearly to completion it has only begun its process of revealing itself to the physical. The scientific and methodologies we use to explain the scientific will be those instruments which will seek out a neutral position. This neutral position will be the location of a gathering of all scientific inquiries and methodologies being determining science to its fullest.

Though this position is unverified by our understanding of science I think it is possible to say without asking the question why that it verifies all subjective constructs that are utilized by science to abstract the metaphysical. This abstraction is a local approximation of what it means to be metaphysical so the fundamental question of science has still been obscured from us but it appears at the same time we have found it located within the grounds of science. The exploitations of science and reason have seemingly latched onto and connected the manifoldness of science itself. And since now science has uncovered that which has long been covered within its framework it has brought a new meaning to its framework.

Though in the process of this uncovering science is still only relating to the manifoldness of this covering and partially covering itself over with new discoveries and methods that give science the advantage of being more beneficial to others. This covering up that is uncovered by science indicates that science itself is discrete and obscured from itself.

Though it is possible to access those things that which have remained relatively unknown to science we can indicate that science has few means to account for all the parts contained within it. To do so would be to undermine the investigation of science altogether and this would create a whole new set of problems which would set science at odd with itself.

So perhaps science is merely only a means of investigation that should be used to benefit others and to help the common good of the human race progress forwards. In saying this then it will be necessary to deduce that all things that are metaphysical in their being only have a a metaphysical meaning if science or reason can align their meaning to a principle or rule.

With that said the principle or rule itself is not a universal understanding of what it is understood to represent in principle. Instead a principle which wishes to derive or deduce a universal understanding must in most conditions only have a conformity inferred in its context if it aligns itself with science or reason.

So it appears once a proposition has been found that relates itself to a universal notion the conformity of the rule supposed by a scientific method only has a real value if is applied to a real set of circumstances or conditions. These circumstances or conditions are supposed or presuppose a certain necessity that belongs to the scientific principle given by human reason.

And this is when the human reason can deduce that it has made use of metaphysics and approximated it within the context of science and reason but only in so far as it offers science and reason with a pragmatic purpose. What this "pragmatic purpose" actually is is the fundamental question of science which we have yet to make sense of. Though it is possible to say we ineffably fall on it that the "pragmatic purpose" is essentially there although it is hidden from the context in which it appears as being "pragmatic."

Though the essential roots of the scientific inquiry or problem has no scientific solution or conclusion this does not mean science or reason can give itself its own conclusion. As long as it remains pragmatic reason has the means to operate and construct an approximate and exact understanding of what it means for something to be metaphysical or scientific in its nature. Though the problem with modern science is it believes it can now replace the "pragmatic" with the pragmatic.

This does only injustice to the semblance of science and any previous understanding we have had of this semblance. Though it is possible to say that all understanding of science and all the methodologies of science have their origins in what is "pragmatic" this does not give us any clear understanding of what it means to be scientific or metaphysical in the full sense.

This full understanding of what it means to be scientific or metaphysical can only be understood if it approximated within the context of what science or reason wants it to mean. This is not to say science or reason should undermine the meaning itself but that should do its best to approximate the full of meaning of what it means to inquire scientifically. Although in the end we will become uncertain of what we wanted to actually appear in the context of a scientific investigation or rational exploitation, it still can be said that there is something metaphysical about the investigation itself.

We should though as Wittgenstein said build a ladder to understand those things which are at the apex of our language descriptions and then when we no longer have the capability to describe what our language description means we should remain silent about the rest. Same rule should be applied to the understanding of science and metaphysics for it is quite impossible for us seemingly to remain silent about those things we should keep silent about.

But it is even harder and the consequences are even more severe when science tries to give a complete understanding of this presupposed silence. This silence is the very microorganism which we should not speak about because it would do science no justice to be able to uncover or cover the actual meaning of the questions it asks. That is because there is no actual or meaning or concept in relation to a certain systematic understanding of science unless science can develop the relation that is presupposed to lie within in science itself.

The future of science and metaphysics is uncertain just as its past understandings are uncertain as well that is why we need to maintain a certainty between a past understanding of the relation and a future one that is about to be made. The future understanding will be a reflection of any past understanding of metaphysics but to say that it will eclipse it is nonsensical and nothing but a vain folly to seek after. Instead science itself eclipses ineffably all of the discoveries and understandings of metaphysics in and of itself thought it is impossible to scientifically verify this.

Though it is possible to lay down scientific principle and rules to indicate and point out this objective nature which underlies the deduction of all scientific rules and principles it is quite impossible to validate its claims on science unless we align it to a scientific rule or principle. This is to say that the more certain we become that scientific inquiries or methodologies allow us to access metaphysical assumptions the less certain we become of the scientific inquiry itself. And therefore the more certain we become of the metaphysical assumption underlying a certain principle or rule the less certain we become of the principle. This principle which tries to approximate a metaphysical understanding of itself exactly.

So any future exposition of metaphysics must not think so quickly to abandon its grounds to find some unknown or undiscovered metaphysical principle. This illusion will only present even less understanding to the principle and rules that have been set before us in regards to metaphysics. So we should not be to fast to fix a new theoretical position in relation to those previous scientific inquiries and methodologies to completely posit an adequate approximation of a complete definition of what it means to be scientific.

Nor will a future exposition of the metaphysical give us a complete connection of understanding between previous scientific notions and newer ones. Instead it is best for science and metaphysics to be subjectively understood. Any future expositions of metaphysics should remain contingent to a previous understanding. In so far as it does not depend to heavily on a past understanding of what it might possibly mean to be metaphysical. Metaphysics in the most part has been validated to be true or useful when aligned or applied to a scientific method of thought or rational idea. But this is not true in all circumstances nor is it verifiable by reason therefore we shall leave the fundamental of question of science unanswered and discrete.

URL: http://able2know.org/topic/166196-1
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 2,238 • Replies: 0
No top replies


Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
  1. Forums
  2. » The Future of Metaphysics
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/26/2021 at 10:22:26