2
   

The Fundamental Problem in Metaphysics

 
 
Reply Thu 27 Jan, 2011 02:59 am
The great problem can be explained by what is still modern science and the four dimensions which we operate in today. Space and time dimensions. Much like the Sophists we can either assert or deny under god that which happens to us within these four dimensions. However the following must be taken into consideration when doing so.
Einstein revealed to us these space time dimensions as well as the theory of relativity. His theory had implications far beyond its strict scientific meaning. Where relativity fits into philosophy is quite evident. Strictly speaking all things are relative to the observer which Einstein stated in his theory. However we must realize relativity with regard to philosophy is not much different and that all things which fall under the title of philosophy can be seen as relative since man is the current ultimate measure of things as we know them to be. (please excuse the run on sentence) All things have there time and space then. However according to relativity they may appear different according to different persons times and groups.
With this said, now back to the Sophits. We can if we choose to either affirm or deny the existence of a God or Gods or whatever we choose, as well as what we know to be true and real knowledge. So we see that epistemology is closely related to metaphysics. The true question in metaphysics then for me is first wheather or not one affirms or denies the existence of a God. The second question would then be to what magnitude has God created the world we know (and/or do not know)? Or in the case of denying God's existence, to what magnitude does the world we know (or do not know) exist?
I find these questions of great importance in cracking the so called God code or at least in understanding our own existece but have yet to truely ponder either of them fully. We can see here how metaphysical questions such as the two above are closely related to epistemal questions such as the all important question which Plato raised...how do I know I have found something if I do not know what that something I was looking for was in the first place. My guess is Einstein was right again in that 'imagination is more important than knowledge.' This leads us into the area of developmental philosophy or the creation of new ideas more simply put. One would presume that given our current collective and agreed upon (to whatever extent it maybe agreed upon) knowledge that the supply of ideas would be endless. Weather this is true or not is again relative but I dare say does have a definite answer. The answer to that question should help us answer the next sencond metaphysical question raised above. This type of half way proof if you will then does not really answer the question of weather the world we know is infinite or not but it does say that within the human mind there is infinite possibility.
So in conclusion, after either affirming or denying the existence of God. We can affirm or deny anything else we would like (bassed of course on human observation which again is relative). Affirming the infinite possibility within the human mind has already been done. So the next question is one of physics and physical magnitude. In this case the how, why, when, and where are not relavent. We must follow with the question of whom (God, or no God) with one of what. It is only most logical. Here I find these questions harder and harder to answer given the who what where when why and how sequence. And I dare say that given the current advances in science and technology we are truely stuck as philosophers or scienctists rather in that we may never know the answers to questions such as what exactly is this world we live in and whom exactly created it. May we only assume we know the answers to these questions and others...i dare not say much like the buddah responded when asked specific metaphysical questions. Rather than assume I believe philosophy has more narrow inclusive uses and is applicable to other areas of modern day living.
So we should not get caught up on the downside of not being able to answer such major questions in metaphysics which may or may not be answered one day. We should do just the opposite as philosophers and work our way to the solutions of questions not yet answered. Starting where ever we are at the moment we realize this has been suggested to me somehow and I take that quite literal given my relative outlook upon life.
I will leave you with this then...the greek prefix meta meaning 'along with' sums up the problem of metaphysics just fine. Along with physics is the literal translation. So as many great minds know physics is how the world operates and what goes along with physics is everything else we know about the world and some things we don't right now. Weather this includes God or not is again relative. So just as something like God goes along with physics (in this case as its literal creator) so do points go along with abstract or subtle discussion or reasoning. This is what we know today as metaphysics or simply put one's expressed viewpoint relative to facts and in some cases fiction. The answer to your question on the great problem in metaphysics is really then the question of morality and weather or not there is a right opinion or view to have regarding metaphysical and other philosophical questions. One prespective taken today could be the majority rules; but that does not always mean the minority is wrong, or does it??? So wheather or not their is a right view and how that view comes to light given human nature remains the greatest paradox, debate, or problem at least in my mind as it is today. In my opinion this is mainly due to the fact that the question of God is largely irrelavent given the human situation we face today; that is given the supposed fact that God does not play a role in human affairs as we now know it.
P.S. sorry for the length I got a bit carried away; and you might want to change your question/title to ‘The Great Problems in Metaphysics’.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 4,223 • Replies: 3
No top replies

 
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Jan, 2011 05:04 am
@eduece92483,
eduece92483 wrote:


... epistemal questions such as the all important question which Plato raised...how do I know I have found something if I do not know what that something I was looking for was in the first place. ....

....I will leave you with this then...the greek prefix meta meaning 'along with' sums up the problem of metaphysics just fine. Along with physics is the literal translation. ....

It's a mathematically true statement that an infinite number of monkeys, typing on an infinite number of keyboards, for all infinity, will, eventually, produce a coherent text. Sadly our universe does not allow for any of these infinities, and your post is remarkable in showing why that is so.

You have apologized for your syntax - which is very much to your credit. Grammar and spelling can be corrected with some effort. That leaves the most important remainder: content. Not one of your statements is even remotely accurate. Taking only your 2 quoted sentences at random:

The "epistemal" (sic) statement is wrong. Plato never said that, Heraclitus however did; since you quote the Sophists you'll be familiar with:
http://philoctetes.free.fr/heraclitefraneng.htm
Fragment 18 :
ἐὰν μὴ ἔλπηται, ἀνέλπιστον οὐκ
ἐξευρήσει, ἀνεξερεύνητον ἐὸν καὶ ἄπορον.
[If you do not expect the unexpected, you will not find it; for it is hard to be sought out and difficult.]

As far as the second statement goes, it's wrong from start to finish. The Greek prefix "meta" means "after", and the reason one book is called "Metaphysics" in Aristotle's works is that it's the book following the one entitled "Physics". Hope that helps your philosophical researches.
0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Feb, 2011 11:29 am
@eduece92483,
1 reply, 200+ views on your thread so far! Glad to see you getting so much interest and would like to direct additional viewers to another thread where someone named Fresco fortunately knows enough to answer questions on philosophical topics: http://able2know.org/topic/167128-1 Good luck.
0 Replies
 
TuringEquivalent
 
  0  
Reply Sun 6 Feb, 2011 07:29 pm
@eduece92483,
eduece92483 wrote:

The great problem can be explained by what is still modern science and the four dimensions which we operate in today. Space and time dimensions. Much like the Sophists we can either assert or deny under god that which happens to us within these four dimensions. However the following must be taken into consideration when doing so.
Einstein revealed to us these space time dimensions as well as the theory of relativity. His theory had implications far beyond its strict scientific meaning. Where relativity fits into philosophy is quite evident. Strictly speaking all things are relative to the observer which Einstein stated in his theory. However we must realize relativity with regard to philosophy is not much different and that all things which fall under the title of philosophy can be seen as relative since man is the current ultimate measure of things as we know them to be. (please excuse the run on sentence) All things have there time and space then. However according to relativity they may appear different according to different persons times and groups.
With this said, now back to the Sophits. We can if we choose to either affirm or deny the existence of a God or Gods or whatever we choose, as well as what we know to be true and real knowledge. So we see that epistemology is closely related to metaphysics. The true question in metaphysics then for me is first wheather or not one affirms or denies the existence of a God. The second question would then be to what magnitude has God created the world we know (and/or do not know)? Or in the case of denying God's existence, to what magnitude does the world we know (or do not know) exist?
I find these questions of great importance in cracking the so called God code or at least in understanding our own existece but have yet to truely ponder either of them fully. We can see here how metaphysical questions such as the two above are closely related to epistemal questions such as the all important question which Plato raised...how do I know I have found something if I do not know what that something I was looking for was in the first place. My guess is Einstein was right again in that 'imagination is more important than knowledge.' This leads us into the area of developmental philosophy or the creation of new ideas more simply put. One would presume that given our current collective and agreed upon (to whatever extent it maybe agreed upon) knowledge that the supply of ideas would be endless. Weather this is true or not is again relative but I dare say does have a definite answer. The answer to that question should help us answer the next sencond metaphysical question raised above. This type of half way proof if you will then does not really answer the question of weather the world we know is infinite or not but it does say that within the human mind there is infinite possibility.
So in conclusion, after either affirming or denying the existence of God. We can affirm or deny anything else we would like (bassed of course on human observation which again is relative). Affirming the infinite possibility within the human mind has already been done. So the next question is one of physics and physical magnitude. In this case the how, why, when, and where are not relavent. We must follow with the question of whom (God, or no God) with one of what. It is only most logical. Here I find these questions harder and harder to answer given the who what where when why and how sequence. And I dare say that given the current advances in science and technology we are truely stuck as philosophers or scienctists rather in that we may never know the answers to questions such as what exactly is this world we live in and whom exactly created it. May we only assume we know the answers to these questions and others...i dare not say much like the buddah responded when asked specific metaphysical questions. Rather than assume I believe philosophy has more narrow inclusive uses and is applicable to other areas of modern day living.
So we should not get caught up on the downside of not being able to answer such major questions in metaphysics which may or may not be answered one day. We should do just the opposite as philosophers and work our way to the solutions of questions not yet answered. Starting where ever we are at the moment we realize this has been suggested to me somehow and I take that quite literal given my relative outlook upon life.
I will leave you with this then...the greek prefix meta meaning 'along with' sums up the problem of metaphysics just fine. Along with physics is the literal translation. So as many great minds know physics is how the world operates and what goes along with physics is everything else we know about the world and some things we don't right now. Weather this includes God or not is again relative. So just as something like God goes along with physics (in this case as its literal creator) so do points go along with abstract or subtle discussion or reasoning. This is what we know today as metaphysics or simply put one's expressed viewpoint relative to facts and in some cases fiction. The answer to your question on the great problem in metaphysics is really then the question of morality and weather or not there is a right opinion or view to have regarding metaphysical and other philosophical questions. One prespective taken today could be the majority rules; but that does not always mean the minority is wrong, or does it??? So wheather or not their is a right view and how that view comes to light given human nature remains the greatest paradox, debate, or problem at least in my mind as it is today. In my opinion this is mainly due to the fact that the question of God is largely irrelavent given the human situation we face today; that is given the supposed fact that God does not play a role in human affairs as we now know it.
P.S. sorry for the length I got a bit carried away; and you might want to change your question/title to ‘The Great Problems in Metaphysics’.


You don 't know ****. It is best to take a course in relativity, and metaphysics. You have these fairy tale notion of those concepts. I think you just make up some stupid story from the names.
0 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 Fundamental Problem in Metaphysics
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 06/16/2021 at 05:31:02