Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

This thread is to continue in the spirit of the Religion thread, only friendlier and more on topic (if that's possible).

If you want to post here, you are welcome to, just make sure:
1) Keep it civil. You need to respect others' opinions.
2) Keep it on topic. I will create separate threads for other topics once we have exhausted this one.
3) While keeping it civil, don't be afraid to tear someone's logic to pieces as long as you don't insult them.
4) Feel free to quote philosophers or theologians.

With that said, let's get on to Metaphysics.

"Metaphysics investigates principles of reality transcending those of any particular science. Cosmology and ontology are traditional branches of metaphysics. It is concerned with explaining the fundamental nature of being and the world." From Wikipedia

We'll start with the most basic question first. Then, we can move on to cosmogony/cosmology determinism vs. free will.

So what's your view?
How do we know what exists and what doesn't? Could we all be in the matrix?

Ve believe in nusssing!

Orkeosaurus wrote:Ve believe in nusssing!

I respond to your nihilism with:
"Say what you will about the tenets of National Socialism, but at least it was an ethos".

Haven't we discussed the metaphysical enough?

How about we move on to something new? Like ethics?

Cheese Elemental: Haven't we discussed the metaphysical enough?

How about we move on to something new? Like ethics?

The two are inherently tied together.
Connection to the divine is arguably an aspect of empathy.
Empathy is the root of ethics.

Cheese Elemental wrote:Haven't we discussed the metaphysical enough?

How about we move on to something new? Like ethics?

Now THAT's a barrell of monkeys you really don't want to stir up. My philosophy is Sh*t Happens, unless by a really unlikely combination of hard work and luck you make something else happen.

I'm in a metaphysical quandary at the moment.

It's kinda like a drunken stupor, but requires waaaay more booze.

Belphegor wrote:

Cheese Elemental: Haven't we discussed the metaphysical enough?

How about we move on to something new? Like ethics?

The two are inherently tied together.
Connection to the divine is arguably an aspect of empathy.
Empathy is the root of ethics.

Empathy is the root of ethics? Metaphysics is inherently tied to ethics? Where do you get that from?

It's a stretch to say that "connection to the divine is arguably...", not make that argument, and then use what is the (I guess) conclusion to that argument as a premise for linking the divine and ethics. You are saying:

P1: Connection to the divine is an aspect of empathy.
P2: Empathy is the root of ethics.
C: Therefore, connection to the divine is an aspect of ethics.

Maybe a valid argument, but certainly not sound. I think you'd have a hard time proving either of your premises, and I would definitely take up the argument against either.

(Edited because in my conclusion I said empathy where I meant ethics. Because I'm special.)

A good topic to debate here would be cosmology and cosmogony. These are very thought provoking and make for good debate.

Cosmology is the branch of metaphysics that deals with the world as the totality of all phenomena in space and time. (wikipedia)

One theory of Cosmology is that everything in the universe is part of one god, and that this god is manifested in every aspect of the material world.

There is also Creationism, Emantionism, and various scientific theories such as the Big Bang.

In response to Lucidicide:
Someone cannot hold an ethical standpoint without understanding the consequences of their actions.
That understanding is empathy.
This empathy is what is deficient in sociopaths, and is why they build their interaction on logical patterns rather than ethics.

You cannot separate metaphysics (which covers spiritual belief) from a conversation about ethics.
Many people use those beliefs as the primary way of placing themselves in the world.
And that understanding of their place allows them to connect with the people that they interact with.
Ethics is arguably about what one considers right and wrong.
Many people use metaphysics to help define their sense of right and wrong.

Belphegor wrote:In response to Lucidicide:
Someone cannot hold an ethical standpoint without understanding the consequences of their actions.
That understanding is empathy.
This empathy is what is deficient in sociopaths, and is why they build their interaction on logical patterns rather than ethics.

You cannot separate metaphysics (which covers spiritual belief) from a conversation about ethics.
Many people use those beliefs as the primary way of placing themselves in the world.
And that understanding of their place allows them to connect with the people that they interact with.
Ethics is arguably about what one considers right and wrong.
Many people use metaphysics to help define their sense of right and wrong.

Well the whole idea of deontological ethics would disagree with your first statement about consequences. Ethics does NOT have to involve consequences, often it involves the acts themselves.

Empathy, usually, relates to the ability to understand another person's thoughts or feelings. If this is the empathy you are discussing, I would have to disagree that understanding consequences is empathy. However, you may be using it in a different way, and I'm open to hearing what you mean by empathy. There are certainly other takes.

Ethics, as an idea, is based more on how we 'should' act in the world, and doesn't necessarily involve people. It seems to me (and I could be wrong) that you equate ethics with actions involving people (and therefore empathy). Ethics does not have to deal with others, and therefore you might not need empathy. But again, we might be using empathy differently.

I completely agree with you that many people use metaphysics to help define their sense of right and wrong, and a LOT of people get these ideas from spiritual or religious beliefs. However, I took issue with the idea that they are "inherently" related. I do not think that metaphysics, as a sort of nature of reality, necessarily needs to be tied with ethics. I'm not saying it's not or that most people don't feel that way -- simply that it is not necessary/inherent.

Lucidicide wrote: Ethics does not have to deal with others, and therefore you might not need empathy. But again, we might be using empathy differently.

The problem that deontologists run into is finding a way to link up their immaterial conception of intrinsic good and bad with the material world. Generally they go about this in one of two ways:

1) Metaphysics. This is the way Kant went in A Critique of Pure Reason which, while interesting, is widely regarded as somewhere between prolix and gibberish.

2) The incorporation of considered case judgments (Kamm), or prudential reasoning (Nagel). Both of which remove the a priori component that nominally defines deontology; making such work deontological in only the loosest of senses.

dogma wrote:

Lucidicide wrote: Ethics does not have to deal with others, and therefore you might not need empathy. But again, we might be using empathy differently.

The problem that deontologists run into is finding a way to link up their immaterial conception of intrinsic good and bad with the material world. Generally they go about this in one of two ways:

1) Metaphysics. This is the way Kant went in A Critique of Pure Reason which, while interesting, is widely regarded as somewhere between prolix and gibberish.

2) The incorporation of considered case judgments (Kamm), or prudential reasoning (Nagel). Both of which remove the a priori component that nominally defines deontology; making such work deontological in only the loosest of senses.

OK. But my point had nothing to do with what deontology is or its relative merits and/or shortcomings. As you can see, Belphegor was arguing that consequences are essential to ethics. I was simply pointing out that not all ethical schools agree with this statement. I probably shouldn't have, as it sidetracked the discussion when my real issue was intrinsically linking ethics to metaphysics.

Lucidicide wrote:
OK. But my point had nothing to do with what deontology is or its relative merits and/or shortcomings. As you can see, Belphegor was arguing that consequences are essential to ethics.

I should have extended my comment. The point I intended to make was that the only group of deontologists who completely absolve consequences of their compulsive force are pure Kantians, and they possess a very large gap in their logical justification for any given set of constraints. The deontologists that don't have such a problem generally deal with it by instituting a form of consequentialist thought masked by semantic distinction. As such, not even deontologists believe consequences are irrelevant in ethical consideration, not anymore.

Unless the deontologist in question also happens to be a determinist. In which case the notion of choice itself becomes largely irrelevant.

Lucidicide wrote:
I was simply pointing out that not all ethical schools agree with this statement. I probably shouldn't have, as it sidetracked the discussion when my real issue was intrinsically linking ethics to metaphysics.

Discussions are free form by nature, especially in this format. Either way, I think you would be hard pressed to find someone who considered metaphysics a serious discipline while denying it any relevance with regard to ethics. I think a better statement would have been: Insofar as metaphysics can be considered compulsive one must also regard them as intrinsically tied to ethical thought.

In response to points made by Lucidicide:

Well the whole idea of deontological ethics would disagree with your first statement about consequences. Ethics does NOT have to involve consequences, often it involves the acts themselves.

My reading on deontological perspectives is superficial. But the belief that an action by category is right-or-wrong, regardless of the consequence, strikes me as flawed. Since the understanding of ones ethics must come from somewhere. The construction of an ethical set requires that one knows why something is wrong or right, which requires consequence.

Empathy, usually, relates to the ability to understand another person's thoughts or feelings. If this is the empathy you are discussing, I would have to disagree that understanding consequences is empathy. However, you may be using it in a different way, and I'm open to hearing what you mean by empathy. There are certainly other takes.

Ethics, as an idea, is based more on how we 'should' act in the world, and doesn't necessarily involve people. It seems to me (and I could be wrong) that you equate ethics with actions involving people (and therefore empathy). Ethics does not have to deal with others, and therefore you might not need empathy. But again, we might be using empathy differently.

Empathy is not limited to people (as defined as humans) but also to other living things, and with some people their own connections with the divine.
There is arguably nothing we can do that does not have an effect on something other than ourselves.
Regardless of intention or awareness.

I completely agree with you that many people use metaphysics to help define their sense of right and wrong, and a LOT of people get these ideas from spiritual or religious beliefs. However, I took issue with the idea that they are "inherently" related. I do not think that metaphysics, as a sort of nature of reality, necessarily needs to be tied with ethics. I'm not saying it's not or that most people don't feel that way -- simply that it is not necessary/inherent.

The reason I suggest that it is inherent to the topic is that others hold that their ethics are formed by divine judgment.

dogma wrote:

I should have extended my comment. The point I intended to make was that the only group of deontologists who completely absolve consequences of their compulsive force are pure Kantians, and they possess a very large gap in their logical justification for any given set of constraints. The deontologists that don't have such a problem generally deal with it by instituting a form of consequentialist thought masked by semantic distinction. As such, not even deontologists believe consequences are irrelevant in ethical consideration, not anymore.

Unless the deontologist in question also happens to be a determinist. In which case the notion of choice itself becomes largely irrelevant.

I think you have a good point.

dogma wrote:

Discussions are free form by nature, especially in this format. Either way, I think you would be hard pressed to find someone who considered metaphysics a serious discipline while denying it any relevance with regard to ethics. I think a better statement would have been: Insofar as metaphysics can be considered compulsive one must also regard them as intrinsically tied to ethical thought.

Hmm. Well, I agree that denying it any relevance would probably be hard pressed, but I may just be playing with your word choice.

As for your second statement, I'm not entirely sure I understand you. I believe you are saying that if we're to consider metaphysics to have any weight/meaning/value, then we must regard metaphysics as intrinsically tied to ethics. If that is accurate, I'm not sure how I feel about it. It seems possible that there is value in metaphysics beyond the ethical, and thus there is not a necessary link. Once again, I don't take issue with the idea that they are commonly (and maybe even correctly) linked together. I just don't see it as intrinsic.

Taking your own statement, what if I don't consider metaphysics compulsive? Do I no longer have to regard it as intrinsically tied to ethical thought? If not, this would seem an easy way to split the two. Of course, then we're left talking about a metaphysics with no real meaning, and who wants to do that?

((Edit: Also, it sounds like you're saying metaphysics are intrinsically tied to ethics (through complusion, which I took to mean as weight or value). Is ethics also intrinsically tied to metaphysics? The easy answer is yes, but I believe your statement would not reach yes as the logical answer. Just a thought.))

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Belphegor wrote:

My reading on deontological perspectives is superficial. But the belief that an action by category is right-or-wrong, regardless of the consequence, strikes me as flawed. Since the understanding of ones ethics must come from somewhere. The construction of an ethical set requires that one knows why something is wrong or right, which requires consequence.

It may well be flawed. It seems that dogma would agree with you. We can just say I was doing a devil's advocate (which can get annoying) in that I wanted to point out there are other thoughts. The value of them is an open debate. As mentioned, I sidetracked myself on that one.

Belphegor wrote:

Empathy is not limited to people (as defined as humans) but also to other living things, and with some people their own connections with the divine.

There is arguably nothing we can do that does not have an effect on something other than ourselves.
Regardless of intention or awareness.

So empathy is the ability to understand the consequences of our actions as it related to living things and the divine? I'm asking for clarification. In the above you talk about where empathy can come into play. I'm drawing the consequences talk from earlier comments. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I agree that it is arguable, and a strong argument. Not conclusive, but very strong.

Belphegor wrote:

The reason I suggest that it is inherent to the topic is that others hold that their ethics are formed by divine judgment.

And I appreciate that. However, the fact that "others hold" or even to go so far as to say "100% of people believe" (which I know you're not saying) does not mean that it is, in truth, inherent to the topic. Unlike the concept of (to use something I've heard a million times) a bachelor and an unmarried male (which cannot be separate), the concept of ethics and metaphysics CAN be split and are not inherent parts of each other.

Does that mean that they shouldn't be thought of together? I don't know. My argument is less about right and wrong and more about possibility.

Lucidicide wrote:
Taking your own statement, what if I don't consider metaphysics compulsive? Do I no longer have to regard it as intrinsically tied to ethical thought? If not, this would seem an easy way to split the two. Of course, then we're left talking about a metaphysics with no real meaning, and who wants to do that?

That's what I was trying to get at. To my mind the people who separate metaphysics from ethics are the same people who would say that metaphysics isn't a legitimate philosophical discipline at all.

Essentially my thinking works like this:

If you believe metaphysics can say something legitimate about the nature of our world, then you must also believe it has something to say about 'good' or 'just' action. Otherwise you end up with something like the God of the Philosophes; floating off in space contemplating itself without changing the nature of our world.

If you believe metaphysics cannot say anything legitimate about the nature of our world, then you have to acknowledge its role in determining some form of 'rightness'. Though not necessarily a uniquely human 'rightness'.

So the matter turns on belief, rather than deduction.

Lucidicide wrote:
((Edit: Also, it sounds like you're saying metaphysics are intrinsically tied to ethics (through complusion, which I took to mean as weight or value). Is ethics also intrinsically tied to metaphysics? The easy answer is yes, but I believe your statement would not reach yes as the logical answer. Just a thought.))

It is if you believe it to be. Metaphysics is one of those funny areas where philosophy begins to look a lot like theology.

dogma wrote:

Lucidicide wrote:
Taking your own statement, what if I don't consider metaphysics compulsive? Do I no longer have to regard it as intrinsically tied to ethical thought? If not, this would seem an easy way to split the two. Of course, then we're left talking about a metaphysics with no real meaning, and who wants to do that?

That's what I was trying to get at. To my mind the people who separate metaphysics from ethics are the same people who would say that metaphysics isn't a legitimate philosophical discipline at all.

Essentially my thinking works like this:

If you believe metaphysics can say something legitimate about the nature of our world, then you must also believe it has something to say about 'good' or 'just' action. Otherwise you end up with something like the God of the Philosophes; floating off in space contemplating itself without changing the nature of our world.

If you believe metaphysics cannot say anything legitimate about the nature of our world, then you have to acknowledge its role in determining some form of 'rightness'. Though not necessarily a uniquely human 'rightness'.

So the matter turns on belief, rather than deduction.

Lucidicide wrote:
((Edit: Also, it sounds like you're saying metaphysics are intrinsically tied to ethics (through complusion, which I took to mean as weight or value). Is ethics also intrinsically tied to metaphysics? The easy answer is yes, but I believe your statement would not reach yes as the logical answer. Just a thought.))

It is if you believe it to be. Metaphysics is one of those funny areas where philosophy begins to look a lot like theology.

Although I wouldn't say "you're right", necessarily, I do agree with you. But I'm not much of a metaphysician. So ok, metaphysics has value in that it can inform ethics (on this we agree). I think ethics can have value all on its own (no need for metaphysics), and therefore they are not intrinsically linked.

But, I brought up the point originally as a way to say that a thread on metaphysics need not be tied to ethics. Although I still stand by this, I do agree with you, dogma, that there might not be much value in the metaphysics thread without allowing the ethical discussion. And thus, I rest my case.

I think we've been talking past each other a bit, because I agree with what you said.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

Is there good? Is there evil? Or is it just...there?

P.S. Very good orkesuarus.

May God create a stone of such weight that he himself may not lift it?

Orkeosaurus wrote:May God create a stone of such weight that he himself may not lift it?

The concept of weight would be meaningless to God.

Never mind, dogma got it for me.

Geez, lol, you're just full of these aren't you?

Is 'God' defined through our actions? Or are we defined through Gods actions?

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

...? That doesn't even make sense.

Orkeosaurus wrote:How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

You're really scraping the bottom of the barrel now.

The answer is six.

...yeah, mabye you could explain?