/lit/ - Literature

>>20832995
>metaphysical
No one can even define what the 'metaphysical' is in positive terms, so anything claimed under its exclusive auspices is unsound by default. Furthermore, I seriously doubt he would've approved of the way modern crypto-mystics use the term to make a little safe space for themselves.

Get thee gone, pseudo-intellectual.

>>19116239

>>19113322

>>17623283
No, you are assuming the gap between experience and matter/energy ("what creates it"). That is your sleight of hand. There is no demonstrable gap, however.

You assert that I can't measure someone else's experience, but you don't actually know that, you're just pointing out a technical uncertainty which can never be resolved. Well, if you really believe we should confine ourselves to only apodictic truths, then you might as well give up on both science and philosophy, because 'external' knowledge is impossible for you.

>>14166880

Is Metaphysics nonsense?