/lit/ - Literature

philosophy can expound on the world in ways physics cannot. when you say 'go beyond' i think you mean 'fuller understanding', but answering that question is not really something you can do objectively cuz metaphysical analyzes of the world cannot really be proven with the scientific method like physics can.

>>13990157
Yes, because scientism cannot be scientifically verified

>>13990187
/thread

>>13990157
Metaphysics literally means beyond physics

>>13990157
philosophy can't do shit, man. it does absolutely nothing. it's a worthless loop to occupy minds that would be better engaged in toiling in the fields. philosophy is the blossom of the failure of mankind.

>>13990157
What's the meaning of "beyond"?

>>13990157
Philosophy is a language. Science is a language. Both offer the same explanatory extent, however for some reason scientists are much worse at ever challenging or ever recognizing the axioms of their language and thus pretend as if the language itself is absolute reality and not just a descriptive interpretation of it.

>>13990706
As a matter of fact it seems that reality can accomodate a number of different interpretations all in a legitimate way. It would make sense then to say that meaning is in some fundamental way inherent in the relation that consists of a conscious agent interpreting his environment. This suggests that there is no meaning in the universe as such that we can arrive at in a "correct" way. But that the meaning of universe is precisely the creative act of interpretation. Ie we dont "discover" the universe but participate in it.

>>13990731
Obviously this suggests a number of things I wont go into but the most obvious case to be made is then that consciousness in a participatory universe implies free will.

>>13990636
this
>>13990731
quite a lot of unfounded presumptions there

>>13991408
>quite a lot of unfounded presumptions there

Not at all. Of course it is diffuclt to explain such an extensive claim in one or two short paragraphs. But everyhting starts witih an unfounded assumption, and that is precisely what my claim is about: that everything at some point starts with an unfounded assumption.

>>13991581
When you say:
>As a matter of fact it seems that reality can accomodate a number of different interpretations all in a legitimate way.
You are making an observation here about how reality seems (whether in truth or not) to conform to the different interpretations of multiple observers. But then in the next sentence when you say:
>It would make sense then to say that meaning is in some fundamental way inherent in the relation that consists of a conscious agent interpreting his environment.
You are blurring the line between "subjective meaning" and meaning in the abstract sense of the "meaning of the universe" or the "truth of reality and/or the universe". OP's question had to do with understanding the world, which implies the latter type of meaning over the former. Certainly, because it takes a conscious agent to cognize and experience the concept of meaning, it's foolish to dispute that the concept of meaning is closely bound up with the observer. However, simply because it takes an observer to cognize meaning does not meaning that meaning/truth is only subjective and that it does not exist in a more abstract sense. Let us take for an example the notion of God or the Tao (or whatever else you want to substitute), let us say that hypothetically God existed and God and/or His plans *were* the truth/meaning of existence, that would be an example of a situation where there could at the same time be a truth and reality underlying everything that at the same time allows for people to form their own subjective interpretations of reality (whether erroneous or otherwise) that seem valid and real to them respectively.
>This suggests that there is no meaning in the universe as such that we can arrive at in a "correct" way.
Only if you take the inherently subjective notion of assigning meaning to things as indicating that there isn't any indepdently existing meaning or truth which I see as an unwarranted leap.

>>13991656
I am actually saying that the meaning of the universe in the abstract sense is to accomodate subjective meanings on an individual level. I'm arguing that the meaning of the universe is to be a sandbox environemnt to be interpreted and shaped by creative acts of conscious agents inside the universe.

I am not sure where you got the idea in my text that I am claiming the universe has "no meaning" as such. I don't hold this position.

>Only if you take the inherently subjective notion of assigning meaning to things as indicating that there isn't any indepdently existing meaning or truth which I see as an unwarranted leap.

I think you are confusing here what I meant. I am stressing that there is no "model" that can get us to "discover" the meaning of universe as such without incorporating subjectivity and creative acts of conscious agents inside itself. Ie, my claim is that it is impossible to arrive at some discovery of the meaning of universe through purely an "impersonal" methodical analysis, to arrive at a thing that is there waiting to be discovered only if we select the right model of inquiry. Instead my claim is that reality is a sandbox environment where all such inquiries and all their mutations can be carried out.

Because I am a Christian, I believe this sandbox participatory universe is precisely the perfect bedrock for carrying out free will in such a radical, expansive sense that it can even accomodate highly credible theories that deny the existence of free-will. Denying free will, whether arrived at by "rational" reasoning or not is in some sense a reflection of being in a moral sense. Because reality is a sandbox environment that can accomodate a vast landscape of options, I believe moral inclinations precede the sequence of rational reasoning that leads one in one option or another. Thus a tree with roots that are not good is going to produce fruit that is not good. I believe that the sandbox environment of the universe accomodates the growth of humanity in the same way the soil accomodates the growth of the seed, obviously when you plant a tree you wait to see how it will grow and what will it produce, and the meaning of the universe for humanity is much the same, except the growth of the tree is substituted for being. And a rotten seed does not yield good fruit.

>>13990157
No, because empiricism is literally our only conduit to knowledge. Even highly abstract thought is based upon consistent relations we observe in our exeperience. Logic may be able to guess about the possibilities of things we haven't experienced yet, but to establish any probability of those speculations being accurate you would need to factor in that which you have experienced.

>>13990629
This intentionally misses the point. The only way to establish whether things are true is to investigate them empirically. The potential of unverifiable truths doesn't change the fact that there's no alternative.

>>13991773
To put it in concrete terms. Teaching kids about trannies is the offshoot of a rotten seed. Namely the rejection of God. If such teaching could be rejected on the basis of the fact that it is against God's law or against moral law we would have one kind of society, a more godly society. But because our society has rejected God, in that the ultimate standard to be used for judgement in all affairs is science (or some other thing that is not God), then the rearing of our children is ultimately decided by arguing for or against a certain option on scientific (or some other) terms. With science constantly evolving and changing, we have to determine whether there is a scientific (or some other) reason, that withstands scientific (or some other) method not to teach kids about trannies. Of course, there are also many other different angles, such as the fact that God's law isn't the standard used for what is right or wrong and thus who is oppressed or not, so you have all these small groups of people claiming they are oppressed with their own agendas and because we cannot judge their claims against a Godly standard, different things happen in a rather chaotic way. But the root of this degeneration is obvious, in that it stems from a rejection of God. And of course, this will only appear as degeneration to those who want to live in a godly society. To others, this might very well be called progress. My claim is that the freedom inherent in these movements of human society are all possible within the sandbox environment of reality. To me, free-will is this self-organization at an individual and societal level. Of course, I also believe that God exists and that there are certain laws at work in existence that will destroy an individual, a culture, a civilization, a generation or a race that goes too radically against those laws, to the point of destroying some balance that sits inside those laws, but I don't have the field of view to say with any certainty where those bedrock-lines are drawn.

>>13990731
Of course we participate in the universe, we are in this bitch. That doesn't indicate, however, that 'meaning' or values can precede (or persist without) valuing agents, nor that broader reality (outside the scope of human manipulation) is contingent upon interpretation.

>>13991898
>That doesn't indicate that 'meaning' or values can precede (or persist without) valuing agents

that's exactly what I said

> broader reality (outside the scope of human manipulation)

there is no such thing as "broader" reality, reality just is. but it is not even that reality itself is contingent upon interpretation but that reality itself IS the interlap between interpretation and that which is being interpreted.

>>13991972
So to speak of a broader reality outside of interpretation is meaningless. First because reality is all ther eis and second because a broader reality is in itself an interpretation.

>>13991845
Philosophy (including science) is about more than the mere enumeration of facts, which is what empiricism produces. The problematic question is, how do you go from facts to explanations, from observation to theory? This is the point at which philosophy has had nothing to say since Merleau-Ponty, and where physicists get lost up their own cavernous asses. It's also the point where "dude empiricism" stops being enough, and you have to actually think about things.