[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 199 KB, 1241x1222, 1577687637718.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15092044 No.15092044 [Reply] [Original]

What does it mean when someone says 'love is metaphysical' or use metaphysical in this kind of way? Does it just mean spiritual?

>> No.15092058

>>15092044
it means it isn't reducible to brain chemicals like the edgy stemlords say

>> No.15092060

when you say flat
the metal is plat
Oh
Didn't we have that ism covered?

>> No.15092064

>>15092058
can you explain what that means?

>> No.15092070

>>15092064
Not who you're responding to but what the fuck do you mean? Use your brain, if love is not material brain chemistry than what other explanations are there?

>> No.15092079

>>15092044
It means they don’t reduce the experience the chemical interactions in your brain and they believe it transcends a simple biological response

>> No.15092081

>>15092044
People always use metaphysical to mean like esoteric or mystical or whatever.
All metaphysics means is relating to the nature of the universe.
That girl is very pretty.

>> No.15092095

>>15092064
Love is not a material object in the same way numbers are not material objects. Now, both of these things do have a real existence and aren't just some relative thing that is sort of pragmatically created in the interactions of the brain

>> No.15092110

>>15092095
How is love not a material object? Its a feeling thats linked to chemicals in the brain? Can you explain?

>> No.15092150

In this sense, I think they probably mean that it is something which is not subject to physical perception but is undeniably real. You can’t smell, taste, touch, see, or hear love but yet you experience anyway as something suprasensual. Metaphysical is often also often used to describe observations about the states of inner experience and thus, love being an inner experience as well as a suprasensual, non-physical experience would fit this.

>> No.15092182

>>15092070
>Use your brain, if love is not material brain chemistry than what other explanations are there?

Not >>15092058 either.

It is a thing in itself. There is no scientific explanation for how brain chemical cause conscious effect.

You're gonna have to solve the mind body problem before making such a claim

>> No.15092195

>>15092044
Sounds like she wants to bang other dudes, OP. You should probably cut and run.

>> No.15092204

>>15092110
I think what's meant is the conscious experience of love. Love is more than just the brain chemicals that produce it, it's also the conscious awareness of the sensation and the mental associations that we make.
Another example is pain. Sure, pinching your skin will cause electric signals to go to your brain and create, essentially, a warning signal. But, since we are also aware of the pain due to consciousness, there is a level of experience that cannot be fully explained electro-chemically or verbally.

>> No.15092212

>>15092182
I'm not making any claims you drooling retard

>> No.15092219

>>15092204
why does it matter if we are 'aware' of it? you're mistaking consciousness for awareness i'm afraid

>> No.15092228

>>15092081
>All metaphysics means is relating to the nature of the universe.
that's a Jewish redefinition.

>> No.15092261

Materialists assigning special virtue to the immaterial so they can LARP about how totally not-materialist they are.

>> No.15092297

>>15092228
Then what's the non jewish definition you colossal faggot

>> No.15092309

>>15092219
Consciousness is awareness...

>> No.15092336

>>15092297
eat metaphysical shit, materialist.

>> No.15092375

>>15092110
Sure, unless someone can empirically prove the concept of feeling "feeling" is not a material reaction, it's a metaphysical concept. Now be careful here because just because our feelings might correlation regularly with certain material reactions in our brain, does not mean that "feelings" reside in our material brain.
By the way, I think if someone does try to empirically prove feeling they will confuse the sense perception of feeling with the reaction we have in our physical body's to feeling

>> No.15092439

>>15092309
I see you haven't read any books on this so I'm not continuing the conversation, sorry but it's clear why consciousness is not awareness (as defined by german idealism and religion in general)
>>15092375
How is it metaphysical?

>> No.15092481

>>15092439
>if we pretend I'm right and you're wrong then I'm right and you're wrong
Is...is this the power of materialism?

>> No.15092485

>>15092439
>How is it metaphysical?
Because it transcends material interactions

>> No.15092507

>>15092044
Sex is how the universe was made.

>> No.15092519

>>15092507
Guess I'm not a God then

>> No.15092574

>>15092481
Dude thinks consciousness is 'awareness' but thinks he is an immaterialist.
>>15092485
How?

>> No.15092625

>>15092574
>Dude thinks consciousness is 'awareness' but thinks he is an immaterialist.
These aren't mutually exclusive at all, you're just dumb. All you've done all thread is ask endless questions without making any actual point of your own. You're a midwit pseud who thinks he's pulling one over on people because you know the words "how", "what", and "why". Make a real OP next time you dumb nigger.

>> No.15092682

>>15092625
Consciousness is defined in Advaita Vedanta and other 'mystical' traditions as not being affected by spatio-temporality. Awareness is confined to itself whereas consciousness is atemporal and infinite. If you want to debate, then stick on the topic. I don't want to have to correct you on schoolboy questions, Fool

>> No.15092686

>>15092682
lmao

>> No.15092718

>>15092044
>'love is metaphysical'
It means they don't understand love. The mental understanding is quite literally beyond their world.

>> No.15092734

>>15092204
>I think what's meant is the conscious experience of love.
Every conscious experience of love is parallel to some body, which is physical, and hence not metaphysical.

>> No.15092743

>>15092058
Everywhere there is this ressentiment to the sciences on /lit/.

>> No.15092831

>>15092682
More pure midwittery, you got called out for being an annoying little nigger who made a shitty thread and all you can do is pull random bullshit out of the air. I couldn't care less about what Pajeet Poodoointheloo's ancestors said. You're not schooling anyone, nobody made an appeal to that stuff except you right now. The entire foundation of Western thought rests on viewing consciousness as a self-awareness of thought. If you wanted to make some kind of point about Vedantic thought then maybe you should have made that the OP instead of posting coomer-bait with a rhetorical question, dipshit.

>> No.15093017

>>15092831
The entire foundation of western thought relies on consciousness being outside of spatio-temporality, infinite and absolute. You're thinking modern western epistemology, which I see you are a victim off. Stick to the topic, even though your views are that of an uneducated high schooler.

>> No.15093021

>>15092743
Resentment to STEM, resentment to liberal arts, resentment to women, just plain old resentful faggots on this board

>> No.15093230
File: 349 KB, 600x477, 1556757394732.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15093230

>>15093017
>spenglerian word salad
>passive aggressive gotchas
>"I'm right and Descartes is wrong!"
lol

>> No.15093282

>>15092081
Wrong. That definition is better suited to Ontology (and even then it's a bit lacking in scope.

Metaphysics is specifically about abstract questions and methods of inquiry, as opposed to the empirical study of physics. Personally I think it's a misguided term which generates more confusion than specificity (as ultimately all possible questions are contained within the nature of reality), but if you're going to use it then at least try to get it right.

>> No.15093332

>>15092044
It means the someone is a crypto-mysticist, who thinks that invoking philosophical terminology makes up for the fact that they don't actually have an alternative predictive/explanatory system to compete with physicalism.

>> No.15093362

>>15093282
No you're wrong. Ontology is a subfield on the nature of being in the universe while metaphysics is of the nature of the whole universe itself.

>> No.15093474

>>15093230
Name one religion that doesn't believe this.