Is metaphysics dead?

[Anonymous No.22287981]

If so, who killed it?

[Anonymous No.22288015]

I cant stand this meme gnostic picture anymore

[Anonymous No.22288018]

Wittgenstein

[Anonymous No.22288046]

Wittgenstein

[Anonymous No.22288051]

>>22288015
>t. will never unite with Pleroma

[Anonymous No.22288052]

>>22288015
OK, Yaldabaoth.

[Anonymous No.22288061]

>>22287981
Science killed it. Gone are the days where you can write tomes speculating about how water is the singular underlying cause of all things or that creation comes out of the unity of the opposites of love and death. Such statements will be met with a gazillion PhDs screeching at and cancelling you for your unscientific and unverifiable statements.
Science by advancing our understanding has left less and less room for mad speculation.

[Anonymous No.22288071]

>>22288051
>>22288052
have fun worshipping the devil

[Anonymous No.22288105]

>>22288061
youre not even wrong, but surely you can come up with a better answer than that

[Anonymous No.22288116]

>>22288061
Those are different categories. Science has nothing to say on metaphysics.
The idea thst science is furthering our understanding is a mad speculation. Though we'd have to turn to epistemology to explain that.

[Anonymous No.22288125]

>>22288071
You as well, fren

[Anonymous No.22288136]

>>22288105
>not even wrong

[Anonymous No.22288175]

>>22287981
No. There is still tons of work being done in metaphysics.

[Anonymous No.22288182]

>>22288136
kek dead on

[Anonymous No.22288201]

>>22287981
Ayn Rand. Existence exists.
Existence is identity. Consciousness is identification.

[Anonymous No.22288998]

>>22288018
>>22288046
How did he kill it?

[Anonymous No.22289018]

>>22287981
Kant killed it, Guénon necromancied it

[Anonymous No.22289025]

Kant tried to kill the metaphysics
Heidegger tried to kill the metaphysics
Wittgenstein tried to kill the metaphysics
BUT THE METAPHYSICS WOULD NOT DIE

[Anonymous No.22289060]

>>22289025
Wittgenstein did kill it though.

[Anonymous No.22289067]

>>22287981
What’s the point of metaphysics if it won’t help us defeat the aliens?

[Anonymous No.22289068]

>>22289060
Ummm. how bout you finish yr undergrad degree before talking shit, sweatie :^)

[Anonymous No.22289072]

>>22289067
Metaphysics is a means of communicating with aliens.

[Anonymous No.22289145]

>>22289068
Yeah, a graduate student would surely be posting here instead of studying, you're so smart!!

[Anonymous No.22289146]

Metaphysics is alive and well. Every big name physicist is advancing their own metaphysics these days. Rovelli throws out a relational ontology of interaction ala Lu-Trub Nāgārjuna, Tegmark has ontic structural realism cum Platonism, Wheeler and co have immaterialism in "It From Bit," Deutsch and Lloyd take this further and have a computational universe as cellular automata on a finite lattice, others take this to a more abstract place with Categorical Quantum Mechanics, building up from category theory in a way that might suggest something like Rovelli or even something like Hegel, you also have some pretty Hegelian theories following Penrose's point about how the early and late universe become indistinguishable and noting how complexity emerges from the opposition of low and maximal entropy. Black Hole Cosmology and Multiverse shit of the Everett MWI or Eternal Cosmic Inflation versions are both metaphysics. Eternalism, or claims of local becoming, the block universe, the advancing block, the time-like slice, are all metaphysical theories. String theory works on an ontological claim.

No one ever said metaphysics can't involve empirical insights.

Hoffman, from the cognitive science lens and Pinter advance idealism. Others are moving with hylomorphism.

Popular science and "big idea," theory is largely actually just philosophy. A lot of it is bad philosophy because there was a retarded move in the mid-20th century to make philosophy and science totally separate despite the fact that the two working closely together got us relativity and the quantum revolution (yeah, the shit didn't spring from Einstein's head fully formed, but involved Mach, Robb, etc.).


Complexity studies is often built with metaphysical claims about emergence.

Information theory and complexity studies both tend to make claims about the ontological existence of incorporeal entities across a number of fields, e.g. that things like economic recession, turbulence, etc. actually exist and are not reducible to fundemental particles.

Quantum field theory tells us the "fundemental" part(icle) can only be explained in terms of the whole, which is a mariological claim.

Claims about computation being a representation of causality are also metaphysics.

Metaphysics never really left. People who thought they were "avoiding metaphysics) were actually just dogmatically doing Carnap.

I suspect that we shall soon see an even harder "ontological turn," in science and philosophy. The problem with the linguistic turn and continental shit was that it was unpractical and couldn't be "performative," no matter how hard they spammed that word. But also that neuroscience shows us that everything we use for all perceptions and cognition is the same exact systems we use for understanding language. There was no reason to go all ape shit over the limits of language because language itself is understood basically by simulating sight/sound/touch, etc. and then blending that information together.

[Anonymous No.22289153]

>>22289145
You should be studying whether you are in high school or undergrad or graduate school indeed. Regardless, you'd be suprised how many older and studied folks shitpost online.

[Anonymous No.22289154]

>>22289146
BTW, the extent to which this shit is roaring back in popsci makes me think that we could even see a world where philosophy is... relevant. Like, bio majors would get a course in philosophy of science and applied epistemology, and one in philosophy of biology, etc. There is certainly an opening.

The information theoretic and chaos turns have really overturned the old reductionist paradigm, which was really a zombie anyhow. It lived on because no one could agree what should replace it, even though people also thought it was bullshit.

[Anonymous No.22289185]

Metaphysics has come into contact with realm of quantum mechanics, which it has yet to reconcile with. If that makes any sense.

[Anonymous No.22289205]

>>22287981
Kant. Kripke revived it...

[Anonymous No.22289209]

>>22288061
>Such statements will be met with a gazillion PhDs screeching at and cancelling you for your unscientific and unverifiable statements.

No. Maybe if this was the 1990s. The anti-philosophical scientists who grew up on logical positivist dogma are mostly dying off.

Guess what section of the book store or library these books are in and what degrees / jobs the authors hold...

[Anonymous No.22289242]

>>22288201
Whoah...

[Anonymous No.22289252]

>>22289145
>Yeah, a graduate student would surely be posting here instead of studying
Can confirm.

[Anonymous No.22289282]

>>22288018
>>22288046

Ordinary language has been absolutely BTFO and is a theory that clashes with cognitive science and relies on a bald assertion.

While language certainly works like a game in some instances, the language game theory of meaning runs into huge issues and the only way to save it is to define "game" so broadly as to allow anything to be a game. Not to mention the semiotic turn in biology explains things much better or the fact that the game hypothesis requires a sort of behaviorism that one must imbibe a lot of philosophy to think isn't ridiculous. Might as well just deny first person subjective experience exists.

[Anonymous No.22289391]

>>22289146
Jesus Christ, I ain't reading all that

[Anonymous No.22289435]

>>22289146
long ass post holy shit

>>22289185
this nigga right more than y'all know

[Anonymous No.22289440]

>>22289146
By ontological turn do you mean like Heideggerian phenomenological? Or like weird nondual anthro like Castro?

[Anonymous No.22289442]

>>22289391
>/lit/

[Anonymous No.22289462]

>>22289282
>define "game" so broadly as to allow anything to be a game
problem?

[Anonymous No.22289477]

>>22287981
what is metaphysics?

[Anonymous No.22289482]

>>22289146
Physicists should stay in their lane, they are the biggest midwits imaginable. Nothing worse than STEMbugs thinking they are doing philosophy because their bit is smallerer than the bits previously thought were the bittiest.

[Anonymous No.22289496]

>>22289145
>Yeah, a graduate student would surely be posting here instead of studying, you're so smart!!
exposed as a fuckhead science worshipper who thinks the holy, sacrosanct, learnéd, blessed GRAD student has transcended all mortal humdrum and spends his(her(his)) time levitating and assimilating knowledge into her(his(her)) gaint brain in perpetuity. just shit yourself up

[Anonymous No.22290131]

>>22289209
Fair enough, but i think the point still stands that to do metaphysics and be taoen seriously you have to at least have some understanding of or background in science. Instead of metaphysicians of the past whose background or credentials may be no more than just a rando priest.

[Anonymous No.22290639]

>>22288136
You and that anon are both NPCs

[Anonymous No.22290648]

METAPHYSICS WILL NEVER DIE

[Anonymous No.22290657]

>>22289477
That which makes physics possible.

[Anonymous No.22290658]

>>22290131
>metaphysicians of the past whose background or credentials may be no more than just a rando priest.
imagine believing this

[Anonymous No.22290687]

Kant killed it. Schopenhaur revived it.Then Wittgenstein killed it for real this time

[Anonymous No.22290692]

>>22290687
>t. doesn't know

[Anonymous No.22290700]

>>22289205
>Kripke
cringe

Hegel and Schelling revived it.

[Anonymous No.22290714]

I tried reading Kripke. It's just kinda boring desu. At least Wittgenstein is fun to read.

[Anonymous No.22290764]

>>22290692
lmao so lame

[Anonymous No.22290768]

>>22290764
>brainlet confirmed

[Anonymous No.22290781]

>>22287981
Nicomachus proves Metaphysics never died. Seriesly.
Do some math. Read his arithmetic book.
https://youtu.be/-_-p8LybkSE
It has more Timaeus than your aneaus can handle with all your Jimmaeus

[Anonymous No.22290799]

Smoke frogs

[Anonymous No.22290809]

>>22287981
Pythagoras immortalized it

[Anonymous No.22290824]

>>22290131
Sure. Even philosophy itself has become professionalized. It'd be very difficult to get an article a fair hearing without an advanced degree (also hard to write because the vocabulary is now so specialized, especially continental philosophy).

>>22290658
They were both professors, but there were still a lot more amateurs back in their day compared to today.

But yeah, Kant developed the nebular hypothesis of solar system formation and did some other stuff in astronomy that would make him famous enough to still be a footnote today.

Hegel probably lived at the last point in history where it was still possible to be well read on all major scientific and philosophical work going on in the world and he is a rare individual who managed to do just that.

DESU, I think his influence on the sciences is vastly understated because he became the boogeyman of the logical positivists and he gets associated with continental philosophy so much.

However, in his work you have one of the earliest expressions of the modern political science agenda, trying to find the rationality guiding big picture movements.

Moreover, he is in many ways an early progenitor of complexity studies, cybernetics, and systems science, along with information theory. He's had a huge influence on biology through his influence on Peirce, whose tripartite semiotics has been big with folks like Deacon. He's even had an effect on physics through the same avenue (and through chaos theory/complexity).

IMO, there have been only 4 truly ground shaking/laying philosophers in history, and they came in pairs. Plato and Aristotle and then Kant and Hegel. The shadow they cast just dwarfs others, even if most people shudder at having to read all of them except Plato.

[Anonymous No.22290956]

>>22290768
>no name dumbass british guy
>his book about dominant developments in metaphysics doesnt even mention schopenhaur (or Neoplatonists,Whitehead,etc)
>likes Deleuze and doesnt think he is a decrepit shallow faggot
give me a book that actually says anything

[Anonymous No.22290998]

>>22288015
Okay rabbi

[Anonymous No.22290999]

>>22289153
And some older working class autodidacts like myself

[Anonymous No.22291009]

>>22289146
The effort post to end all philosophy effort posts. Thank you anon.

[Anonymous No.22291028]

>>22290956
>schopenhaur
cringe

[Anonymous No.22291032]

>>22290999
me too. what are you reading? Im reading picrrlrl

[Anonymous No.22291036]

>>22291028
i'm not cringe, you're cringe!

[Anonymous No.22291053]

Plotinus and Spinoza are the ones who will be vindicated and proven correct.

[Anonymous No.22291065]

>>22290824
>Even philosophy itself has become professionalized
exact root of the problem right there. thats why I think the Khmer Rouge had sort of a point.

[Anonymous No.22291068]

>>22291032
Herder and Schleiermacher for hermeneutical studies, and some rhetorical stuff and public relations stuff.

>>22291053
I certainly hope not

[Anonymous No.22291081]

>>22288071
have fun worshipping the demiurge and your ravaged tradition

[Anonymous No.22291119]

>>22291068
>I certainly hope not
what? why?

[Anonymous No.22291166]

>>22291119
People who hate Spinoza are individualists who are terrified that they might not be special.

[Anonymous No.22291235]

>>22287981
>If so, who killed it?
Hume. Everything after him is cope. Kant realised this and tried to get round it via idealism but even that was a failure.

[Anonymous No.22291242]

>>22291235
>that was a failure.
such is the midwit view

[Anonymous No.22291255]

>>22291242
Kantianism has been dead for a century at this point

[Anonymous No.22291272]

>>22291255
falsch. it lived on, watching, waiting.

[Anonymous No.22291273]

>>22291028
lmao, try actually making a point

[Anonymous No.22291551]

>>22290799
no

[Anonymous No.22291581]

>>22288175
This. See for instance the literature on NDEs.

And NDEs are more real than this world, in every way. For instance, NDErs report expanded intelligence. One NDEr said that the greatest supergenius who ever lived, with the help of the greatest supercomputer of all time, would be immeasurably dwarfed by the intelligence she had access to while in the light, so much so that it would be closer and fairer to compare the intelligence of Einstein to that of an ant. Literally and seriously. And as another NDEr described their cognition during their life review:

>"I looked up, and saw four translucent screens begin to appear - and form a kind of gigantic, cubed box all around me. It was through this method that I was shown my life review. Without ever having to turn my head, I panoramically saw my past, present, future - and there was even a screen behind me that displayed a tremendous amount of scientific data, numbers, symbols and universal codes. I was in complete amazement because (as all of this was occurring) I realized I understood absolutely everything I was seeing - even in the most microscopic detail! There seemed to be no limit to the thoughts I was able to think or the ideas I was able to absorb. In this space, what we tend to think of as a limited comprehension or single-mindedness here on Earth, becomes truly infinite and limitless here! I kept thinking over and over how true it is what they say: that when we go back home - we all really are of one mind!"

From here: https://youtu.be/U00ibBGZp7o

Another way NDEs are more real is how one NDEr said that he saw more than 80 new primary colors in the NDE world, compared to the 3 primary colors we have here.

From here: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mysteries-consciousness/202204/does-afterlife-obviously-exist

So heaven is undeniably real.

[Anonymous No.22291589]

>>22289185
Notify me when it happens

[Anonymous No.22291592]

>>22291166
Kierkegaard refuted Spinoza. God sees persons as individuals with unique distinctions and trials while all being born with sin. To state otherwise it follows that persons in general are worthless.

[Anonymous No.22291593]

>>22291592
I refuted Kierkegaard

[Anonymous No.22291595]

>>22291592
Kierkegaard was a pseud. That doesn't refute anything.

[Anonymous No.22291600]

>>22291593
>>22291595
Duly noted. You have fun with your suicide.

[Anonymous No.22291642]

>>22291600

>wahhh why didn't they agree with my favorite virgin nihilist philosopher who is literally meeeeee
Cry more nigger.

[Anonymous No.22291647]

>>22291592
>muh original sin
Refuted by based Spinoza

Yet most people believe that the ignorant violate the order of Nature rather than conform to it; they think of men in Nature as a state within a state. They hold that the human mind is not produced by natural causes but is directly created by God and is so independent of other things that it has an absolute power to determine itself and to use reason in a correct way. But experience teaches us only too well that it is no more in our power to have a sound mind than to have a sound body. Again, since each thing, as far as in it lies, endeavours to preserve its own being, we cannot have the slightest doubt that, if it were equally in our power to live at reason's behest as to be led by blind desire, all would be led by reason and would order their lives wisely, which is by no means the case. For everyone is drawn by his own pleasure.

Nor do theologians remove this difficulty by maintaining that the cause of this weakness in human nature is the vice or sin whose origin was the fall of our first parent. For if the first man, too, had as much power to stand as to fall, and if he was in his right mind and with his nature unimpaired, how could it have come about that knowingly and deliberately he fell? Their answer is that he was deceived by the Devil. But who was it who deceived the Devil? Who, I ask, caused the one who was the most outstanding of all intelligent creatures to become so insane that he willed to be greater than God? Did not he, who had a sound mind, endeavour to preserve himself and his own being, as far as in him lay? Again, how could it have come about that the first man himself, being of sound mind and master of his own will, allowed himself to be led astray and beguiled? If he had the power to use reason aright, he could not have been deceived, for, as far as in him lay he must have endeavoured to preserve his own being and his sound mind. But, by hypothesis, this was in fact within his power; therefore he must have preserved his sound mind and could not have been deceived. His history, however, shows this to be false; and so it must be admitted that it was not in the power of the first man to use reason aright, and that, like us, he was subject to passions.

[Anonymous No.22292249]

>>22291642
>cry more nigger
I have a poker face right now

>>22291647
not reading all that.