Is metaphysics just a religion ?

[Anonymous No.23996274]

It seems to me that metaphysics seriously lags competence to be a science... as you would have to gain knowledge about the worlds biggest questions without experience... all you have is thought...

Now if you look at the best philosophers that ever lived... they tried to make metaphysics happen, but they all failed miserably...

Take Immanuel Kant for an example... he tried to make knowledge about the world possible just by thinking about it... but what he came up with is transcendental idealism... so he basically dragged a part of experience (space and time) into the mind to make synthetic judgments a priori possible... that is ofcourse an insane theory that is against all odds to be actually true...

Now if Immanuel Kant himself couldn't come up with a better idea... who can ?

If you read Plato and Aristotle closely you realize that they actually tease you the whole time... it seems as if they wanted to let you know that you are actually stupid for trying to do metaphysics...

So in the end... is metaphysics just a religion ? A religion of thought ? Something that makes you feel better or gets you more out of the world and life... but in a fake way like any other religion because it is just a lie ? All it really does is corrupting you...

Lets not forget that Socrates was sentenced to death...

What do you think ?

[Anonymous No.23996614]

>>23996274
You can't not do metaphysics, anon...

[Anonymous No.23996618]

Read Laruelle.

[Anonymous No.23996633]

>>23996274
>Demopheles Very well: but that applies to you too: you've got to take religion cum grano salis: you've got to see that the needs of ordinary people have to be met in a way they can understand. Religion is the only means of introducing some notion of the high significance of life into the uncultivated heads of the masses, deep sunk as they are in mean pursuits and material drudgery, and of making it palpable to them. Man, taken by and large, has by nature no mind for anything but the satisfaction of his physical needs and desires, and when these are satisfied for a little entertainment and recreation. Philosophers and founders of religions come into the world to shake him out of his stupefaction and to point to the lofty meaning of existence: philosophers for the few, the emancipated, founders of religions for the many, for mankind as a whole. Philosophy isn't for everyone – as your friend Plato said and as you shouldn't forget. Religion is the metaphysics of the people, which they absolutely must be allowed to keep: and that means you have to show an outward respect for it, since to discredit it is to take it away from them. Just as there is folk-poetry and, in the proverbs, folk-wisdom, so there has to be folk-metaphysics: for men have an absolute need for an interpretation of life, and it has to be one they are capable of understanding. That is why it is always clothed in allegory; and, as far as its practical effect as a guide to behaviour and its effect on morale as a means of consolation and comfort in suffering and death are concerned, it does as much perhaps as truth itself would do if we possessed it. Don't worry yourself about the baroque and apparently paradoxical forms it assumes: for you, with your learning and culture, have no idea how tortuous and roundabout a route is required to take profound truths to the mass of the people, with their lack of them. The people have no direct access to truth; the various religions are simply schemata by which they grasp it and picture it, but with which it is inseparably linked. Therefore, my dear chap, I hope you'll forgive me for saying that to ridicule them is to be both narrow-minded and unjust.

Shopenhauer

[Anonymous No.23996642]

>>23996274
The point of metaphysics is not to create a system that makes you happy. it's a better than nothing type of solution. obviously we should prove what we can. but we should also theorize when we can't. you theorize first, then you try to prove your theory.
metaphysics maybe a stretch of the first step, but it still doesn't hurt to establish theory from scratch. at any case, lot's of maths is like that, it doesn't necessarily have application in real life, but it doesn't mean it can't be useful for later.
occam razor doesn't apply here, it can only be used within a context. you only use it when you want to ground things.

[Anonymous No.23996651]

>>23996274
>claims metaphysics is an unscientific religion
>uses uncritical metaphysical assertions to make this claim

MANY SUCH CASES

[Anonymous No.23996671]

>>23996274
>If you read Plato and Aristotle closely you realize that they actually tease you the whole time... it seems as if they wanted to let you know that you are actually stupid for trying to do metaphysics...

The Ion is the prefect example of this. It mocks the rhapsodes and Homerists for claiming divine knowledge and yet many anons here take it at face value leading to schizo gnostic nonsense you get from the Neoplatonists on here.

[Anonymous No.23996680]

>>23996274
>It seems to me that metaphysics seriously lags competence to be a science...
Then you didn't really get Kant.

[Anonymous No.23996746]

>>23996633
Schopenhauer wrote a dialogue?

[Anonymous No.23996754]

>>23996274
>our criticism is the necessary preparation for a thoroughly scientific system of metaphysics

[Anonymous No.23996805]

>Critique stands in the same relation to the common metaphysics of the schools, as chemistry does to alchemy, or as astronomy to the astrology of the fortune-teller.

[Anonymous No.23996844]

>>23996671
stops you right there

>Tell me, then, what is the nature of this faculty of dialectic? Into what divisions does it fall? And what are its ways? For it is these, it seems, that would bring us to the place where we may, so to speak, rest on the road and then come to the end of our journeying. You will not be able, dear Glaucon, to follow me further, though on my part there will be no lack of good will. And, if I could, I would show you, no longer an image and symbol of my meaning, but the very truth as it appears to me.

[Anonymous No.23996878]

>>23996671
>doesn't know about the unwritten doctrines

[Anonymous No.23997169]

This was one of the most stupid things I've ever read. OP is too stupid for both metaphysics and religion. My advice to him is just stop thinking, literally just stop using your brain (you don't have much of it anyway) so that you wouldn't embarrass yourself any more than this.

[Anonymous No.23997229]

>>23996274

[Anonymous No.23997359]

To get the fundamental axioms on which true metaphysics rests you have to Transcend this fallen mortal existence and find your immortality. You can’t think your way into it as all philosophers have tried to do so far. So yes all metaphysical systems so far are at least in part a sort of religion but the true metaphysics is real it just hasn’t yet been realised. I think I know how you achieve this but I’m going to keep it to myself. What I will say though is that it’s not something only a philosopher can achieve, even if a philosopher might be the only one who can reason from those fundamental axioms to a complete metaphysical picture, it’s universally realisable even if that will only be after death itself.

[Anonymous No.23997362]

>>23997359
books for this feel?

[Anonymous No.23997378]

>>23997362

[Anonymous No.23997385]

>>23997378
already did. very dissapointing. basically advocates for slow disciplined suicide.

[Anonymous No.23997762]

>>23996274
>It seems to me that metaphysics seriously lags competence to be a science
>metaphysics seriously lags competence to be a science
>metaphysics
>to be a science
haha this fucking guy, basically this >>23997229

[Anonymous No.23997951]

Could you guys consider this thought experiment I came up with and tell me what you think? It's related to a problem that has been bothering me for a while.

Let's say that one day someone invented true full-dive VR, capable of perfectly stimulating the user such that he experiences anything the device is programmed to make him experience at the same level of detail as reality. This includes all sensations and experiences it is possible to experience, from touch and taste to the phenomenological experience of thinking a thought. Users of this VR device can play recordings or "movies" which allow them to experience exactly what it is like to be another person on every level, including what they think and how they perceive things. In this scenario, how can a user of the VR device know that what they are thinking (whether in-game or offline) is actually their own thought and not an experience-recording they are watching? If the fidelity of the experiences in the game are at the same level as reality, how can he know whether the game or his own life is the true reality - that he isn't simply experiencing a cleverly-made recording of what it is like to be born, grow up, and eventually put the VR headset on for the first time?

[Anonymous No.23998126]

>>23997951
I don't think this is possible and is why i don't like metaphysics because it relies on language to make hypotheses about the real world while completely ignoring science. There's always a hard limit on what is achievable, part of the reason why the second law of thermodynamics is a thing, if you were able to make such a device, its fidelity wouldn't last long enough to observe anything useful because the information constraints of space and time required to model reality to such an accurate scale grow exponentially, such questions always lead back to the famous intractable p vs np problems in computer science. But you don't even need a vr to explore this problem since we can talk about it in the context of the ship of theseus which ultimately challenges the concept of self that arises from the use of language.

[Anonymous No.23998127]

>>23997169
OP here, before you judge me that hard, please tell me why I am so stupid

[Anonymous No.23998128]

>>23998126
The VR tech is completely secondary to the point I'm trying to make. It could be magic for all I care.

[Anonymous No.23998132]

>>23998127
don't listen to him, intuitions like yours operate on a bell curve, he's one of those camel hump midwits who derives his self-worth from the thought of others. you're not inherently wrong, though you could use a little humility and try to meet titans like aristotle halfway. it's why i recommended reading laruelle, who excoriates philosophers that believe their thoughts retroactively determine the nature of the Real. but the sad truth is you have to do the work before you understand why they are wrong, and why you were as well (in part)

[Anonymous No.23998144]

>>23997359
dont keep it to yourself ma dood... post it here so that we can discuss it... lets be honest you won't be that bright that you really have the answer anyway

[Anonymous No.23998145]

>>23998128
In which case like i said in my last sentence, the problem always resolves to language and its limitations. The distinction btn self and everything else is borne out of language and wouldn't apply to something like a bacteria culture, it's a convenient, yet inefficient device for navigating through fragmented human society that humans like to think is some collective living and breathing entity where every individual is in some way equal, akin to our micro organism cousins.

[Anonymous No.23998161]

>>23998145
NTA but I feel obliged to challenge you in the grounds of your grammar. The second half of your post, from "fragmented..." on implies that human beings are not in fact all connected in society, or that society is not a real "living... entity," but the first half of your post says that the distinction between self and other is a linguistic construct. If the distinction is purely linguistic, then human beings really are united in a living entity known as society, and if we are not really united then the distinction is real. So then what is it?

[Anonymous No.23998188]

>>23996274
Philosophically (which means most people won't get it), religion is metaphysics, but metaphysics is not religion.
>>23996633
Nice excerpt from Parerga and Paralipomena

[Anonymous No.23998189]

>>23998161
I am not saying the distinction isn't there, i am saying its an illusion that we can't do without, self is only a thing as much as it contributes to society, which is a metaphysical category not as real as a bacterial culture which is able to self replicate from a single cell, you take away one cell, you add another, you shift time, it remains a culture, unlike humans where you have outliers like feral children, conjoined twins, disabled individuals who don't fully embody the nebulous concept of self, parmenides attempted to resolve this but it doesn't fit as nicely to humans as it does to bacteria, now imagine if humans didn't have language, we wouldn't be able to signal or discern self and we wouldn't even need to

[Anonymous No.23998215]

>>23998189
if it's an illusion, it by that very fact isn't there. I think you are confused.

[Anonymous No.23998266]

>>23998215
sure because we call mirages illusions since they aren't there, learn the difference btn observing something and actually verifying it, we don't call them illusions because of their observability, we call them such because they don't appear to be what we observe upon closer examination, confused chud, if you are going to call me confused put some effort into your bait

[Poercefag No.23998350]

Metaphysics isn't theological but theologians tend to conduct metaphysics more than any other kind of philosophers.

Metaphysics dissociated from belief or faith is simply mathematics aimed towards the development of a schematic map of the actual world.

The central question of metaphysics is something such as "How must the fundamental elements of reality be constituted, that is, what is the essential logical architecture of reality in so far as it must be so given what we see around us? Given what we can assume based on what actually is?"

God or other such nonsense is a mental illness. Any metaphysical theorizing that incorporates it is doomed to absurdity. Forgive the theologians, for they know not what they do.

[Anonymous No.23998367]

>>23998266
Again I don't know if you really believe there is such a thing as a self or if you think it is only an illusion.

[Piercefag No.23998374]

>>23998367
Anyone who believes that the self is an illusion should be punched in the face and then told that to press charges is evidence they considered the pain of the punch real thus negating their entire philosophy.

On a serious note, anyone who claims not to possess an ego or that the ego is an illusion is a narcissist, which is exactly the case with narcissists. They do not, ironically, possess an ego. They are an illusion spun by repeated interactions with others observing them.

Ever noticed how western Bhuddists are all insufferable retards?

[Anonymous No.23998411]

>>23998374
Hey old chum, I'm reminded of some of your writings about how if there is even one person who doubts a metashitical conviction then there must be doubt in the one who possesses it. You seem to be putting a good deal of faith into some societal invention.

[Anonymous No.23998412]

>>23998374
Me personally I believe in the self, and that self actualization for each individual is the only common goal of humanity, and I've lost friends over their self-righteous self-denying Buddha natures. Therefore I do not believe the self is an illusion, and I'm more inclined to say society is an illusion though in fact it too is very real. I'm just curious exactly what anon is trying to say.

[Anonymous No.23998425]

>>23996274
Read Heidegger.

[Piercefag No.23998433]

>>23998411
I have no idea what you're referring to.

You could just as well have chosen any post on the thread and it would make just as much sense to respond to as it does mine.

>>23998412
Well, you can believe or not believe in the self to your self's content but the reality is you experience the self as the sum of the external and internal mechanisms of sense that constitute you as a being devoid of nothingness.

You are here and sensing and therefore possess a self regardless of your belief in its validity at the metaphysical level.

[Anonymous No.23998445]

>>23998433
If you want to make those sorts of remarks then perhaps you should go do it and see what happens. If you want to make those sorts of remarks then perhaps stop namefagging a philosopher that already wrote out your notion. There is no need to even leave western philosophy either way. I doubt you will be doing any of that, stick to the metashitics.

[Anonymous No.23998448]

>>23997169
OP is right, I’m the strongest philosopher on this board so I should know.

[Gnostic Peircefag No.23998449]

>>23998445
Dude you're being gay

[Anonymous No.23998454]

>>23998449
My apologies, continue your hermetic journey! Have a good thanksgiving!

[Anonymous No.23998458]

>>23997359
What do you think metaphysics is?

[Anonymous No.23998463]

>All these faggots defending metaphysics ITT
>They're doing it because they have some gay personal metaphysics that they actually believe
this is why I hate humans

[Anonymous No.23998551]

>>23998463
Everyone has personal metaphysics, even the nihilists.

[Anonymous No.23998554]

>>23998551
so do I but I don't act like it's possible to even explain it to other people let alone justify it

[Anonymous No.23998567]

>>23998374
>>23998412
Motive how both of you can only talk about the self in terms of belief, this already show that the self Is not self-evident, relative and derivated from other things

[Anonymous No.23998594]

>>23998567
*punches you in the face*

Lol

It's just an illusion bro.

*fucks your gf*

Not real, dog. You're just hallucinating.

[Anonymous No.23998659]

>>23998374
>Anyone who believes that the self is an illusion should be punched in the face and then told that to press charges is evidence they considered the pain of the punch real thus negating their entire philosophy.
What gave you the impression that the doctrine of anatta and nociception are mutually exclusive?

[Anonymous No.23998851]

>>23996274
You don't grasp the value of religion, so it follows that metaphysics, which deals in the same field, is equally hard for you to understand.
What if I told you that different systems produce different results? You'd say "of course."
If I said that rolling a ball provides a different means of egress than throwing one, you'd find that very reasonable, and it would be very easy for you to recognize the circumstances in which rolling a ball or throwing it is more suitable.
So why is it that if I told you that you could apply different systems to obtaining a certain character or navigating life, you suddenly imagine these methods are lies built on falsehood? Are there not enough successful religious people for your liking? Have those who subscribe to metaphysics and achieved not far outweighed those who never bother with a formal system of understanding the world? If Genghis Khan whispers thanks to Tengri and Alexander lays sacrifices at the feet of the gods, don't you think it possible that the systems which produced their greatness might be good enough for you, too?
You don't see the practicality of controlling what you believe and how you react to the world's nature? Really?
That's what metaphysics and its study offers. You can break out of the paradigms that lead you to bad places, and make decisions that result in success. The only caveat is that you need to be capable of belief.

[Anonymous No.23998865]

>>23997951
>Could you guys consider this thought experiment I came up with and tell me what you think?
No. Thought experiments are the dialogues of Satan.

[Anonymous No.23999017]

>>23998851
one thing religions can seriously do is to divide people and incite them against each other...

[Anonymous No.23999165]

>>23998594
There's no need for a self to makes Sense of the experience of a punch in the head, Is the people who belive in a self the ones who think a punch in the face Is only an illusión, see the vedantic concept of maya

[Anonymous No.23999172]

>>23996274
>as you would have to gain knowledge about the worlds biggest questions without experience... all you have is thought...
You will never into epistemology.
>Now if you look at the best philosophers that ever lived... they tried to make metaphysics happen, but they all failed miserably...
You will never into philosophy.
>he tried to make knowledge about the world possible just by thinking about it...
You will never into Kantianism.
>If you read Plato and Aristotle closely you realize that they actually tease you the whole time...
You will never into Platonism.
>So in the end... is metaphysics just a religion?
You will never into religion.

You will never into metaphysics.

Maybe stick to marvel movies, slop, and eating crayons. Seems more your style.

[Anonymous No.23999395]

>>23999017
lmao
just
lmao

[Anonymous No.23999662]

>>23997951
This is pretty much the Simulation Hypothesis. The scientific way of acknowledging the existence of a creator while also ignoring Him.

Consider this scenario: you have the ability to create what we refer to as "biological life," and you possess the processing power to run and moderate an entire dimension of being. Would you not experiment with this? Perhaps create biological creatures with a free will like you, yet closed into an environment that you designed, just to see what they would do? In a roundabout way, this is exactly what a lot of modern theologians believe has happened. The creator gave us free will because we are a reflection of his image. We are half soul and half animal-- the body is our anchor to this world. The body restricts our range of perception, such that we can only feel so much sorrow or happiness, pain or pleasure, so that we may have a taste of either before we decide our fate. There's a great beauty to this system. We are borne through a covenant of mutual understanding. When humans practice true, two-sided mutual understanding (not altruism), that is one of the greatest fruits of life.

[Anonymous No.23999773]

>>23999662
>Would you not experiment with this? Perhaps create biological creatures with a free will like you, yet closed into an environment that you designed, just to see what they would do?

No, because if I'm omniscient & prescient, I already know the outcome of any possible experiment I might run.

[Anonymous No.23999784]

>>23999773
but if you only know what Is (and even if you are omniscient you will be limited it in this way because you cannot know what is not except that it is not) then you will only be able to know the results of experiments that you do run; though it can be admitted that you will know the results as soon as you set the wheels in motion, you will need for it to have a real presence in time. Otherwise it will be nothing and how could you know nothing, being omniscient?

[Anonymous No.23999792]

>>23999773
>omniscient & prescient
Only from the inside of the simulation looking out. Think of save states in a video game. The player can reload an old save if they make a mistake and manipulate the game's logic with console commands. From the perspective of an NPC, this would appear as "Godlike" abilities, although humans can't do any of that in real life. Only when we control the simulation.

[Anonymous No.23999841]

>>23999017
There has never been a single atheist society in history. No civilization, ancient or modern, has ever been successfully built by atheists. Atheism has no history to speak of whatsoever, and even those who built the framework of thought which popularized it did so through a reluctant process they viewed with horror.
For all that you'd like to lay division and hatred at the feet of religion, the simple truth is that throughout the arc of human history, every single society ever built has been a religious one, and no society every built has been an atheist one.
This tells us that practically speaking, a skeptical and materialist lens was so inferior to religion in organizing or uniting people that it was completely untenable until the modern era, where unprecedented levels of global peace have been achieved, and even then, only in regions of the world that are the largest beneficiaries of such peace.
In other words, religions only cause wars because they are so good at cementing group identities to begin with. Atheism offers nothing, so it doesn't unify anybody. Considering how contentious and angry it makes people though, I'd say it's certainly divisive.

[Anonymous No.23999847]

>>23999841
All buddhist societies are by definición atheist

[Anonymous No.23999848]

>>23996274
>metaphysics
Irrelevant after the discovery of DNA and evolution and the establishment of modern psychology and neuroscience.

[Anonymous No.23999866]

>>23999847
Buddhism is not considered atheist

[Anonymous No.23999876]

>>23999848
So what is the origin of light?

[Anonymous No.23999879]

>>23999841
>No civilization, ancient or modern, has ever been successfully built by atheists
That's because atheism does not provide a narrative from which a community can form. This doesn't necessitate the validity of the narrative, however. All narratives are essentially false, even if they have the power to form communities.

[Anonymous No.23999882]

>>23999876
The eye.

[Anonymous No.24000370]

>>23999879
Remember the context of the post, however. The person I was speaking to was criticizing religion for being divisive. If atheism cannot form a community, then we can safely say that atheists have no room to talk when it comes to divisiveness.

[Anonymous No.24000371]

>>23999847
Tell that to their gods.

[Anonymous No.24000491]

>>24000370
>atheists have no room to talk when it comes to divisiveness
Yes and no. Atheism atomizes society, which leads to divisiveness. On the other hand, communities always have a boundary which separates the community from "the outside." Really, neither theists nor atheists can claim to avoid divisiveness. Divisiveness is just par for the course for life on Earth.

[Anonymous No.24000564]

>>23996274
They tend to overlap, but not in the way you present it. Historically the distinction between philosophy, science, religion, and magic was much more blurred.

I recommend the book 'Opening The Dragon Gate: The Making of a Modern Taoist Wizard' translated by Thomas Cleary if you want to understand how metaphysics can be understood by experience AND logical reasoning combined.

[Anonymous No.24000596]

>>23997385
filtered .

[Anonymous No.24000763]

>>23999866
Yes it Is, there's no creator god in buddhism
>>24000371
There's no gods in buddhism, only debas which are More skin to spirits, and even then you don't need to belive in them, they're a sesthetical aspect of the doctrine

[Anonymous No.24000994]

>>24000763
Trying to talk about Buddhism as a whole the way you are would be like if an Asian guy said all Christians believed Jesus was from America purely because Mormons do.

Buddhism is a non-theistic religion. They believe in Devas which could be considered equivalent to god-like beings. You sure are loud for someone unread.

[Anonymous No.24001615]

>>24000596
nope. not filtered. that's what it says.

[Anonymous No.24001624]

>>23996274
Religion is secularized metaphysics.

>>23996671
And Socrates as well-- he is an enigma: great mind, churlish body & instincts (and, morover, a fool). It has to be applied to their political thought as well Strauss is too moderate

[Anonymous No.24002004]

>>23997951
this is if you regard physical reality to be as mutable or fickle as the execution of sequenced code on a machine. but physical reality a place in a divine order, and is a reflection of things more authentic and real; maybe that's what you're trying to reveal the contrary of, that this reality is merely disjointed, random sensations. this is the answer:

No, one's thoughts aren't caused by a disjointed sequence that came from out of the dark. One can have thoughts tied to mundane circumstances, and trivial bits and pieces of their condition. However, one is also capable of thoughts referencing their own life in the scope of divine creation and order. Those thoughts enable us to be who we really are, beings that are not tied to conditions but beings that are connected to the unconditioned and authentic.

hope this is some food for thought, anon.

[Anonymous No.24002011]

>>23999848
every scientific discovery makes metaphysics more and more the necessary question. how does any scientific discovery even possible make plato irrelevant?

[Anonymous No.24002115]

>>24000491
No, not yes and no. Simply and completely 'no'. Atheism has never constructed a unified society, so it has no room with which to compare itself to religion in this regard. It's that simple.
While I agree that human social structures create boundaries even without religion, it is still necessarily the case that no society in history was built without religion, despite the ability to be atheist always being present. We can definitively say that religion is therefore more compatible with creating a stable society than atheism, because atheism has never been a core feature of a stable society.

[Anonymous No.24002157]

>>24002011
Plato was a liar who came up with his forms in an attempt to usurp power. There is no point in entertaining his ideas, especially in light of DNA, evolution, modern psychology and neuroscience, which demonstrate that all thought is produced by a body in flux and thus temporary.

>>24002115
Atheism has never built a society because it's not intended to do such a thing. Truth doesn't necessarily have the capacity to build a society; in fact, the lie is far better at this endeavor. At the same time, religion has always led to war, whether directly or indirectly, because a society requires an "outside" by its nature.

[Anonymous No.24002215]

>>23996274
>If you read Plato and Aristotle closely you realize that they actually tease you the whole time...
The academic sceptics and Pyrrhonists with their notions on acatalepsy are who you should read into instead.

[Anonymous No.24002818]

>>24000994
>to god-like beings.
Not at all, since they lack one of the key aspects of a god-like being, immortality

[Anonymous No.24002836]

>>24002157
never post on this website again

[Anonymous No.24002870]

Don't understand this meme that metaphysics is a science that 'transcends' experience. Classical metaphysics is just reasoning about fundamental aspects of reality like actuality or matter etc, and it's perfectly scientific because it's proceeding logical from principles that are necessarily true and empirical (that things change, that things differ, etc.) Yes theology is also part of metaphysics because God is the first principle of form but even the understanding of God is a posteriori (in the original sense). You fags act like concepts like 'substance' and 'essence' are fantasies plucked out of the air when without them reality couldn't exist and you constantly assume them in your thought and writing without even noticing it. Metaphysics is like that, though - the most fundamental things are hard to notice.

As for the idea that metaphysics moves in circles endlessly - classical metaphysics was pretty tight, really, people argued about fine points like the univocity of being or individuation but everyone agreed on the fundamentals. What really made metaphysics spin off into absurdity wasn't 'the school-men' but modern philosophers like Kant.

[Anonymous No.24002894]

Don't understand this meme that metaphysics is a science that 'transcends' experience. Classical metaphysics is just reasoning about fundamental aspects of reality like actuality or matter etc, and it's perfectly scientific because it's proceeding logically from principles that are necessarily true and empirical (that things change, that things differ, etc.) Yes theology is also part of metaphysics because God is the first principle of form but even the understanding of God is a posteriori (in the original sense). You fags act like concepts like 'substance' and 'essence' are fantasies plucked out of the air when without them reality couldn't exist and you constantly assume them in your thought and writing without even noticing it. Metaphysics is like that, though - the most fundamental things are hard to notice.

As for the idea that metaphysics moves in circles endlessly - classical metaphysics was pretty tight, really, people argued about fine points like the univocity of being or individuation but everyone agreed on the fundamentals. What really made metaphysics spin off into absurdity wasn't 'the school-men' but modern philosophers like Kant. "The only way that the world can be known to be coherent is if the whole world is created by your mind because otherwise you would only know it by experience and experience is always falsifiable" lollll

[Anonymous No.24002899]

>>23999847
>definición
Dumb ESL.

[Anonymous No.24003075]

>>24002157
Out of 1,763 recorded/known conflicts, only 121 were religious. Also you have truth and falsehood the wrong way around.

[Anonymous No.24003576]

>>23996274
I basically think like Nietzsche: It's all a sign of weakness and decadence. People are too weak for the harsh reality, so they come up with some fantasy about eternal life, which results in people living in their fantasy life and not in the real world.

>>23996633
Religitards are also unjust. I show no mercy. Schopenhauers metaphysic nonsense is the worst thing about him. This and his empathy nonsense.

[Anonymous No.24003590]

Philosophy is also a sign of decadence. It's a form of thinking yourself to death. No sane person would even want to be a philosopher. People want to be artists, musicians, but being a philosopher is just self-masturbation. The same goes for religion.

[Anonymous No.24003794]

>>24002894
OP here... your comment actually makes sense... but besides his insane take on idealism... dont you think Kant made us a lot of epistemological trouble... for example if there aren't any synthetic jugdements a priori how can we proceed by thinking ? Or what is with empty concepts... concepts that lag empirical data like Leibniz monads for example... how can we ever know them ?