[ 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: 34 KB, 370x370, Aquy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6786034 No.6786034 [Reply] [Original]

Why was metaphysics rejected by Kant?
Hell, how does something end up being called metaphysical and not purely philosophical or empirical?
Why is Kant's rejection of metaphysics being agreed upon as wrong nowadays by some academics?

>> No.6786038

>>6786034
What is metaphysics?

>> No.6786044

>>6786034
>Why was metaphysics rejected by Kant?

Because he was a kunt

>Hell, how does something end up being called metaphysical and not purely philosophical or empirical?

Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy, just as ethics, logic, epistemology, etc. are also branches of philosophy. Empiricism is an epistemological methodology.

>Why is Kant's rejection of metaphysics being agreed upon as wrong nowadays by some academics?

The assault on metaphysics began with Hume and reached its peak with the advent of logical positivism. Once this view was shown to be untenable, the consensus among analytics has shifted towards a positive view of the possibility of metaphysics. Continentals never really gave up on it.

>> No.6786045

Because metaphysics is a bunch of horseshit. It's the claim that someone knows something someone can't know in the first place. The only thing it results in is pointless and meaningless language games

>> No.6786047

Sounds like metaphysics is using logic and reason to discern other truths of the universe.
Is that true?

>> No.6786054

>>6786047
pretty much

>> No.6786056

>>6786047
>>6786054

But what is metaphysics?

>> No.6786064

>>6786056
Knowledge which is inaccessible to empiricism, but perhaps accessible to reason.

>> No.6786070

>>6786064

oh, well yeah, I can see that, but it depends on the conclusions doesn't it? I mean reason can be flat, or flawed, right?

>> No.6786071

>>6786064
How would you know if you didn't dun goofed if you have no means to verify your conclusions besides "hurr but it looks plausible"? You can as well speculate how many angels can fit on a pinhead.

>> No.6786074

>>6786071
That's why metaphysik is shit.

>> No.6786083

>>6786070
No, it doesn't depend on the conclusions. You can make an erroneous conclusion in metaphysics just like you can in studying the physical accessible through empiricism, but you're still dealing with metaphysics and the physical, respectively.

>>6786071
You can verify through the methods of reasoning at the time, just like you verify the study of the physical based on what you can work with at the time. Sometimes methods get refined and old conclusions get proved wrong. Structural-systematic philosophy is currently the most sophisticated method in metaphysics, and employs a complex system of notion.

>> No.6786085

>>6786071
>>6786070

Even empiricism ultimately depends on reason so this is a shit argument from the get go m8

>> No.6786086

>>6786085
>>6786085
>Even empiricism ultimately depends on reason
explain

>> No.6786088

>>6786086
Empiricism can't function without inductive reason.

>> No.6786090

>>6786085
except that if you are wrong you get smacked in the face while in metaphysics you can build castles in the air ad infinitum

>> No.6786096

>>6786090
Unless new developments disprove them. Similarly, the geocentric model of the solar system held for a couple of thousand years until more refined methods brought it into question.

>> No.6786098

>>6786090
Also, in order for higher science to function, math is required, which is basically building these sandcastles you're talking about.

>> No.6786100

>>6786086

shit son, nobody cares about data they care about how that data is interpreted. also, you need to be able to perceive and think about the raw information to even be able to conceive of it as data, and then to conceive of what that data represents, and then to conceive of what that data might mean

everything literally comes down to logic and reason, I'm not trying to be rude but I honestly don't understand how you're not getting this I thought this was a given

>>6786090

and if you understand how logic works you can then take those castles down through reasoning instead of bitching and moaning about them? unless of course you can't in2logic

>> No.6786111

>>6786100
>and if you understand how logic works you can then take those castles down through reasoning
If the only criteria for a metaphysical statement to be valid in some system is that the system is consistent with itself and the statement in question is a theorem in the system then you can create an infinite number of such systems and thus metaphysical reasoning doesn't give you any kind of additional information about anything because logic by itself produces only tautologies.

>> No.6786112

Are math and music theory metaphysics or epistemology or neither?

>> No.6786122

>>6786112
Well they were both once considered metaphysics, but nowadays we tend see them more as merely constructed models. But serious metaphysical theorists often still see them as metaphysical rather than mere constructions.

>> No.6786123

>>6786112
Questions regarding the ontology of mathematical objects are metaphysical. Same goes for musical notations I suppose.

>> No.6786135

well if physics only concerns what we can say about nature, don't we need metaphysics to tell us how nature really is?

>> No.6786138

>>6786135
Due to Kant's claims, Western thought has largely rejected noumena as worthy of consideration. Hegel rebelled against that idea, but strangely, for all his impact, he didn't actually affect the issue.

>> No.6786147

>>6786138
Have you read Nietzsche's words on this subject?

>> No.6786153

>>6786147
Yeah.

>> No.6786207

>>6786153
What does he say?

>> No.6786245

>>6786034
>Why was metaphysics rejected by Kant?
It wasn't.

>> No.6786324

>>6786100
Unless you show that the interpretation is somehow a priori, it's still all empirical.