4 ms·

Upvote for your beautiful formulation and analogy. What you are referring to was coined by Kant as “transcendental”, as opposed to “transcendent” — there’s the

Upvote for your beautiful formulation and analogy. What you are referring to was coined by Kant as “transcendental”, as opposed to “transcendent” — there’s theological/mythological/naive metaphysics and there’s abstract/logical metaphysics. The respective practitioners of those are a very different kind of believers. Unfamiliar with that essential difference, yet another party (mainstream scientocracy) is strongly averse to any kind of metaphysics and denies everything that is not touchable matter. They look at cloning the brain and will have difficulty to find the underlying structure of the mind.

netcan 12y ago
Thanks. I didn't remember the Kant connection (I can't seem to get to the end of a paragraph without forgetting the beginning). My definition is a kind of blurry augmentation of Physics & Metaphysics. Scientific or Philosophical aren't perfect synonyms for these but I think they give us a little more of a hint as to what kind of process to employ when thinking about them. I think modern usage of the term dates to Aristotle's books: Physics & Metaphysics. 'Physics' is about nature and feels like a direct ancestor to modern science. 'Metaphysics' is pretty close to what we still call metaphysics. Most people think of these things (logic, ethics, epistemology as science). Physical and metaphysical are the better terms. More accurate. But, I just don't like the associations most people have with them. Physics is impenetrable domain of extreme experts. Metaphysical doesn't have any expectation of rigor and every answer is equally valid. There are other problems like thinking of Metaphysics as completely separate and not impacting on physics like the mind/brain issue you discuss. I think to a modern, rigorous thinker the idea that the mind being a metaphysical concept which is embodies in a brain makes sense. It doesn't imply the kind of dualistic worldview usually associated with spirit and matter.
- wfn 12y ago
  > I think modern usage of the term dates to Aristotle's books: Physics & Metaphysics. 'Physics' is about nature and feels like a direct ancestor to modern science. 'Metaphysics' is pretty close to what we still call metaphysics. Most people think of these things (logic, ethics, epistemology as science). Tangential to all this, but a fun apropos: it's interesting that the original title of Aristotle's (multiple 'books' collectively known as) 'Metaphysics' is (widely believed to be) a matter of noting down the arrangement/order of his treatises: τὰ μετὰ τὰ φυσικά (ta meta ta fysika) - '[writings] after the Physics' (Physics being another arrangement of prior treatises of his.) 'What comes after Physics' can of course be evaluated conceptually, but many scholars think that 'τὰ μετὰ τὰ φυσικά' here means 'writings that come after the Physics'. Which is a somewhat humbling (if that's the word) idea, and which might be able to reduce the aura of drama and mystique oft associated with the word of 'metaphysics'. :)

netcan 12y ago

Thanks. I didn't remember the Kant connection (I can't seem to get to the end of a paragraph without forgetting the beginning). My definition is a kind of blurry augmentation of Physics & Metaphysics. Scientific or Philosophical aren't perfect synonyms for these but I think they give us a little more of a hint as to what kind of process to employ when thinking about them. I think modern usage of the term dates to Aristotle's books: Physics & Metaphysics. 'Physics' is about nature and feels like a direct ancestor to modern science. 'Metaphysics' is pretty close to what we still call metaphysics. Most people think of these things (logic, ethics, epistemology as science). Physical and metaphysical are the better terms. More accurate. But, I just don't like the associations most people have with them. Physics is impenetrable domain of extreme experts. Metaphysical doesn't have any expectation of rigor and every answer is equally valid. There are other problems like thinking of Metaphysics as completely separate and not impacting on physics like the mind/brain issue you discuss. I think to a modern, rigorous thinker the idea that the mind being a metaphysical concept which is embodies in a brain makes sense. It doesn't imply the kind of dualistic worldview usually associated with spirit and matter.

wfn 12y ago
> I think modern usage of the term dates to Aristotle's books: Physics & Metaphysics. 'Physics' is about nature and feels like a direct ancestor to modern science. 'Metaphysics' is pretty close to what we still call metaphysics. Most people think of these things (logic, ethics, epistemology as science). Tangential to all this, but a fun apropos: it's interesting that the original title of Aristotle's (multiple 'books' collectively known as) 'Metaphysics' is (widely believed to be) a matter of noting down the arrangement/order of his treatises: τὰ μετὰ τὰ φυσικά (ta meta ta fysika) - '[writings] after the Physics' (Physics being another arrangement of prior treatises of his.) 'What comes after Physics' can of course be evaluated conceptually, but many scholars think that 'τὰ μετὰ τὰ φυσικά' here means 'writings that come after the Physics'. Which is a somewhat humbling (if that's the word) idea, and which might be able to reduce the aura of drama and mystique oft associated with the word of 'metaphysics'. :)