[MD] Ironistic Metaphysics

[Matt Kundert]

I would just add that Steve's puzzlement on why metaphysics 
is impossible to avoid relies on a subtle disparity between 
what Steve would like to call metaphysics (following more in 
line with Rorty's usage) and what John would like to call 
metaphysics (following more in line with Pirsig's usage).

The basic difference, I think, is thus:

If we recur to symbolic logic, a proof looks like this:

Assumptions: 
A1: P
A2: if P, then Q

Proof:
1. P (why?, because you assumed it)
2. "if P, then Q" (why? because you assumed it)
3. Q (why?, because of line 1 and line 2 (I have P, and if 
you have P, then you have Q))

What John wants to say is that metaphysics is whatever 
your assumptions are, which are the only things (aside from 
the logical apparatus) that enable you to deduce 
things--which, outside symbolic logic, means _think_ things.

Steve wants to say that metaphysics is a special kind of 
treatment of your assumptions--basically treating them like 
Platonic Forms that are universal essences that can be 
discovered by the right method, etc., etc.

Because Steve is using a slightly more specialized form, I 
think John can follow Steve (if he chooses, that is) in saying 
that _assuming that your assumptions_ are special is a s
pecial assumption, one we can haggle about quite 
separately from whether we have assumptions or not (of 
course we do, and that is something like what Rorty means 
by "final vocabulary").

> Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 16:53:39 -0700
> From: ridgecoyote at gmail.com
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Subject: Re: [MD] Ironistic Metaphysics
> 
> I don't see how,
> Steve.  "Recognizing the contingency of all metaphysical systems" is a
> supremely educated (in
> philosophology) metaphysician and seeing oneself at all relies upon certain
> first principles of apprehension which is how we define metaphysics, much
> less seeing oneself in relation to all the other metaphysical stances that
> history and the internet bring to your door.  There is no way to climb out
> of the world of metaphysical speculation by more metaphysical speculation.
> But it is fun to try!  I admit.  I also like the idea of bar girls and
> getting drunk.
> 
> 
> > I'm wondering amount the image of the person selecting among paintings in a
> > gallery. If a person recognizes the contingency of all metaphysical systems
> > and sees herself in the position of selecting among various philosophical
> > systems with no meta-method for choosing among them while maintaining the
> > idea that none of these systems represent reality but rather offer different
> > descriptions that are useful for different purposes, hasn't this person
> > avoided being a metaphysician?
> >
> 
> 
> No, what that person has avoided is being a person. You have to choose your
>  existence, or you don't get one.
> 
> John
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/

_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync.
http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=PID23384::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:NF_BR_sync:082009