[MD] Wanted: A proper foundation

[Ham Priday]

Ron --

On 1/31/09 at 11:26 PM you write:

> Since this topic is raised, I will explain why I reject
> metaphysics. Metaphysics is first philosophy, the
> concepts preceding scientific inquiry.
>
> I do not subscribe to a difference between mind and
> matter substance and attribute, fact and value therefore
> their relation is superfluous. Concepts of cause and being
> are illusionary. Epistimology is the only solid foundation
> for legitimate inquiry of the nature of reality and since you
> have stated many, many times before, that epistemology
> does not a metaphysic make, I hold no metaphysic.
> However this does not make me a nihlist. In fact meaning
> is what it is all about, it is central in the understanding of
> the aquisition of knowledge. Now the Nihlist may agree
> that there is no universal meaning but in this they do not
> extend it to posit that there is no meaning at all. This plumb
> has been convieniently knocked about to serve your own
> cause, but let us clarify and kill your favorite turn. Nihlism
> rejects objective universal truth. AS so do you. In this
> fashion you and your metaphysic are indeed nihlistic.

Since you appear determined to continue this unproductive dialog, let me 
comment on some of your assertions.

First, I assume that by "first philosophy...preceding scientific inquiry" 
you mean that metaphysical concepts developed before scientific 
explanations.  Does that impugn metaphysics as an approach to truth?  No, 
because the scope of metaphysics is not limited to physical (i.e., 
objective) phenomena as is Science.  I do not consider the metaphysical 
principles postulated by Parmenides, Socrates, or Plato of lesser 
significance simply because they preceded Newton and Einstein.  Indeed, the 
14th and 15th century gave birth to some of the most profound concepts in 
philosophy.

Secondly, I've attempted to get some statement of your personal "belief 
system" on several occasions, but you've dodged the subject.  If you regard 
"cause and being as illusionary", you cannot believe in scientific 
objectivism which is based entirely on causal principles.  You say that 
epistemology "is the only solid foundation for legitimate inquiry," yet this 
is not a legitimate area of scientific investigation but is more closely 
idenitifed with philosophy.  (Incidentally, I don't recall stating that 
"epistemology does not a metaphysics make", although as I said in the 
previous post, it is one of three major metaphysical components.)

Thirdly, you say that "Nihilism rejects objective universal truth."  My 
dictionary defines Nihilism as "a viewpoint that traditional beliefs and 
values are unfounded, and that existence is senseless and useless."  It also 
mentions "denial of moral truths" but says nothing about denying objective 
truth."  You accuse me of rejecting objective truth, which is a distortion 
either of my assertion that "absolute truth is inaccessible to man" or that 
objective (experiential) existence is not the true reality.  That this makes 
my philosophy or its metaphysical foundation nihilistic is absurd.  If 
nothing else, Essentialism is a valuistic philosophy.

You also make the complaint: "you feel your convictions are true. Your wish, 
[is] for all to accept them as true."  I should think that most people feel 
their convictions are true.  Don't you?  There is no greater truth than 
one's convictions, at least those of us who profess to having them.  And 
don't you suppose RMP, or any other philosopher, would wish for all to 
accept his convictions as true?

Finally, I don't think defining the meaning of what you personally do or who 
you are necessarily qualifies as belief in the meaning and purpose.of life. 
Unless there is a value to be gained in the life experience, it is 
essentially meaningless.  It is this value, implied in the term "universal 
meaning", which Nihilism denies.  Religion supplies this meaning for many 
people, but you are definitely not a theist.  You hold to no metaphysics, 
claiming you "don't really need one" but instead "prefer to draw conclusions 
from experience."  You're also a self-professed pragmatist blithely sporting 
what you call "a sort of really loose open philosophy."

> Despite your faultlesness I felt insulted by your comments.
> Plus I thought Pascal's wager was a rather flimsy cowardly
> response to a important question of conviction and belief.

I had said (on 1/28) that "hierarchies, levels, and patterns, no matter how 
'dynamic' the metaphor used to describe them, do not 'overcome' difference." 
This was in reference to Pirsig's "metaphysics" which rejects the subject as 
an agent of value.  You then parodied my comment with the rejoinder 
"metaphor...does not overcome anything either, whether source nor 
difference," as if to suggest I had used metaphor to advance the concept pf 
a primary source.  Generally I don't like metaphor in philosophical 
expositions but resort to it only when descriptive terms are inadequate to 
express a metaphysical concept.

Pascal's Wager is such a metaphor for describing the Catch-22 of belief and 
disbelief when it comes to ultimate reality.  How you could construe its use 
to illustrate a paradox I myself had raised as an "insult" to you baffles 
me.

I'm sorry the "nihilist" label offends you, Ron, but I see little 
"conviction' in the mindset you've revealed, much less "belief", and you've 
given me no evidence to persuade me otherwise.

Anyway, thanks for explaining your position.

Regards,
Ham