Find fields & stores near you!
Find fields and stores
Zipcode
PbNation News
PbNation News
Community Focus
Community Focus

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 08-02-2009, 01:06 PM #1
Laureate
strength beyond strength
 
Laureate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Is it possible

to establish an abstract principle?

My definition of an abstract principle -

Abstract principle:any law which can not be scientifically derived
__________________
ST:F - Playin with the boys
Laureate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sponsored Links Remove Advertisement
Advertisement
Old 08-02-2009, 02:20 PM #2
Flying_Dutchman
 
 
Flying_Dutchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laureate View Post
to establish an abstract principle?

My definition of an abstract principle -

Abstract principle:any law which can not be scientifically derived
If you're limiting what can be scientifically derived to empirical data, then the field of metaphysics involves plenty of abstract principles.
Flying_Dutchman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2009, 02:34 PM #3
Laureate
strength beyond strength
 
Laureate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying_Dutchman View Post
If you're limiting what can be scientifically derived to empirical data, then the field of metaphysics involves plenty of abstract principles.
is there any objective universal metaphysical law?
__________________
ST:F - Playin with the boys
Laureate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2009, 02:56 PM #4
Flying_Dutchman
 
 
Flying_Dutchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laureate View Post
is there any objective universal metaphysical law?
I'm not sure there are that many certain metaphysical laws (outside of bull**** self help books and the like). Metaphysics still relies on logic so if you're trying to go outside of that I can't help you.

I'm sure there are some "rules" of metaphysics that I'm not familiar with, but they must be rules of logic rather than empirically derived.

Can we just talk about metaphysics instead? It's really ****ing cool/weird/annoying sometimes.

Things it pertains to: space and time, identity, necessity, possibility, objects. I'm pretty interested in endurantism vs. perdurantism. You probably won't find that on the internet though.

edit: and I think once we start deriving metaphysical "laws," then whatever those laws pertain to and dictate will begin to make their way into the realm of ordinary physics.
Flying_Dutchman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2009, 02:59 PM #5
Laureate
strength beyond strength
 
Laureate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying_Dutchman View Post
I'm not sure there are that many certain metaphysical laws (outside of bull**** self help books and the like). Metaphysics still relies on logic so if you're trying to go outside of that I can't help you.

I'm sure there are some "rules" of metaphysics that I'm not familiar with, but they must be rules of logic rather than empirically derived.

Can we just talk about metaphysics instead? It's really ****ing cool/weird/annoying sometimes.

Things it pertains to: space and time, identity, necessity, possibility, objects. I'm pretty interested in endurantism vs. perdurantism. You probably won't find that on the internet though.
What I am trying to say is,

H:if something can not be empirically derived, then it can not be proved correct.
or
H2: If something can not be empirically derived, it can not be correct.

H2 is what I am really shooting for

Edit: I was wondering if there were any examples that would prove the idea wrong.
__________________
ST:F - Playin with the boys
Laureate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2009, 03:03 PM #6
hsilman
Disgustipated
 
hsilman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: The Big Apple
my short answer:

no, not really. But you already knew that. It's possible to disprove some abstract principles through feats of logic or rationality, but you can't prove them beyond logical consistency in way that you can universalize.
__________________
This is necessary. Life feeds on life
feeds on life
feeds on life
hsilman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2009, 03:05 PM #7
Laureate
strength beyond strength
 
Laureate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by hsilman View Post
my short answer:

no, not really. But you already knew that. It's possible to disprove some abstract principles through feats of logic or rationality, but you can't prove them beyond logical consistency in way that you can universalize.
Exactly, you can disprove any abstract principle! This means that no abstract principle can be objective.


And what I am really getting at is....philosophy is pointless then.
__________________
ST:F - Playin with the boys
Laureate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2009, 03:08 PM #8
Flying_Dutchman
 
 
Flying_Dutchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by hsilman View Post
my short answer:

no, not really. But you already knew that. It's possible to disprove some abstract principles through feats of logic or rationality, but you can't prove them beyond logical consistency in way that you can universalize.
I asked you before if you were a fan of either Lewis or Van Inwagen and you never answered I don't think.
Flying_Dutchman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2009, 03:10 PM #9
hsilman
Disgustipated
 
hsilman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: The Big Apple
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laureate View Post
Exactly, you can disprove any abstract principle! This means that no abstract principle can be objective.


And what I am really getting at is....philosophy is pointless then.
not all philosophy deals only with abstract principles, and once you are relatively sure of abstract principles you can apply them to practical situations.
__________________
This is necessary. Life feeds on life
feeds on life
feeds on life
hsilman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2009, 03:26 PM #10
Laureate
strength beyond strength
 
Laureate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by hsilman View Post
not all philosophy deals only with abstract principles, and once you are relatively sure of abstract principles you can apply them to practical situations.
can you give me examples to work with
__________________
ST:F - Playin with the boys
Laureate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2009, 03:28 PM #11
hsilman
Disgustipated
 
hsilman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: The Big Apple
http://books.google.com/books?id=Eu-...gbs_navlinks_s

so, no, I can't give you examples. I'm a philosopher damnit, I'm too busy to answer your questions!
__________________
This is necessary. Life feeds on life
feeds on life
feeds on life
hsilman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2009, 03:48 PM #12
Laureate
strength beyond strength
 
Laureate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by hsilman View Post
http://books.google.com/books?id=Eu-...gbs_navlinks_s

so, no, I can't give you examples. I'm a philosopher damnit, I'm too busy to answer your questions!
aye.....
__________________
ST:F - Playin with the boys
Laureate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2009, 03:56 PM #13
Flying_Dutchman
 
 
Flying_Dutchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laureate View Post
can you give me examples to work with
I dunno if this works but the notion that "something cannot come from nothing" was once a metaphysical principle and now it's really part of physics, considering the laws of thermodynamics
Flying_Dutchman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2009, 04:10 PM #14
Laureate
strength beyond strength
 
Laureate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying_Dutchman View Post
I dunno if this works but the notion that "something cannot come from nothing" was once a metaphysical principle and now it's really part of physics, considering the laws of thermodynamics
yeah, the law was scientifically derived.

edit: never mind, it was conceived then derived........ right?
__________________
ST:F - Playin with the boys

Last edited by Laureate : 08-02-2009 at 04:26 PM.
Laureate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2009, 05:11 PM #15
madgoat
Troll_Extraordinaire
 
madgoat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Homewood, IL
madgoat has achieved Level 3 in PbNation Pursuit
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laureate View Post
yeah, the law was scientifically derived.

edit: never mind, it was conceived then derived........ right?
But the problem is that it can be scientifically described so it wouldn't fit for what you are looking for.
__________________
Honey Badger University Professor of Women Studies, Dean of Student Affairs
madgoat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2009, 05:16 PM #16
Laureate
strength beyond strength
 
Laureate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by madgoat View Post
But the problem is that it can be scientifically described so it wouldn't fit for what you are looking for.
yeah, but doesn't every metaphysical claim have the potential to be scientifically derived?
__________________
ST:F - Playin with the boys
Laureate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2009, 05:38 PM #17
shaka zulu
OCMI/A5OG OSF
 
shaka zulu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laureate View Post
yeah, but doesn't every metaphysical claim have the potential to be scientifically derived?
In short, theoretically...yes. That isn't to say that every metaphysical claim will be, but the potential exists so long as any scientist is willing to tackle a given claim.
__________________
I shoot fools....then write about it!
Snatch up some of thee hawt DeadBox tees hurr. Translation: "You may purchase, by way of electronic transfer of funds, a Deadbox T-Shirt at this IP Address."
Deadbox FB Fanpage
Leave a message and tell us what you think!
Orange County Mobile Infantry
Proudly Supported by:My Wife | SC Village l Tiberius Arms | Tippmann |

Originally Posted by CrazyLittle: Sapiens is a species. NASCAR is a RACE!!!
shaka zulu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2009, 05:45 PM #18
Flying_Dutchman
 
 
Flying_Dutchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laureate View Post
yeah, the law was scientifically derived.

edit: never mind, it was conceived then derived........ right?
right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Laureate View Post
yeah, but doesn't every metaphysical claim have the potential to be scientifically derived?
I would say so, yes. The point is that metaphysical notions (about time, for instance) cannot be scientifically derived yet. But it's easy to see something like stage theory, endurantism, or perdurantism being proved scientifically in the future.

Silman, avoiding my question?
Flying_Dutchman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2009, 10:28 PM #19
Spock
Live Long and Bluster
 
Spock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: SE PA
Spock is a founding member
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laureate View Post
to establish an abstract principle?

My definition of an abstract principle -

Abstract principle:any law which can not be scientifically derived
That depends on what you mean by "establish".
Spock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2009, 11:52 AM #20
hsilman
Disgustipated
 
hsilman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: The Big Apple
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying_Dutchman View Post
I asked you before if you were a fan of either Lewis or Van Inwagen and you never answered I don't think.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying_Dutchman View Post
right.



I would say so, yes. The point is that metaphysical notions (about time, for instance) cannot be scientifically derived yet. But it's easy to see something like stage theory, endurantism, or perdurantism being proved scientifically in the future.

Silman, avoiding my question?
lol sorry I didn't see it, and I don't think you asked me before, but then again I'm obviously not a good person to ask since I miss things often.

You're going to have to be more specific about which lewis. CS Lewis, Rick Lewis, or Peter Lewis, perhaps? I would generally assume the first, though the 2nd is a possibility considering the context, whereas the last is a longshot but it's possible. There's also Lewis Gordon, though he's a "black" philosopher and even though he says his specialty is phenomenology he talks about a race a lot, so I doubt that's who you're talking about.

To preempt, if it's the first, then yes definitely. The second, no I hate so called "popular philosophy" since it is no more than this ****ty subforum exploded into a mainstream setting, at best. Peter Lewis I don't know much baout but I know he talks a lot about the philosophical implications of quantum mechanics, which is ****ing cool.

I hate Van Inwagen. If you want to label him, he's either a platonist or a nomanalist and I don't care if he says differently and I hate those people. He might as well have named "Material beings" a neo-platonist manifesto, and his consequence argument doesn't take into account any middle ground and it also doesn't really explore the moral implications. but that's my opinion, of course, and I don't have a PhD or anything lol
__________________
This is necessary. Life feeds on life
feeds on life
feeds on life
hsilman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2009, 01:46 PM #21
Flying_Dutchman
 
 
Flying_Dutchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by hsilman View Post
lol sorry I didn't see it, and I don't think you asked me before, but then again I'm obviously not a good person to ask since I miss things often.

You're going to have to be more specific about which lewis. CS Lewis, Rick Lewis, or Peter Lewis, perhaps? I would generally assume the first, though the 2nd is a possibility considering the context, whereas the last is a longshot but it's possible. There's also Lewis Gordon, though he's a "black" philosopher and even though he says his specialty is phenomenology he talks about a race a lot, so I doubt that's who you're talking about.

To preempt, if it's the first, then yes definitely. The second, no I hate so called "popular philosophy" since it is no more than this ****ty subforum exploded into a mainstream setting, at best. Peter Lewis I don't know much baout but I know he talks a lot about the philosophical implications of quantum mechanics, which is ****ing cool.

I hate Van Inwagen. If you want to label him, he's either a platonist or a nomanalist and I don't care if he says differently and I hate those people. He might as well have named "Material beings" a neo-platonist manifesto, and his consequence argument doesn't take into account any middle ground and it also doesn't really explore the moral implications. but that's my opinion, of course, and I don't have a PhD or anything lol

I was talking about David Lewis, author of The Plurality of Worlds.

As for Van Inwagen, do you agree with his views about the passage of time, time and identity, and the existence of fictional characters?
Flying_Dutchman is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
Forum Jump