Philosophy discussion

Epistemology is the bedrock of Western philosophy.

Using the terms fairly loosely, and in no way disparagingly, Eastern philosophy in general has a very different feel to it than the Western variety.

In Eastern philosophy there is less focus on science and less on cold logical analysis, instead it is usually more centred around how best to live one’s life, how to relate to nature, and on our relationships with both each other and our community. Another difference is to do with religion. In the West, although early philosophy included religion, philosophy and theology soon became different areas of thought. But in the East philosophy and religion are usually more closely intertwined.

Western philosophy also covers ethics, morality, politics, the meaning of life and the like, but it takes as its starting point epistemology (the theory of knowledge). This is because if we don’t understand what constitutes knowledge, we can’t reliably draw any conclusions about anything. Therefore, before diving into any particular philosophical theory, we should start by trying to get a good understanding of the following: -

a) What do we mean when we claim something to be true?
b) What are the limitations of our own thinking?
c) How should we think about our own perceptions of the world?

Here is a quote I like from the great David Hume: -

"Though experience be our only guide in reasoning concerning matters of fact; it must be acknowledged, that this guide is not altogether infallible, but in some cases is apt to lead us into errors. ... A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence."

The early Greek philosopher Socrates tried to obtain clarity of knowledge by asking people to define things. For instance, he wanted to know what justice was, so he went to the courthouse and asked judges and lawyers what justice was. But despite repeated questioning all he could get were examples of justice, not a definition of it. Questioning and scepticism are an important part of philosophy, but in the case of Socrates it backfired on him. Those in power got fed up with him and had him tried in court on a trumped-up charge of corrupting the youth of the city. He was found guilty and sentenced to death by being made to drink a cup of the poison hemlock.

A number of other early philosophers tried to ‘systemise’ their knowledge of the world into an overarching logical format, some fairly successfully, given the understanding of their time, for example both Plato and Aristotle.

Before Plato, it was thought that you could be considered to know something if you had a true belief about that thing. However, Plato realised that it was possible to have a true belief without understanding why it was true. Therefore, he said, it is only possible to label a true belief as knowledge if it is justified in some way. So the definition of knowledge then became having a ‘justified true belief’. There was still a slight problem with this definition however, because you might have a belief, that is actually true, and that you think is justified, but the justification you used was flawed in some way. This was pointed out by philosopher Edmund Gettier in a short paper entitled “Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?” published in 1963.

Gettier proved his point by providing a number of counter examples in which individuals have a justified true belief, but they don’t have knowledge.

Hume puts it best however, with his division of knowledge into Deductive Knowledge and Inductive Knowledge. Deductive knowledge is centred around logic and maths, which can be 100% correct. Inductive knowledge is everything else, and is always less than 100%, although it can get very close to it. Science is based on inductive knowledge, as is our own, every-day understanding of the world. We rely on such understandings, but we are wise if we include a touch of scepticism. How much depends on the situation, should we take the covid vaccine? you bet, can we cross the road on the walking green? yes, but keep looking!

To expand on the above... Inductive reasoning can be broken down into three different types: - Enumerative induction; Argument from analogy; and Abduction (or inference to best explanation).

1. Enumerative Induction

This kind of argument is used for things like opinion polls. We draw conclusions about a whole population from a representative sample. This assumes a number of things, one being that the future will resemble the past (e.g. that people will believe tomorrow what they believed yesterday). This is a fairly safe assumption, so, if done correctly, polls can be fairly reliable.

With Enumerative Induction it is important to check for errors. For example: - Was the sample big enough? Has the statistical margin of error been reported? Was the sample random? (I.e. did the poll either select or ignore any sub groups?) Were there leading questions in the poll?

The same logic is used when a doctor takes a blood sample and assumes that the small sample is representative of your entire bloodstream.

2. Argument from Analogy

Here we take two or more objects, note their similarities, and conclude that they must have an additional similarity. Although the conclusion is not guaranteed, this method can establish a strong likelihood. This type of argument is often used in the legal world, with previous cases used as precedents. It’s also used in medical research with mice being used as a good model for humans. Again this assumes that the future will resemble the past.

3. Abductive Reasoning

Abductive Reasoning is ‘an inference to the best explanation’, and it is crucial to all scientific reasoning. This was the method Sherlock Holmes used to solve crimes (it is often claimed he used ‘deduction’ but it was actually ‘induction by abduction’). Also, in the medical field, induction by abduction is the basis of every diagnosis. Thomas Huxley said, “Science is simply common sense at its best.” E.g. if you came downstairs and the window was open and the silver gone, you would conclude you had been robbed, you wouldn’t think that a ghost was responsible.

Sometimes, however, abduction actually goes against common sense, e.g. if you took some experimental medicine and later felt better you might think that the medicine worked, but that is only one data point (remember correlation doesn’t imply causation). What is needed is a large, properly controlled, trial. In fact, science was developed as a method of guarding against instinctive reasoning errors because our senses and memory often lead us astray. With sight we can fall for optical illusions, and we suffer from expectation bias. We impose patterns on limited data like seeing a face on a piece of toast. With memory we often remember evidence that confirms our beliefs and forget what doesn’t. Also some things are just more memorable than others. Memory is not like a video; we usually just remember the basics and discard the details. When we recall this later we often confabulate the details. Then a later recall is of the previous recall, not the original memory

Science is designed to guard against the many ways our instincts lead us astray. When we feel better after taking medicine was it the result of the pill or was it the placebo effect? Science uses controlled ‘blind’ studies to tell the difference. A large group of subjects is split in two, half get the real medicine and half get a sugar pill. Both groups of subjects are told they are getting the real medicine. To be even better, the study will be ‘double blind’. Here the people giving the pills don’t know which subject gets which pill (so they can’t influence the result), also the people analysing the results don’t know (so their expectations don’t influence what they find).

Science is not done by one person working alone, conclusions are derived from the work of an entire community – a community that is aware of the kinds of errors that we are prone to, and that takes specific and careful steps to guard against such errors.

Stephen wrote: "To expand on the above... Inductive reasoning can be broken down into three different types: - Enumerative induction; Argument from analogy; and Abduction (or inference to best explanation).

1. En..."

Thank you for sharing this insightful perspective on Western philosophy and its focus on epistemology. As the author of Heaven is Under the Feet of Governments, I find it intriguing to compare and contrast these views with the principles explored in my book, which integrates Maqasid principles with modern governance.

In Heaven is Under the Feet of Governments, I emphasize the importance of a holistic approach to governance, one that not only incorporates legal and ethical principles but also deeply considers the well-being of individuals and communities. This perspective aligns more closely with the aspects of Eastern philosophy that focus on how best to live one's life and maintain harmonious relationships with nature and society.

While Western philosophy often begins with epistemology to establish a foundation for knowledge, Maqasid model focuses on the ultimate objectives and benefits of the law, such as justice, compassion, and human welfare. This approach integrates ethical and moral considerations directly into the framework of governance, rather than treating them as separate areas of thought.

Regarding your points on the limitations of our thinking and the need for skepticism, Maqasid approach also acknowledges the fallibility of human judgment and the importance of continuous reflection and improvement. It encourages leaders and policymakers to seek knowledge, apply wisdom, and remain open to new insights, much like the inductive and abductive reasoning you mentioned.

In summary, while Western philosophy's emphasis on epistemology provides a rigorous foundation for understanding knowledge, the integration of Maqasid framework into governance offers a comprehensive approach that encompasses not only knowledge but also ethical and moral dimensions essential for fostering justice and well-being in society.

HEAVEN IS UNDER THE FEET OF GOVERNMENTS: STEERING NATIONS WITH MAQASID

Stephen wrote: "Epistemology is the bedrock of Western philosophy.

Using the terms fairly loosely, and in no way disparagingly, Eastern philosophy in general has a very different feel to it than the Western varie..."

You say -'In Eastern philosophy there is less focus on science and less on cold logical analysis, instead it is usually more centred around how best to live one’s life, how to relate to nature, and on our relationships with both each other and our community.'

Fair enough, but you forgot to mention that (as a generalisation) Eastern philosophy is concerned with discovering truth by the method of 'union with reality'. That is to say, it is not about speculation but discovery.

But this is not always the case, so I don't like the phrase 'Eastern philosophy'. It does not describe a philosophy or even a common approach.

Not arguing really, but I think you're selling Eastern philosophy a bit short. To be specific, you're definitely selling Buddhist philosophy short. But is this 'Eastern philosophy'? Do you define it at some point?

Stephen wrote: "To expand on the above... Inductive reasoning can be broken down into three different types: - Enumerative induction; Argument from analogy; and Abduction (or inference to best explanation).

1. En..."

This is a great description of the scientific method, and Hume's thoughts. Him being the biggest of the empiricists we know his thought was moving for figures like Kant who made his own epistemological theory and Einstein who claimed he never would have thought of the theory of relativity without reading Hume's Treatise. While his deductive knowledge can certainly be called knowledge, triangles will always have 3 sides, 2+2 is always 4. Can we call inductive knowledge knowledge?

Knowledge is supposed to be 100% certainty of something. If inductive knowledge is only partial as you mentioned. It's assumption. It could be true belief but without understanding the metaphysical causation it's still just belief. Epistemology leads to metaphysics which "... is a dark ocean without shores or lighthouse, strewn with many a philosophic wreck." - Immanuel Kant. Science after failing in epistemology, skips the metaphysical hurdle too and declares itself to be true.

What can we know for certain? Has there been any epistemological success in the last few millennia? I'd argue all we can know is whats in ourselves. We have immediate and intimate understanding of our own minds and interpretations. But that's all we have is ourselves and the representation given to us.

People have known for ages the dead ends and disappointments of epistemology. Later figures like Nietzsche would argue that for man to live we need unreason, making epistemology a fundamentally anti-human field. Other figures like Kierkegaard would make appeals to that unreason in his religious beliefs, understanding that relentless digging for absolute knowledge would only sprout nihilism. In today's world the statement Credo quia absurdum (I believe because it is absurd) applies just as much to any phenomenon as it does to Orthodox Christianity.
-------
On Eastern philosophy I must say I've read and understood far less. But we can see very interesting parallels between Eastern and Western thought, especially in the Greeks and some later Christian Theologians like Meister Eckhart. With thoughts like the absence of a self, monism, and reincarnation. Thinkers in the west took a much more sterile and absolute position to epistemology, trying to remove themselves from the world. Thinkers in the East it would seem tend to understand themselves as part of the world, and seek to know more about their place in it.

@Ethan

I don't think science declares itself to be true. Scientists, perhaps, sometimes do. But, in my experience, at least, even they, for all their (often well deserved) reputations for intellectual arrogance, are more prone to claim this or that seems true, or seems more probable than that or the other, based on what appear to be predictable regularities in the patterns that we perceive through our senses as "material reality." A scientist of any credibility must admit the possibility that future experiments, or refinements of theory, will throw at least some of our contemporary certitudes in doubt, or even flat out disprove them: indeed, that it's all but certain this will happen. The history of science is littered with the ruins of paradigms that appeared unassailable, only to implode in the light of unexpected discoveries. Only an obdurate provincialism could lead a scientist to assume that the professional consensus of the time he happened to live just also happened to represent the Final Word on the subject of the universe. I'd say the goal of science is less the abstraction "truth" than ever more useful predictive models of nature.

On what basis do you claim that people have known for ages the dead ends and disappointments of epistemology? Or that there have been ages, or people? Or that Nietzsche argued that man needs unreason to live? Or that there was ever a man named Nietzsche? Or that Kierkegaard made appeals to unreason in his religious beliefs? Or that digging for absolute knowledge will only sprout nihilism? Or that Kierkegaard ever existed? Or that there are interesting parallels between eastern and western thought? Or that there ever was a Hume, a Kant, an Einstein, or a Meister Eckhart? Every one of these statements implies a truth claim rooted in induction.

If knowledge must be 100% certain--if all we can "know" are tautologies (a triangle has three sides)--then knowledge seems to me to be a concept of very limited utility. Perhaps it can only ever make sense to speak of relative knowledge, of what our experience and common sense--our "animal faith," as George Santayana called it-- tell us is likely true, or true enough to navigate our everyday lives. That is, practically true. If we are epistemologically modest, we'll confess we might just be wrong. We'll admit reality might, in the final analysis, turn out be radically different than we think.

However, it seems like a huge leap to conclude from this that anything we might believe is as absurd as, say, fundamentalist Christianity. Is it as absurd to anticipate that plunging my hand into a bonfire will hurt as it would be to expect it to feel pleasant? Or to expect that if I leap from the top of a skyscraper I'll fall to my death, rather fly off into the sky like a bird? Is it as absurd to believe the earth is a sphere as a disk? Or to believe in Darwinian evolution as in gremlins or fairies?

The proposition that there exists a world external to my perceptions, that it operates according to certain tendencies or laws, and that these tendencies or laws are, in principle, at least roughly, and however imperfectly, knowable--this is indeed a presumption. Perhaps it can never, in some deep philosophical sense, be proved. However, it doesn't seem any more likely that it could be disproved, either. At any event, it seems to be the faith I'm compelled to live by. I act as if I believe it, which is another way of saying I do believe it. Do you?

Skallagrimsen wrote: "@Ethan

I don't think science declares itself to be true. Scientists, perhaps, sometimes do. But, in my experience, at least, even they, for all their (often well deserved) reputations for intellec..."

I apologize if my statement came off as rude or heavy handed. I don't believe all scientists think they've ascertained absolute 100% truth. Though, I believe we all know someone in our lives or at least in media that attests science to be the be all end all of disciplines, the only one that matters. I'm simply confused as to it's coverage here, when we understand that in terms of epistemology it's rooted in assumption. Hume knew this too.

For my claims I make my basis on the things I've read. I can't prove their existence, that it's their words I've read, or that there are words on paper. The claims made via induction are assumption. I assume these figures existed, I assume there is people in the next room, I assume I produce these thoughts. Hence the shortcomings of the subject, there is so little to be certain of. All we can really be certain of is that there is something that experiences and the tautologies. A lot of philosophy was never purposed to be useful, it doesn't have great utility, it's not very marketable. What am I meant to do with the forms? My lack of free will? The primary substance being water or air? It's why man is intoxicated with the scientific method, we've made insane technological process in the world and a large number of people take it as truth. While things like philosophy are placed on the back burner, it's only natural.

On the "I believe because it's absurd" quote. I agree we have better bet assuming that fire is going to be hot than that Moses climbed down the mountain with the commandments. My quote is to point out the absurdity of life and all the confusions given to us by sensation. I'd even claim that the phenomenal world is the theology of the body. I see a fire, I smell the burning wood, I hear the crackle, I feel the heat, I taste the smoke. These sensations are presented to a mind which we can't place and the thinking thing will give it a colorful picture. In the way early man saw the gods as a cause, we now see tiny elements to be the cause, but have we ever witnessed a real cause? Both the gods and the atoms in motion are just our assumptions based on our experience.

As for the possibility of an external world, who knows? I love Parmenides and Zeno but their monism is incomprehensible to living things. It's why we live on our assumptions, we have to. Not only that but, it's fun to assume. Our creative assumptions breathe air into the world. Epistemology makes the world a puzzle when it should be our canvass. So yes, on faith I accept the world.

Hi Peter,

Thanks for your question.
No, I don’t define Eastern philosophy, and I don’t credit the term with a definite set of beliefs and ideas. My book (An Introduction to Philosophy, from which the above posts were taken) is really about the history and current status of Western philosophy, I only used the term Eastern philosophy as a contrast, a different viewpoint. Again, as a contrast, I have a few chapters on specific ‘Eastern’ philosophies, including one on Buddhism (although only on an introductory level). I also recognize that there are many other philosophies in other parts of the world, Africa, North and South America, and Australia, to mention a few. But my main interest is Western philosophy from the early Greeks onwards, and that term, I believe is somewhat more accepted that the more general ‘Eastern philosophy’.

Hi Ethan,

Totally agree with you.
And yes, epistemology makes the world a puzzle. But one has to start there and then pass through it to enjoy the canvass of the world. An understanding of our limitations, our susceptibility to fallacies, and the need for a touch of scepticism in the face of an absurd world. Why do I play golf when I hit really bad shots? It’s an exercise in humility. But occasionally I hit a really good shot, and it makes my day.

Hi Skallagrimsen,

Agreed, belief has to be proportioned according to the evidence, the more detailed the evidence then the stronger the belief.
It often seems that if someone hears that you are not 100% certain about something, then they assume that it must be 50/50! Some of that will be unthinkingly natural, but I believe the media are often at fault here. As soon as they get a story, they look around for someone holding an opposite view and then give them airtime. I think of this as ‘the BBC fallacy’.

Hi Peter,

Just wanted to say something about your statement that “Eastern philosophy is concerned with discovering truth by the method of 'union with reality'.”
I’m not a fan of using the word ‘truth’ in that context. I accept scientific facts about the world based on evidence collected, and that such facts are less than 100% correct.
The word ‘truth’ here implies a religious perspective, not a philosophical one. And the discovery of such by a ‘union with reality’ is more in line with religious revelation, something obviously meaningful to the person undergoing it, but difficult to pass on to others.
It’s a bit like trying to convince someone about the miracles written about in the bible. Hume argued strongly against accepting then as real by asking which do we think is more likely, a) that they are real, or b) that people were mistaken in what they saw, or things have been lost in the many translations since the time.

Stephen wrote: "Hi Peter,

Just wanted to say something about your statement that “Eastern philosophy is concerned with discovering truth by the method of 'union with reality'.”
I’m not a fan of using the word ‘tr..."

Hi Stephen

You have a view of mysticism which is widespread but a misunderstanding. In the perennial tradition a truth is a fact we know to be true. Such truths depend on 'knowledge by identity'. 'I Am' would be an example. The crucial issue would be that no mystic would call a 'justified true belief' a truth. The standard for truth is far higher than it is for stereotypical 'Western' thinkers. .

As you say, such truths depend on realisation, but these are not 'religious'. And while you're right to say that such truths cannot be passed on, the method of discovering or verifying them may be.

Also, the implications of those realisations give rise to a metaphysical theory that may be tested in metaphysics like any other theory, by the use of reason and logic. They imply a neutral metaphysical theory, and this may be explored with no need for realisations or religious commitments.

Thus we can agree with Hume about Biblical truths, (and I do), without any need to doubt the claims of the perennial philosophy. It is certainly telling that Western philosophy cannot understand metaphysics, answer its questions or solve its problems, while mysticism entirely explains it.

Very much agree about the 'BBC fallacy'. I suspect this might even qualify as a philosophical fallacy.

Stephen wrote: "Hi Ethan,

Totally agree with you.
And yes, epistemology makes the world a puzzle. But one has to start there and then pass through it to enjoy the canvass of the world. An understanding of our lim..."

Hi Stephen,

I can agree man had to run that puzzle to stop at a canvass, but do you think it ended in failure? I know the search for what we can know didn't end with Hume, but in terms of empirical philosophy, has anyone surpassed him in his epistemology? In Bertrand Russel's intro to Hume he described him as "...a dead end: in his direction, it is impossible to go further." calling him the conclusion to empiricist philosophy of Locke and Berkley. After Hume it'd seem to me we're just left with the canvass. There is only sensations muddying a report to a mind which also, to him doesn't exist. I don't believe I agree with Hume wholesale but it seems to me that through his thinking we can know nothing for sure. Does that leave truth to only be negative? What we cannot know? Or do you think that there never was an objective truth and it was always perspectival? In an age where religious belief is fading away I don't believe man can afford to say it's not perspectival, if we don't we're left with nothing.

With regards to the religious discussion. Would you say that religious truths contain philosophical truth? If truth is perspectival the answer must be yes. If it's not perspectival what makes their truths anything more or less than the atheistic assumptions? Religion is often the vehicle by which philosophical beliefs are created and espoused, and that bleeds even into our secular thought. Even the valuation of truth itself has a religious origin, why should we value truth? In turn why should we value epistemology? We've seemingly hit the bedrock and now everyone subscribes to their own theology.

@Ethan, I didn't take your claim to be rude or heavy handed. I hope you didn't take my response to be. I did take (mild) exception to your claim about science, but not to the way you said it.

I am familiar with the stereotype of scientist as the self- appointed high priest of truth. I haven't seen much evidence to support it, however. That's not to say such evidence doesn't exist, of course. It might. I think I allowed scientists do tend toward arrogance. But I doubt any more so, on average, than lawyers, politicians, doctors, or--yes--philosophers or theologians.

To return to the existence of an external world, it seems one of two things must be true: it exists or does not. If it does not, then we are, for unknown reasons, systematically deceived that it exists. (Or at any rate, I am. You might just be part of the illusion.) If Ockham's razor has any validity, we justified in concluding the external world does probably exist. It entails fewer assumptions. Of course, Ockham's razor itself might just be a feature of the deception, perhaps introduced by a malevolent Cartesian demon or AI overlord to discourage us (or at least me) from piercing the veil. I find the whole line of speculation dreadful.

@Peter, How does western philosophy fail to understand metaphysics, or answer its questions, or solve its problems? How does mysticism entirely explain it?

Hi Peter,

Your example 'I am' I can accept. Descartes said it with 'I think, therefore I am'. This is logic. Indeed he could have extended this reasoning with 'therefore time exists, and therefore space exists', but he didn't, he went on to make mistakes in his logic by assuming God exists and assuming God would not fool him. Also he set Western philosophy on the wrong path for years with his Cartesian dualism.
But if a mystic tells me something and does not produce any evidence it is not much use to me, although I can accept it is meaningful to him. I may be able to get an idea of his meaning using Inductive logic and abduction based on my own experiences and world view, but I would still credit this with less than 100% accuracy, which seem far from your idea of 'truth'.

Hi Ethan,

There is a Russel quote I love. He said that ‘Hume produced a scepticism that no one could deny but no one could accept’.
Russell was a mathematician at heart and looked for certainty in things, but he never found it.
I’m not in the least disheartened by Hume’s stance on epistemology. Indeed, it fits well with the latest scientific theories on how the brain works, and with Wittgenstein’s later theories of language games. Also, Richard Rorty’s ideas about progress in philosophy as being ‘a contest between an entrenched vocabulary which has become a nuisance and a half formed new vocabulary which vaguely promises new things’.
I accept we can only understand the world via our concepts (we can’t touch an atom for instance) and our concepts are built via our experience of living in the world, we have to re-purpose them to understand new things, and that is fun.
There is an external world, and we can find out tons of stuff about it, but such understanding is always at a distance via our concepts.
Early Western philosophy covered everything, including religion. Some things became more systemized and became separate entities like biology, astronomy, physics etc. Religion also split off becoming theology. Religions often become stuck in unchanging dogmas. The sciences are open-ended and by nature self-correcting, but we still need philosophy to try to understand the findings of science with a human perspective.
Rock bottom? Not at all, epistemology shows us how we understand the world, and from there the world is our oyster!

Skallagrimsen wrote: "@Peter, How does western philosophy fail to understand metaphysics, or answer its questions, or solve its problems? How does mysticism entirely explain it?"

For Western philosophy metaphysics is a mystery. Thus we have logical positivism, dialethism, scientism and so forth. After thousands of years philosophers in this tradition still cannot decide whether we have freewill, whether the world began with something or nothing, whether there is a God and so forth. As you say above, they cannot even decided whether the external world is real or not. All such questions are found to be undecidable, since both of their answers may be reduced to absurdity.

Meanwhile. for thousands of years the mystics have been telling us that the reason all these extreme views may be reduced to absurdity is that they are wrong. The Buddha and Lao Tzu endorse a neutral metaphysical theory for which the world is 'advaita' or 'not two'. The second century philosopher-monk Nagarjuna explains this in his 'Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way'.

In summary. Western philosophy is dualistic. It assumes metaphysical questions can be decided but is unable to decide them, and the result is incomprehension. The Perennial philosophy states that they are undecidable and explains why this is.

Thus all metaphysical questions are intractable problems in Western thought, while they are not even problems for the Perennial tradition.

In short, metaphysics is incomprehensible where it lacks the idea of 'non-duality'.

Does this make sense so far?






This is

Stephen wrote: "Hi Peter,

Your example 'I am' I can accept. Descartes said it with 'I think, therefore I am'. This is logic. Indeed he could have extended this reasoning with 'therefore time exists, and therefore..."

I agree that Descartes made mistakes. But to me it seems a mistake to see 'I think therefore I am' as a logical argument. If he stopped thinking he would still know 'I am'. The words 'I think therefore' are redundant. To think 'I am' requires thought, but to know and be 'I am' does not.

If a mystic tells you something and does not produce any evidence then you would be sensible to doubt it. But what they say is often easily verifiable by reference to commonly available evidence, and the rest is always verifiable by reference to our own experience.

For instance, if I say (with the mystics) that all extreme metaphysical positions are logically absurd this is a matter of logic verifiable by anyone. However, if I say all such positions are wrong this is an interpretation of logic and so cannot be proved in logic, thus can only be verified in one's own experience.

So you are forced to accept the first claim of mysticism but not the second. Or, to put it another way, you are forced to accept the intrasubjectively verifiable facts of metaphysics, but not the veracity of the mystic's explanation for them.

Hi Peter,

You say, incorrectly, that Western philosophy "cannot decide whether we have freewill, whether the world began with something or nothing, whether there is a God and so forth".
Let me help you. Yes we have freewill, the universe began as a big bang, and there is no God,
Philosophy informed by science provides these answers as strongly as any scientific facts can be. The job of philosophy now in respect of these things is to help us understand this with a human perspective.
Philosophy has other, more complex roles too, covering things like ethics, politics and how to live life.
Some people like mysteries to stay mysteries because they like the world to be mysterious. Scientists like a mystery because it gives them something to work on.
I'm afraid we will just have to agree to differ in this thread.
Best wishes,
Stephen

Stephen wrote: "Hi Ethan,

There is a Russel quote I love. He said that ‘Hume produced a scepticism that no one could deny but no one could accept’.
Russell was a mathematician at heart and looked for certainty i..."

Hi Stephen,

I appreciate your insights and thoughts on epistemology and Hume, got his Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding on the way, and look forward to reading it after this discussion. Cheers!

Stephen wrote: "Hi Peter,

You say, incorrectly, that Western philosophy "cannot decide whether we have freewill, whether the world began with something or nothing, whether there is a God and so forth".
Let me help you. Yes we have freewill, the universe began as a big bang, and there is no God,
..."

I had assumed that you are a student of philosophy, but apparently not. It's not so easy to gainsay almost every philosopher who ever lived. As you say, we'[l have to agree to differ.

Student of philosophy and of science, not of mysticism.

Re "every philosopher who ever lived"!
There's a quote I like from one of my favourite philosophers Dan Dennett: 'The reason we teach the history of philosophy is that it is the history of very smart men making very tempting mistakes'.

Most philosophers lived before the advent of science. Their insights on things like ethics, politics, how we relate to each other and to our community are valid, they had direct experience in that, but on the nature of the world and on how the mind works, we need to update their ideas in the light of science. Just taking one example (from many), Plato, great as he was on other matters , thought that when someone dies their soul goes to live in a star with there being one star for each of us!

Stephen wrote: "Student of philosophy and of science, not of mysticism.

Re "every philosopher who ever lived"!
There's a quote I like from one of my favourite philosophers Dan Dennett: 'The reason we teach the hi..."

Stephen

Not a student of philosophy, or you would not make such statements about freewill, the big bang and so forth.

I don't want to come across as rude but given your views it seems best that I don't get involved. I might explode with indignation, and I'd rather not. Each to their own, as they say. All the best.

Peter wrote: "To think 'I am' requires thought, but to know and be 'I am' does not."

This does not make sense. To know something requires a brain. If someone had their head removed they could not 'know' anything. If you know 'I am' then you are thinking, it is your brain working. 'I am' is a concept, in fact it is two concepts.

Stephen wrote: "Peter wrote: "To think 'I am' requires thought, but to know and be 'I am' does not."

This does not make sense. To know something requires a brain. If someone had their head removed they could not ..."

Well, I would disagree. In my world-view 'knowing' is fundamental and does not depend on having a brain. This is the Perennial philosophy, which I endorse.

If knowing 'I Am' requires a brain then all of religion and mysticism may be dismissed as nonsense. But perhaps you think it should be. If so, fair enough.

Oh dear.

I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader. How is it possible to 'know' something if you haven't got a brain?

Or perhaps I'll just ask a rock? :)

Stephen wrote: "Oh dear.

I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader. How is it possible to 'know' something if you haven't got a brain?

Or perhaps I'll just ask a rock? :)"
Have you not come across this idea before? That knowing is prior to the phenomenal world is necessary for mysticism, and is not a new claim. You have some fun reading ahead if it is new to you. There is a vast literature on the topic.

I wouldn't want to argue, but will say more if you want to pursue it. For mysticism epistemology and ontology are the same topic.

@Peter,

“Western philosophy” isn’t a thing that decides things. It is a collection of disparate philosophers with diverse and, yes, often conflicting ideas. Often they have little more than geography in common. Sometimes not even that. Elsewhere on this site I have argued that it is neither meaningful nor useful to divide philosophy into categories such as “Western” and “Eastern” (or at any rate “non-Western”). To draw arbitrary boundaries around a group of philosophers and philosophies, and then criticize “it” for failing to be internally consistent, as you have, is to commit the very fallacy you impute to “it”: dualism.

More to the point, “deciding” what is true is not the same thing as it being true. Grant, for the sake of argument, that it is meaningful to divide Western philosophy from mysticism. Now grant further that those whom you call "the mystics"--you cite Buddha, Lao Tzu, and Nagarjuna as examples--are in perfect accordance on questions such as free will, the existence of God, the origin of the world, and the reality of an external world. I don't see then how that's a point in their favor. If human beings are limited in their faculties of understanding--which seems as self evident a proposition as any I could name--then it seems wiser, as well as less arrogant, to suspend judgment about the ultimate nature of things. Traditions that challenge and confront such complacent claims, and offer fresh interpretations and new theories for examination and debate, seem more useful, more intellectually honest, and frankly more interesting to me than those which pretend the answers were all "decided" millennia ago.

You claimed, unlike "western philosophers," the mystics perfectly understand metaphysics. Transitively, you perfectly understand metaphysics yourself. Otherwise how could you even be in a position to make such a claim? And how did you come by a perfect understanding of being, knowing, substance, causality, identity, space and time?

Finally, is the premise of your argument even correct? Is there complete conformity of belief among "the mystics" about the nature of reality? As I understand it, there is within Buddhism, for example, a rich tradition of philosophical debate about the ultimate questions of existence. It goes back to the Buddha himself and persists unabated to this day. Why else would Buddhism have divided into so many distinct and sometimes rival schools of interpretation? To its credit, Buddhist philosophy, at least, appears not to be the stagnant system you mistake and celebrate it for, but a vital and dynamic tradition that, no less than "western philosophy" has grappled for thousands of years with biggest questions confronting humanity.

Skallagrimsen wrote: "@Peter,

“Western philosophy” isn’t a thing that decides things. It is a collection of disparate philosophers with diverse and, yes, often conflicting ideas. Often they have little more than geogra..."
I dislike the phrase 'Eastern' philosophy for being fairly meaningless, but 'Western' seems alright since philosophers often self-identify as belonging to this tradition, (that of Thales, Plato, Kant, Russell et al) and because it is so clearly characterised by dualism.

The mystics endorse non-dualism, which translates into metaphysics as a neutral theory. A neutral theory overcomes all problems of philosophy and allows us to make sense of the subject. I would not say I understand it perfectly, as you suggest, but correctly. I don't buy into your idea that human beings cannot know the truth about such things. It would require that the mystics do not know what they say they do.

Your view of Buddhist philosophy is somewhat incorrect. You'll be hard put to find a Buddhist philosopher who does not endorse the metaphysics of Nagarjuna, who proves the absurdity of all positive metaphysical theories. There are some points of disagreement and dispute but they are subtle. On the basics there is a near unanimous agreement. There has to be an agreement, since the Buddha's enlightenment (or anyone else's) is only possible if one particular metaphysical theory is true.

The Perennial philosophy carries this name for a reason, and one reason is that it does not change. Why would it, when the nature of reality never changes?

I know you're sceptical, but I believe most people could understand metaphysics better than most philosophers in the western tradition if only they did the sums. I say so in a forthcoming book, but I won't go there.

If you don't understand metaphysics perfectly yourself, how are you in a position to claim anyone else does?

I don't think I suggested that humans can't know the truth, only that our faculties of understanding are limited. Do you disagree?

If there has ever been a single Buddhist philosopher, at any time in the past 2,500 years, who disputed the metaphysics of Nagarjuna, would you concede that Buddhist philosophy, like "western philosophy" can't decide the truth of metaphysics? If not, why not? How much disagreement would you allow within a tradition, and how unsubtle would it have to be, before you would concede that it cannot reach a consensus about the ultimate questions?

Will you please cite an example of Thales, Plato, or Kant referring to "western philosophy" or to himself as a "western philosopher"?

Peter wrote: "Skallagrimsen wrote: "@Peter,

“Western philosophy” isn’t a thing that decides things. It is a collection of disparate philosophers with diverse and, yes, often conflicting ideas. Often they have l..."

"If you don't understand metaphysics perfectly yourself, how are you in a position to claim anyone else does?"

It's the word 'perfectly' that is causing the problem. I prefer to say I understand metaphysics correctly, and can therefore judge when someone else does so.

"I don't think I suggested that humans can't know the truth, only that our faculties of understanding are limited. Do you disagree?"

It would depend on where you place the limit. Understanding metaphysics sufficiently well to overcome its problems and answer its questions is well within our powers. It's well within your powers.

"If there has ever been a single Buddhist philosopher, at any time in the past 2,500 years, who disputed the metaphysics of Nagarjuna, etc ..."

It is well-known that the mystics endorse a neutral metaphysical theory for which 'all is one', and nothing really exists or ever really happens. Would it not be rather odd if they had any major disagreements about metaphysics?

Once one endorses the advaita philosophy there is little left to disagree about. All extreme, selective or positive metaphysical views would be wrong, which leaves only one option for the correct theory.

Western thinkers are well aware that all positive theories don't work, and Kant makes it clear in the Critique. but they usually get stuck here because they don't study mysticism and the only theory that works. When we do this metaphysics becomes comprehensible.

"Will you please cite an example of Thales, Plato, or Kant referring to "western philosophy" or to himself as a "western philosopher"?"

A misunderstanding. I didn't suggest that they did. But many philosophers place themselves in the tradition of these people, and call it 'western', 'rational' or somesuch.

I agree with you that it is mistake to compartmentalize philosophy into 'Western' and 'Eastern'. or 'rational' and 'mystical', but it seems to me that you are doing just this, since you seem to have studied the former but not the latter. Is this a fair comment?

A comprehension of metaphysics requires that we can explain the failure of all extreme views, and the only available explanation is the truth of the Perennial philosophy. Consequently, a study of mysticism is necessary for an understanding of metaphysics. This explains why thinkers in the western tradition are unable to make sense of metaphysics and tend to scoff when anyone suggests it is possible to do so.

The crucial issue is that mysticism would have to be nonsense unless one particular fundamental theory is true. No other allows the possibility of 'enlightenment', immortality and 'union with reality'. If we do not know this theory then,. as history shows, we will be unable to make sense of metaphysics. We will be unable to find a theory that survives analysis. Hence in the mainstream western tradition of thought nobody can make sense of metaphysics. The trick would be to take your advice and study the whole of philosophy, but few people do this.














reply | flag

back to top
You are following this discussion (instant email). Edit


comment
add book/author (some html is ok)


.

So, we hear that mysticism is the solution to all philosophy!
Forget about epistemology, ignore science, and misrepresent the broad nature of metaphysics. Lets strive for immortality and 'union with reality'.
What? You don't understand? Don't worry, 'there is a vast literature on the subject'.
As there is on angels, fairies, ley lines, astrology, homeopathy, alchemy, etc., etc. Does 'vast literature' equal truth??

@Peter

"It's the word 'perfectly' that is causing the problem. I prefer to say I understand metaphysics correctly, and can therefore judge when someone else does so."

It was you who introduced the term "perfectly." You can scroll up and verify that if you've forgotten. It was precisely your use of the term that provoked the question from me that began our exchange.

"A misunderstanding. I didn't suggest that they did. But many philosophers place themselves in the tradition of these people, and call it 'western', 'rational' or somesuch."

It wasn't a misunderstanding. It was just a question, and not a rhetorical one. It seemed a logical question given your claim that "...'Western' [philosophy] seems alright since philosophers often self-identify as belonging to this tradition..." If three of the four philosophers you just named as representative of the alleged tradition never used the term, or a comparable one, then it does seem inaccurate to say they self-identified as "western philosophers." When did the distinction even enter philosophical parlance? The 19th century? The 20th? The fact that many have since used such terms doesn't prove they are accurate or useful. That's a basic category error.

"I agree with you that it is mistake to compartmentalize philosophy into 'Western' and 'Eastern'. or 'rational' and 'mystical'..."

Again, earlier you said "'...Western' seems alright since philosophers often self-identify as belonging to this tradition, (that of Thales, Plato, Kant, Russell et al) and because it is so clearly characterised by dualism."

Which is it?

"...but it seems to me that you are doing just this, since you seem to have studied the former but not the latter. Is this a fair comment?"

I've read the Tao Te Ching in multiple translations. Chinese philosophy is a specialty of the co-founder of my philosophy meetup group, and Taoism is a frequent theme of our discussions. From him I am also acquainted with more obscure branches of Chinese philosophy such as Yangism and Mohism. I've read the Bhagavad Gita several times, again in multiple translations, with my earliest attempt being in high school over 30 years ago; it remains one of my favorite books. Other classics of "eastern philosophy" I've read include but are not limited to The Analects of Confucius, The Art of War by Sun Tzu, and The Book of Five Rings by Miyamoto Musashi. I've dabbled in Buddhist scriptures, the Upanishads, the Zhuangzi, and the rest of the Mahabharata, among others. Beyond that, I've read popularizers such as Alan Watts, many relevant general histories, articles and encyclopedia entries, and attended lectures or watched many relevant podcasts online.

Lately I've been pursuing my longtime interest in the Greco-Buddhist syncretism in the Indo-Greek kingdom under Menander I. Just last Saturday I discussed the similarities and differences between quantum physics Hindu metaphysics with a Hindu philosopher I met at another meetup. I've been blessed with the opportunity for many such conversations over recent years in the intellectual circles I travel, and I am always happy to seek them out.

I am also acquainted with Sufiism, through scholars like Idries Shah. Podcasters like "Let's Talk Religion" stimulated a recent interest in the philosophical poetry of Al Arabi. I've studied the history of Islamic philosophy, as a subset of my deep interest in the history of the Islamic Golden Age. I've read far more by and about Ibn Khaldun than I am likely to ever read by or about Kant.

It was probably studying Muslim philosophers such Al Kindi, Ibn Rushd ("Averroes"), and Ibn Sina ("Avicenna"), by the way, that first caused me to question the utility of the term "western philosophy." Al Kindi, for example, surely has more in common with Aristotle than Aristotle does with, say, Hume or Nietzsche. Yet Aristotle, Hume and Nietzsche are all classified as "western philosophers" and Al Kindi isn't. The borders between "western philosophy" and other traditions seem as arbitrary and fictious as the borders of "Europe" itself.

I don't claim to be an expert on any of the aforementioned (nor for that matter on "western philosophy"). I still haven't read or thought as much as I would like, or will if I'm granted many more years. Still, it seems more than enough that the answer to your question is, no, it doesn't seem fair to say I've "studied the latter and not the former." Not a bit.

"The trick would be to take your advice and study the whole of philosophy..."

I believe the only philosophical position I've taken in this exchange is skepticism of the claim that "the mystics," and implicitly yourself, possess perfect knowledge of absolute reality. I didn't frame it that way, you did. I don't know how or why you extrapolated from this single point of disagreement that I was unacquainted with any philosophy outside the very "western" tradition whose existence, as such, I was calling into question. I believe it's characteristic of dualists to mistake disagreement for ignorance. My best guess is that you are projecting the unacknowledged dualism of your own thought.

Skallagrimsen wrote: "@Peter

Please point out where I said I understood anything perfectly. .

You say "I believe the only philosophical position I've taken in this exchange is skepticism of the claim that "the mystics," and implicitly yourself, possess perfect knowledge of absolute reality."

Okay. Let's use the word 'correctly' instead. This allows for some variation in depth of understanding between people. If you were to use the word 'correctly' in this sentence then I'd say it is badly mistaken. I take it you believe mysticism is nonsense and that those who claim a knowledge of reality are deluded. Fair enough. Many people do .

Sorry about the italics, Can't figure out how to change this.

.

Stephen wrote: "So, we hear that mysticism is the solution to all philosophy!
Forget about epistemology, ignore science, and misrepresent the broad nature of metaphysics. Lets strive for immortality and 'union wit..."

With all due respect, Stephen:

Within the confines of our philosophical enquiries, conduct resulting in 'an agreement to differ' is an inauthentic and cowardly fashion of discourse. All streams and movements act as answers to antecedent ideas, but it is not the case that the present mode of discourse supersedes our past theses regarding truths and knowledge, for the reason that our present is all too dogmatic. The purpose of modern thought is that of shying away from captial-T Truths, leaving a hundred per cent of ideas of modernity with a very least amount of validity; to define our 'knowledge' as only that which is unfalsifiable bounds us in a position of unending uncertainty, all the more pathetic when real wisdom gets dismissed as nonsense-gone-by. To preclude metaphysics as a foundation for enquiry is finding oneself in Plato's cave, or a pit of darkness, capable of touching objects, but never perceiving their essence via higher senses. It is not by chance that various traditions have independently come towards the same Perennial ideas. Western modern teachings have retarded us. The West is a closed-minded people, intoxicated by its own vainglory and hubris; by its dogmatic worship of progress; by its dogmatic secularism; and by its dogmatic obsession with materialism. -- That the West dismisses past ideas on assertion of it being dogmatic is a funniest joke.

'What? You don't understand? Don't worry, 'there is a vast literature on the subject'.
As there is on angels, fairies, ley lines, astrology, homeopathy, alchemy, etc., etc. Does 'vast literature' equal truth?'

The sentimentally persuaded would make such a childish dismissal. Is this form of rhetoric what the history of Western philosophy has come to? For it is a ghastly one.

Hi C.
I was responding to Peter, It was he (earlier in the thread) who pushed "vast literature" on me, committing the 'appeal to authority' logical fallacy.
He also seems to think that there is one solution to metaphysics, a mystical one, which of course he doesn't share. This is a misunderstanding of the meaning of the very broad and interesting topic of metaphysics.
And by the way, to say that 'the West is a closed-minded people', is a very sweeping and derogatory comment.
Regards,
Stephen

Stephen wrote: "Hi C.
I was responding to Peter, It was he (earlier in the thread) who pushed "vast literature" on me, committing the 'appeal to authority' logical fallacy.
He also seems to think that there is one..."

Stephen:

This logical fallacy that you mention is one that is applicable in a number of domains, not exempting the one that enjoys your endorsement.

>He also seems to think that there is one solution to metaphysics, a mystical one, which of course he doesn't share.

In metaphysics, there are no 'solutions', since metaphysics by its very character is not concerned with problems, such as those of lower 'spheres of philosophy'. Western intellectuals who 'adhere to philosophies' (scientism, for one) are fundamentally incapable of this sort of thinking, since they have bound themselves to those lower spheres and closed their minds towards what is external to their dogma. (This 'derogation', as you call it, has not been made in a vacuum; although, it is rather provocative, but not 'derogatory'.) On the matter of mystics, those holders of knowledge accessed through forms of delibaration unacquainted to Westerners (modern ones, for that matter), their dealings with metaphysics and certainly their experience are a subjective matter, pertaining to their individual 'revelation', which are rarely spontaneous, but instead slowly mentally advanced towards via a dialectic. That you do not dismiss it entirely is relatively commendable, but as philosophers, this position ought not be where one simply halts and continues in his own naval-gazing fruitless follies, which are in their place notwithstanding those juxtaposing dealings in metaphysics by mystics: proper conduct of course involves rigorous investigation, because otherwise 'being learned' would be a performative act, and one's opinions and contentions would be immediately discredited. Furthermore, that mystics deal with metaphysics does not preclude a non-mystical public to investigate metaphysics. Our use of the term 'mystical' is one that appeals to our sentimental ideas about religion. A mystic concerned with dealings in metaphysics stripped of his religious contingencies becomes a dialectician. It is because Meister Eckhart was a Christian that also we call him a mystic. Plato and Aristotle certainly were metaphysical and dialecticians, but neither of them do we call mystics (although, for the record, some few would). It only happens that the richest discourses on metaphysical matters came from those who we call mystics; and since we attribute intellectuals in Eastern philosophy directly with their religious contingencies, we call them mystics, as well. Moreover, it is a foremost suggestion to point someone towards literature in order to acquaint them with and let them develop a more durable and substantial understanding of the matter, only under the condition, however, that it not be joylessly halted by dismissals and closed-mindedness, as confusion is rather a preface that should provoke further investigation towards understanding, and not antipathy.

C.

It seems to me y’all are getting pretty mean with each other. Perhaps we should all take a step back and do what I first learned in Phil 101 - define our terms. So what the hell do we mean by metaphysics? If we don’t all agree, then we’re all talking past each other.

Philosophy is an intellectual enterprise that has been practiced for millennia. At first, it was an attempt to understand our world and guess what, it still is. Albeit, in the beginning some of our explanations may have been rather silly (as we look back from our lofty perch in the modern world).

As a student of philosophy (not a philosopher per se), I’m most interested in learning. So, if I’m not being presumptuous, let’s start here: Stephen - I’ve read some of your stuff and have found that you are very insightful. What is metaphysics?

Thanks for hearing me out.

Hi Frank,

You are right, we are probably not meaning the same thing by the term metaphysics. And good philosophers should define their terms.

I take the term to mean the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, identity, time, and space.

The prefix meta means looking at something from one step detached. So metadata would be data about data, metacognition would be thinking about thinking, etc.

Metaphysics is not one thing, it is a grouping term for questions about the physical world, questions like the following:-

What is the nature of the world?
What does it mean to exist?
How do we explain things that change?
What is the nature of consciousness?
What is matter?
What is time and space?
What is the mind and how does it work?
Do we have free will?
Is the world deterministic?

These are separate questions which might or might not be linked. But it seems highly unlikely there is one answer to everything as some have implied. To my mind there is a big place for science to help here these days, and then we need philosophy to understand those finding with a human perspective.

Starter for 10 :)

@Peter

"Please point out where I said I understood anything perfectly."

You claimed the mystics perfectly understand metaphysics. How could you know that without perfectly understanding metaphysics yourself?

"I take it you believe mysticism is nonsense and that those who claim a knowledge of reality are deluded."

You believe that about me, I suspect, for the same reason you believed that I was unfamiliar with philosophical thought outside the so-called western tradition. Throughout this discussion you have extrapolated beyond anything that could be reasonably inferred from my claims. From the bare fact that I disagree with you about a point, you seem to have formed strong, but quite erroneous, opinions about my beliefs and level of knowledge. You might have inquired, but chose to presume. Without intending disrespect, this doesn't inspire my confidence in your grasp of the absolute.

As it happens, I subscribe to an agnostic version of what the Sufis call Wahdat al-Wujud or "the unity of being." I believe everything that is is part of the same underlying reality. The multiplicity of forms we perceive in the world are waves in the ocean of existence. I am a monist, not a dualist. Does that make me a mystic? It depends on your definition of the term. I have certainly had what I would call mystical experiences, both with and without psychedelics. (Not as many or as recently as I would wish, but I remain hopeful for the future.)

Yet however you define a mystic, I would never deny he had any knowledge of reality. The proposition that knowledge is impossible is itself a knowledge claim, therefore self-refuting. If it's right it's wrong. Some level of knowledge, at least, seems inescapable for any sentient being, mystics included. Where I demur is at claims of absolute or perfect knowledge, particularly of the most fundamental nature of reality. Reformulating it as "correct" rather than "perfect" hardly seems an improvement. It seems better, and indeed less dualistic, to speak of degrees of correctness.

I believe what I believe after decades of experience, reflection, and study, but I would not call it absolute knowledge. It's not even so much that I fear my beliefs are wrong as sense that they are, and perhaps must be, incomplete. My intuition is that our limited minds are not structured to grasp the totality of existence. Our descriptions of understanding, however subtle, penetrating, or beautiful, will always fall short of the grandeur of the Truth. Or as Lao Tzu put it "The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao."

Skallagrimsen wrote: "@Peter
You claimed the mystics perfectly understand metaphysics. How could you know that without perfectly understanding metaphysi..."

I wish you'd stop putting words in my mouth. I keep asking you to refrain.

I haven't handled this discussion well, for which I apologise. Let me be clear about what I'm saying.

It is demonstrable that (in the words of Kant) all selective conclusions about the world as a whole are undecidable. Equivalently, in the words of FH Bradley, metaphysics does not endorse a positive result. Or, as Nagarjuna proves, all positive metaphysical positions are logically indefensible. This means that the only global theory that works is a neutral one.

The Perennial philosophy endorses a neutral or 'non-dual' theory and rejects all others for being wrong, including monism.

In this case metaphysics is a straightforward affair. Only one theory works and all we need do is to study it. This is, of course, exactly what most philosophers don't bother to do. So they believe that metaphysics is hopelessly difficult and complicated and explode with ire when I suggest that most people would be able to understand it better than most philosophers of the past.

As for the idea that the human mind is so limited it cannot understand Truth, this is to dismiss the Perennial philosophy as nonsense and condemn oneself to never understanding metaphysics or the true nature of mind. Thus. inevitably, mainstream 'western' thinkers never understand metaphysics. mind or consciousness. To do so requires that we understand the metaphysical foundation of mysticism.
.
None of this is my fault, so please don't shoot the messenger.

I don't recall you asking me to refrain from anything. Will you kindly quote yourself to that effect? Not that I did put words in your mouth. If A claims that B perfectly understands C, then A is implicitly claiming to also perfectly understand C. Otherwise A is in no position to make that claim. It's the inescapable logical corollary, derived from your words. As it happens, I didn't particularly care to repeat that point. I did so only in direct response to a question you put to me. It would have been discourteous to ignore a direct question.

To disagree with a proposition, let alone evince skepticism about it, is not the same as dismissing it as nonsense. To question whether the human mind is capable of encompassing the totality of the truth isn't the same as saying it can't know any portion of the truth. Such sweeping, sloppy dichotomies only affirm my suspicions of an unconscious dualism in your thinking.

Are you suggesting I'm exploding with ire? If so, how did you gain access to my emotional state? If not, what was the point of that comment? Are you just generalizing about me again, as when you erroneously assumed I was unacquainted with "non-western" philosophy or that I dismiss mysticism as nonsense? Do you think you can tell the eternal Tao?

Hi Skallagrimsen,

I love the first verse of the Tao Te Ching, Lao Tzu had some real insights into the human condition. If you can name a thing then you don't understand the thing.

I agree with your intuition is that our limited minds are not structured to grasp the totality of existence. We 'understand' the world with our concepts and these are inductive constructs we make based on our experience in the world (direct experience, talking and listening to others, and reading). These concepts grow and get modified as we learn, and they can be good enough for us to act effectively in the world. But they are still just concepts in our head.

If we think of an atom of iron say. We first thought it was the smallest bit of a a lump of iron that couldn't be divided again, but it still a bit of iron. Then we learned it had a nucleus and was surrounded by electrons, and our concept of it became more like a miniature solar system. Then we learned that the nucleus had a structure, Then we learned that we sometimes have to think about is as a wave and sometimes as a particle. But we still can't see it of touch it, we can only 'understand' it by re-purposing concepts from our familiar, everyday experience of life.

In the iron example, we see concepts changing over the hundreds of years. However, the same holds true over our own life journey. As a baby we know nothing, as a five year old we can use the word 'doctor', but does the five year old know what a doctor is? But the five year old will probably use the word correctly, and the listener will probably understand their meaning. An eight year old will have a more developed concept of the word 'doctor', as will an eighteen year old. But will the eighteen year old understand it as well as a doctor him/her/self?

As I said, we understand the world through our concepts, and these are in a constant process of being updated. But our concepts are just in our head, and as you say 'will always fall short'. Naming a thing can be helpful, but it can also be a barrier to understanding.

Skallagrimsen wrote: "I don't recall you asking me to refrain from anything. Will you kindly quote yourself to that effect? Not that I did put words in your mouth. If A claims that B perfectly understands C, then A is i..."

You tell me that I cannot have a correct understanding unless it is perfect, which is a point I cannot understand.

And you tell me you are sceptical of the claims of mysticism and yet believe they are not nonsense, which is another point I cannot understand.

I suggest we leave it and move on. I'll leave this thread and stop causing trouble.

Stephen wrote: "Hi Frank,

You are right, we are probably not meaning the same thing by the term metaphysics. And good philosophers should define their terms.

I take the term to mean the branch of philosophy that..."

Defining our terms is a proper way to initiate an investigation, but this definition you suggest longs for several propositions for amendment.

The prefix meta means looking at something from one step detached. So metadata would be data about data, metacognition would be thinking about thinking, etc.

That you say the root 'physics' prefixed with 'meta-' means discourse on a matter involving a one-step-detachment is a correct way to go about it. However, the subject-object orientation in your definition is reversed: you take metaphysics to be a discipline that analyses φύσις (the natural cosmos or 'physical world' as you called it) from beyond our usual point-of-view; we who do the investigating enter this 'meta-' position. What is meant by the term metaphysics in actuality involves a study of that which transcends or is 'beyond' φύσις, which are those universal principles. Thus it is not only the study of the physical world (this corresponds with physics, not metaphysics). Metaphysics more aptly put should be defined as 'the knowledge of the Universal, or, if preferred, the knowledge of principles belonging to the universal order,' (René Guénon, Ιntroduction to the Study of the Hindu Doctrines, 1921, Sophia Perennis, 2004 ed., pp. 71). The universal order is the level of reality at which duality is no longer valid. 'Universal being', for example, belongs to the universal order, because Being itself is not separated from anything: there is nothing in the world that does not have the nature of being. One cannot have two distinct instances of Being. Non-duality (absence of separation and differentiation) is the fundamental characteristic of the universal order. Chapter 5 Essential Characteristic of Metaphysics in the above mentioned book is a good account. The explanation of the scope of metaphysics in it is precise. To summarise it: metaphysics is a 'Universal' discipline that encompasses a universal domain, as opposed to a general one. Sciences of the general domain utilise reason and empiricism. Information in metaphysics is obtained by use of an 'intellectual intuition' or 'pure intellect' within one's own tradition; these are the 'mystics'; however, as I mentioned before, stripped of their religious contingencies, they are dialecticians. The Aristotelian or scholastic 'pure intellect' is non-conceptual thought, shapeless thought, thought without symbols, thought not bound by forms like language, emotion, reason, or anything else that can symbolise. Non-conceptual thought was attained through meditation. The essence of metaphysics can only be referred to in analogical media and not fully expressed through the use of language, esp. modern European ones; it is permanent and changeless, as opposed to the objects of modern sciences, as it lies 'beyond nature', foreasmuch as it lies beyond that which changes.

Frank, you were correct, we were using different definitions.
There is no way to discuss epistemology seriously with anyone claiming knowledge via mysticism or revelation. So I will leave it there.
Anyone else I'm happy to converse with.

@ Peter

"You tell me that I cannot have a correct understanding unless it is perfect, which is a point I cannot understand."

I don't think I said you cannot have a correct understanding unless its perfect. I believe I said I was skeptical that you, or anyone, has a perfect or completely correct understanding of the deepest nature of being.

"And you tell me you are sceptical of the claims of mysticism and yet believe they are not nonsense, which is another point I cannot understand."

The root of your confusion may be dualism. You seem to be seeing the claim through stark either/or thinking. Mysticism (as you formulate the concept) must be "Correct" or "nonsense." A non-dualistic perspective would appreciate degrees of correctness.