Where's the metaphysics?

[The Mikado]

It always stands out to me that whenever there's a debate between "religion" and "atheism" I have not once seen a philosopher specializing in metaphysics represented.  Even moral philosophers tend to get short shrift.  I can't help but feel that one of the richest strains of human thought is intentionally being shut out away from the public eye.


Why is there an almost total absence of philosophy in public discourse and how can that be addressed? 

[afleitch]

Why should we accept your position that discussion of the metaphysical is required?

[The Mikado]

Why should we accept your position that discussion of the metaphysical is required?

How can discussions of how the Universe came into existence be conducted without a discussion of why the Universe came into existence?  How can a discussion of theorigin of humanity not revolve around what an individual's purpose is and what s/he should do if s/he wishes to lead a good life?  Why do anything at all in face of the paralyzing certainty of the end of one's physical existence in a few decades at most and the twin uncertainty over the results of that end?  Certainly whenever I talk to my friends we spend more time discussing whether we are truly experiencing the Good Life (eudaimonia) of Aristotle and what makes actions good or evil than we spend talking about the latest glowing piece of plastic.  There's a thirst for knowledge of why we exist and what our purpose is and how we should lead a virtuous life that science lays no claim to.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

How can discussions of how the Universe came into existence be conducted without a discussion of why the Universe came into existence?

Does the Universe even have a beginning?  All the Big Bang Theory posits is a beginning of our local surroundings, not the beginning of everything.  Even then it makes the assumption that a linear unidirectional flow of time is relevant.

How can a discussion of the origin of humanity not revolve around what an individual's purpose is and what s/he should do if s/he wishes to lead a good life?

What is the good life and why is it more desirable than the alternatives?

Why do anything at all in face of the paralyzing certainty of the end of one's physical existence in a few decades at most and the twin uncertainty over the results of that end?

Again, you are positing the supremacy of time.  When a few decades from now when the locus of the matter that corresponds to your body has been interred, will you have really ended?  After all the four dimensional spacetime construct known as The Mikado will still exist.  To argue you will not exist a millennium from now when your consciousness will not experience it would be as if I were to argue that since Bushie is outside the state of South Carolina, he does not truly exist.  A tempting argument to be made to be sure since it would mean that I would not need to worry about the fate of Blondie either, yet the fact that neither Bushie nor Blondie are within my direct experiential reference frame of space as I have never been to either Oklahoma or Kenya does not imply they do not exist.

[afleitch]

Why should we accept your position that discussion of the metaphysical is required?

How can discussions of how the Universe came into existence be conducted without a discussion of why the Universe came into existence?  How can a discussion of theorigin of humanity not revolve around what an individual's purpose is and what s/he should do if s/he wishes to lead a good life?  Why do anything at all in face of the paralyzing certainty of the end of one's physical existence in a few decades at most and the twin uncertainty over the results of that end?  Certainly whenever I talk to my friends we spend more time discussing whether we are truly experiencing the Good Life (eudaimonia) of Aristotle and what makes actions good or evil than we spend talking about the latest glowing piece of plastic.  There's a thirst for knowledge of why we exist and what our purpose is and how we should lead a virtuous life that science lays no claim to.

Why does the universe need a 'why' when a 'why' is merely the product of conscious thought and is not postulated by an unconscious universe? Why does it need a 'why' when 'why' may not be part of the thought process or the consciousness of other sentient races that may exist in the universe?

Why, given what we know about evolution should we assume that humanity has an 'origin' (or for that purpose an end) Why is pursuing a 'good life' (other than that which biologically drives us from which we can therefore derive what is 'good') have any bearing on the reason as to why we are conscious or why we exist? Why should 'good' or 'evil' matter to me when they are merely heightened moral statements and not statements of ultimate truth?

You may discuss with your friends what matters to you as I discuss to mine what matters with me. I have just a wide and large thirst for knowledge which leads me to have a very different world view and life experience than you do. I cannot and do not presume that society, or the world 'lacks' by not discussing things that matter to me (as much as I would like every teenager to have a grounding in Hume )

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Why should we accept your position that discussion of the metaphysical is required?

How can discussions of how the Universe came into existence be conducted without a discussion of why the Universe came into existence?

Yes, it can and does. It is called 'Theoretical Physics'.

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

To make a connection between the two is already a dubious assumption (and thus belongs with most metaphysics). Why should universe provide us with the meaning of life? That comes very much to arguing that the universe exists only for our own purposes. We are not that important. I don't see any evidence that the Universe cares about us in any care. To argue otherwise is to anthropomorphize the Universe.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I assume you don't hang around Chemists? Discussing the Good life is of course a valid discussion but I don't see what it has to do with Metaphysics or the Nature of the Universe. This is a different branch of philosophy named 'ethics'. Though like the Wittgenstein of the Tractatus I think that that is really part of aesthetics... which in the end comes down to, at least on the level you are talking about here, personal choice and taste.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There is a thing called 'art'. Why there should be a 'why' for existence must itself be justified. And furthermore there is a very good reason why not to speculate on this - it's that practically everyone who has done it has been wrong.

I thought that at least you would be modernist enough to realize that meaning is what we create. There is no there 'there' independent of observation. You are of course free to answer and discuss those questions, but I doubt you will be more successful than anyone else.

I'm getting tired of this anti-rationalist shtick. In the past you have posted about anti-vaxxers and creationists and on the implications of the big bang and there said nothing unconventional from a scientific perspective. So what is with all the suspicion? There is a strange shrillness and intellectual hypocrisy to these posts. What is so terrible?

[Insula Dei]

It's worth pointing out that the last 40 years or so (since the publication of Naming and Necessity) have seen quite the revival in interest in metaphysical questions in analytical philosophy. Even a revival of essentialism, actually.

Metaphysics of course requires a somewhat higher level of sofistication than the average 'Faith' vs. 'Science' debate

[Tetro Kornbluth]

It's worth pointing out that the last 40 years or so (since the publication of Naming and Necessity) have seen quite the revival in interest in metaphysical questions in analytical philosophy. Even a revival of essentialism, actually.

Metaphysics of course requires a somewhat higher level of sofistication than the average 'Faith' vs. 'Science' debate

That's true as well. Actual serious metaphysical debates require a level of nuance and sophistication that most people would get lost in.

Also as for popular debate and moral philosophy, I will add that the positions of some moral philosophers that have reached a wide audience have been of such that they have managed to make in certain cases Sam Harris look like a star intellectual.

[John Dibble]

Why is there an almost total absence of philosophy in public discourse and how can that be addressed?

Lack of interest or perceived lack of relevance would be my guesses. Personally I don't see a compelling reason to address it, so I guess if you want it to be addressed you need to make people interested and find philosophy to be something relevant to discussion.

[DemPGH]

It always stands out to me that whenever there's a debate between "religion" and "atheism" I have not once seen a philosopher specializing in metaphysics represented.  Even moral philosophers tend to get short shrift.  I can't help but feel that one of the richest strains of human thought is intentionally being shut out away from the public eye. 

Honestly, it might sidetrack the discussion. The religion / atheism debates usually center, I think, around empirical concerns, as in where knowledge comes from. Does it come from fancy and imagination or from what we can observe, test, and predict. Metaphysics would probably be too abstract whereas the debates you mention are usually more about what is concrete and real versus what is not. Which you probably don't like at all, but because we're in a technological and rational age, it's the way it is, at least amongst educated folks.

Why is there an almost total absence of philosophy in public discourse and how can that be addressed? 

A lot of things are "missing" from public discourse, IMO. I think philosophy, which might interest people like us here to varying degrees, is too abstract for most folks. And it might fail the "so what?" test.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The types of thought that there needs to be more discussion of are those of people like Rossetti (Christina), Pascoli, Miyazawa, Kaneko, Weil, Ellul, Girard, and Stringfellow.

Along vaguely similar lines, can anybody recommend writers who are thematically similar to Pier Paolo Pasolini but less, uh...not quite as much so?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Why is there an almost total absence of philosophy in public discourse and how can that be addressed?

Because the society we live in is depressingly shallow, materialistic, ignorance-promoting and short-term focused. We probably all have realized that already.

[Insula Dei]

The types of thought that there needs to be more discussion of are those of people like Rossetti (Christina), Pascoli, Miyazawa, Kaneko, Weil, Ellul, Girard, and Stringfellow.

Along vaguely similar lines, can anybody recommend writers who are thematically similar to Pier Paolo Pasolini but less, uh...not quite as much so?

Malaparte?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Was Malaparte interested in regional cultures and dialects and skeptical of globalism in the same way?

[Insula Dei]

Was Malaparte interested in regional cultures and dialects and skeptical of globalism in the same way?

There is quite a bit on the underclasses of Naples in The Skin. But his great quality is a combination of the mundane and the grotesque that's also present in some of Passolini's work.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

That sounds like it could be really excellent. Thank you for the recommendation.