Here, I intend to rebut the notion that "metaphysics/ontology is beyond us because we cannot transcend experience".

... Implicit in such a notion, is the idea that experience is distinct to reality. This must be the case, or else metaphysics/ontology would not be beyond us - rather, we would have direct access to 'reality' itself.

However, how else could experience be distinct to reality? It must of course be integral to reality - not something altogether distinct to it. Seemingly then, what people who harbour such a notion must mean, is that whatever experience essentially IS, it @appears@ as something which essentially it is not. The experience/observation of the sun, for example, is not the sun itself (likewise for all other 'things')... nor does the appearance of the sun emerge from the appearance of the sun. In a nutshell: we do not observe/experience anything as it actually IS. For 'such people', then, thought develops solely from and through appearances. Therefore, according to them, we have no means of transcending the realm of appearance - which means that we cannot discuss 'reality' itself (metaphysics/ontology).

Rebuttal

1) My rebuttal of this conclusion will first focus upon the highlighted-red text, above. That is, experience has to be integral to reality, regardless of whatever [knowledge] is imparted to us through/as ~appearance~. That is, 'appearances' happen within and emerge from reality - they are not something which happen beyond reality, caused by something UNreal.

... Therefore, it is an error to treat experience/observation/appearances as ontologically distinct to 'reality' itself. That is, if reality is 'X', then experience is of and in X. None of this says what X is, but it does explain why 'the realm of experience' does not prevent us from knowing that there is an X.

Already, above, I have transcended experience. This must be the case because I've made claims which cannot be observed (one cannot observe X, least of all observe that the 'realm of experience' is integral to It). Thus, my progress itself suffices as evidence that reason/thought can transcend the set of knowledge possible from mere 'observation' alone.

Kantians

2) I must also say something about Kant's distinction between the phenomenal (experience) and noumenal (things themselves). Though essentially correct (e.g., the observed sun is not the sun itself), Kant also failed to realise that observation/experience/appearance is integral to reality. The observed sun is not the sun itself, but it is integral to whatever reality itself is. Thus, the noumenal is not a 'beyond realm' to the phenomenal, as he implies, but is instead the very realm of the phenomenal. Hence, noumenal and phenomenal are intertwined: different aspects of the same reality. Thus, essentially, there is nothing to transcend except ignorance and nothing which is transcended when one speaks of 'reality' in relation to one's experiences.

Thus, I do not step outside of any particular realm of existence by discussing 'reality'. I merely shift my focus of thought from appearances [of the world], to the very reality IN (not out) which they are occuring.

Relativists

It is difficult to rebut relativism in a few words, but in a nutshell:

1) One cannot say that there are no absolute truths without refuting oneself.
2) One cannot say that metaphysics is beyond us without first having reasoned why metaphysics is beyond us. That is, one cannot come to such a conclusion without making ontologically-significant distinctions/categorisations between reality and experience - which then suffer from my rebuttals, above. Regardless, the very act of making ontological distinctions is itself an engagement in metaphysics. Thus, also self-refuting.

Wittgensteinians

... "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."

Okay, you're saying nothing so I don't have to rebut you.


If any other ists or ians want to put their case, be my guest.

jamest wrote:...

However, how else could experience be distinct to reality? It must of course be integral to reality - not something altogether distinct to it...

Yes experience is integral to what is experienced. No dualism.

...
Relativists

It is difficult to rebut relativism in a few words, but in a nutshell:

1) One cannot say that there are no absolute truths without refuting oneself.
2) One cannot say that metaphysics is beyond us without first having reasoned why metaphysics is beyond us. That is, one cannot come to such a conclusion without making ontologically-significant distinctions/categorisations between reality and experience - which then suffer from my rebuttals, above. Regardless, the very act of making ontological distinctions is itself an engagement in metaphysics. Thus, also self-refuting.

Relativists say neither that there are no absolute truths nor that metaphysics is beyond us. I simply have not yet hears any absolute truths or metaphysics that makes any sense. I am agnostic about the possibility.

Only an absolutist would make such absolute claims. But you have to be a relativist to understand that. I feel your pain. The one between your ears which BTW don't seem too good at listening.

I'm specifically talking to those who think that metaphysics is impossible. You appear to be sane, so I'll allow you to pass through without paying a toll.

jamest wrote:Already, above, I have transcended experience.

You say you have. A lot of your approach involves either duplicity with respect to the experiences you have, and cannot avoid having, and so do not report, since they conflict with your 'metaphysics', or simply blowing more bare assertions and just-so stories out of your, um, keyboard.

Cito di Pense wrote:
A lot of your approach involves either duplicity with respect to the experiences you have, and cannot avoid having, and so do not report, since they conflict with your 'metaphysics',

Such as?

or simply blowing more bare assertions and just-so stories out of your, um, keyboard.

No, there's reasoning there. Feel free to assess it.

jamest wrote:Here, I intend to rebut the notion that "metaphysics/ontology is beyond us because we cannot transcend experience".

Wake me when you get around to rebutting the notion that metaphysics/ontology is a diaperload of useless crap.

the PC apeman wrote:

jamest wrote:Here, I intend to rebut the notion that "metaphysics/ontology is beyond us because we cannot transcend experience".

Wake me when you get around to rebutting the notion that metaphysics/ontology is a diaperload of useless crap.

Why is it "a load of useless crap"? I can't really deconstruct subjective valuations unless I understand the thinking behind them.

jamest wrote:

the PC apeman wrote:

jamest wrote:Here, I intend to rebut the notion that "metaphysics/ontology is beyond us because we cannot transcend experience".

Wake me when you get around to rebutting the notion that metaphysics/ontology is a diaperload of useless crap.

Why is it "a load of useless crap"? I can't really deconstruct subjective valuations unless I understand the thinking behind them.

Useless is actually the null hypothesis. Show me the use.
Crap is merely inductive so far. Counter-examples welcome.

jamest wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:
A lot of your approach involves either duplicity with respect to the experiences you have, and cannot avoid having, and so do not report, since they conflict with your 'metaphysics',

Such as?

or simply blowing more bare assertions and just-so stories out of your, um, keyboard.

No, there's reasoning there. Feel free to assess it.

No, there isn't any reasoning there, and you are simply reciting yet again your definitional distinction between 'reality' and 'experience', with its implicit dualism. As PCA notes, simply reciting the notion that reality differs from experience without documenting how it does so is exactly as vacuous as religious nonsense about theistic absolutes, but without dicta.

You never proceed to explain the difference between reasoning that reality and experience differ and asserting that reality and experience differ. All you've ever done here is assert your dualism. If you start out with the assumption that reality and experience differ (which is dualism) and proceed to tell us that reality and experience differ, you've not done very much.

Cito di Pense wrote:

jamest wrote:Already, above, I have transcended experience.

You say you have.

the PC apeman wrote:

jamest wrote:

the PC apeman wrote:

jamest wrote:Here, I intend to rebut the notion that "metaphysics/ontology is beyond us because we cannot transcend experience".

Wake me when you get around to rebutting the notion that metaphysics/ontology is a diaperload of useless crap.

Why is it "a load of useless crap"? I can't really deconstruct subjective valuations unless I understand the thinking behind them.

Useless is actually the null hypothesis. Show me the use.
Crap is merely inductive so far. Counter-examples welcome.

You initially asked me to rebut a particular subjective valuation.

Anyway, it's use is contingent upon what reality is and what that means for 'us'. Of course, there are profound consequences for us regards idealistic metaphysics, but I don't really want to get into that here. Likewise, there'd also be profound repercussions for humanity if someone could prove that the materialists were correct, but I don't want to go there either. The point of this thread is to explain why metaphysics is not beyond us, as one so often hears in these parts. I've thrown down the gauntlet on that issue alone, because I'm sick of hearing such nonsense. Those that parrot it should justify their mantra whilst they have the open opportunity, or keep their beaks shut. This issue is of utmost importance to philosophy and I'm tired of seeing people who have evidently just accepted the reasoning of the likes of Kant to the extent that they think that "metaphysics is dead", or that philosophy itself is now obsolete. Such views cannot be allowed to go unchecked. If people are so certain of such things, then it should be an easy matter to explain why - for everyone's sake. Still, no takers yet.

jamest wrote:Anyway, it's use is contingent upon what reality is and what that means for 'us'.

You haven't managed to say anything about reality outside of experience. All you say is that reality and experience differ, without doing more than declining to offer the difference between reasoning that reality and experience differ and simply asserting it.

jamest wrote:The point of this thread is to explain why metaphysics is not beyond us, as one so often hears in these parts. I've thrown down the gauntlet on that issue alone, because I'm sick of hearing such nonsense. Those that parrot it should justify their mantra whilst they have the open opportunity, or keep their beaks shut.

Have you ever noticed that there simply aren't a lot of threads whose OP presents the notion that metaphysics is beyond us, and lots of threads responding to an OP containing your one-note samba asserting the contrary without supporting argument?

jamest wrote:Already, above, I have transcended experience. This must be the case because I've made claims which cannot be observed (one cannot observe X, least of all observe that the 'realm of experience' is integral to It). Thus, my progress itself suffices as evidence that reason/thought can transcend the set of knowledge possible from mere 'observation' alone.

WTF, James. You've invented a name for something you say we can't observe, and it's not a very imaginative name, at that. The only way you manage that is to limit the scope of observation to one side of your dualist boundary, reifying 'experience'. You invent the idea of an experience that does not entail observation. You mean 'introspection', and fuck away the rest, proposing that introspection can take place prior to experience, and it is nothing but an assertion. Wash, rinse, repeat.

Cito di Pense wrote:

jamest wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:
A lot of your approach involves either duplicity with respect to the experiences you have, and cannot avoid having, and so do not report, since they conflict with your 'metaphysics',

Such as?

or simply blowing more bare assertions and just-so stories out of your, um, keyboard.

No, there's reasoning there. Feel free to assess it.

No, there isn't any reasoning there, and you are simply reciting yet again your definitional distinction between 'reality' and 'experience', with its implicit dualism.

Read the OP more carefully. It is clear that I am opposing a position which itself implies dualism. Experience is [ontologically] integral to reality, I say, not distinct to it.

As PCA notes, simply reciting the notion that reality differs from experience without documenting how it does so is exactly as vacuous as religious nonsense about theistic absolutes, but without dicta.

In the main paragraph preceding my rebuttal, I deal with this. "Whatever experience essentially IS, it @appears@ as something which essentially it is not". The distinction is not ontological, then. Our ~experience~ leads to a knowledge
which is not about the actual nature of the experience itself. That's akin to looking at a cat and acquiring knowledge of a
frog. Hence, the actual distinction between reality and experience boils-down to a distinction between reality and the [ontologically] deluded thoughts acquired through it.

jamest wrote:

the PC apeman wrote:

jamest wrote:

the PC apeman wrote:
Wake me when you get around to rebutting the notion that metaphysics/ontology is a diaperload of useless crap.

Why is it "a load of useless crap"? I can't really deconstruct subjective valuations unless I understand the thinking behind them.

Useless is actually the null hypothesis. Show me the use.
Crap is merely inductive so far. Counter-examples welcome.

You initially asked me to rebut a particular subjective valuation.1

Anyway, it's use is contingent upon what reality is and what that means for 'us'.2 Of course, there are profound consequences for us regards idealistic metaphysics, but I don't really want to get into that here.3 Likewise, there'd also be profound repercussions for humanity if someone could prove that the materialists were correct, but I don't want to go there either.3 The point of this thread is to explain why metaphysics is not beyond us, as one so often hears in these parts.4 I've thrown down the gauntlet on that issue alone, because I'm sick of hearing such nonsense. Those that parrot it should justify their mantra whilst they have the open opportunity, or keep their beaks shut. This issue is of utmost importance to philosophy and I'm tired of seeing people who have evidently just accepted the reasoning of the likes of Kant to the extent that they think that "metaphysics is dead", or that philosophy itself is now obsolete.5 Such views cannot be allowed to go unchecked. If people are so certain of such things, then it should be an easy matter to explain why - for everyone's sake. Still, no takers yet.6

1Is there another kind?
2Is that another way of saying how it makes one feel?
3Is that because you are unable to show a use for it?
4I suspect most here will stipulate that engaging in metaphysics/ontology (or other masturbatory endeavors) is not beyond us. You engage in it. One counter-example is enough to end the thread right? Well no, not if you want to be convincing that there is interest for anyone other than the one self-indulging.
5There is a great deal more to philosophy than metaphysics/ontology. Your cries of alarm are ridiculous. Perhaps epistemology will be more useful here.
6I predict your attempt to shift the burden of showing merit in doing metaphysics/ontology will continue to fail.

jamest wrote:Experience is [ontologically] integral to reality, I say, not distinct to it.

You use two words, 'reality' and 'experience', and you won't let go of either one. That's because you can't do metaphysics unless you talk about 'reality'. But that's all the use you have for 'reality': It's a substrate of metaphysics.

You're trying to deny your dualism, James, presenting it as idealism, and it's not working. It's double-talk, mumbo-jumbo. You present some monolithic category of 'reality' you call 'experience', as if it were not itself subject to being analysed. Idealism is just insisting to talk about everything as 'experience'. Empiricism does that, too, but focuses on the content of experience, rather than trying to treat experience as monolithic and trying to identify a 'substance' of 'experience'.

You can't present your so-called 'metaphysics' without using both the words 'reality' and 'experience'. What's dear to you is the notion that metaphysics is necessary, that we have to ask about the substance of experience, but it isn't and we don't. It's all a huge display of discursive incompetence. We can look at the content of experience without the compulsion to discard nothing. This includes the stipulation that experience is integral to reality. We do not require that stipulation. Metaphysics rots.