Metaphysics: Knowledge for the Privileged

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Michel

The less privileged you are, the less chance you have at eating properly, making ends meet and effectively contributing to your community. For example, we can see that a proper diet would be increasingly difficult because of a lack of resources to purchase or trade for a proper diet. We can also say that insufficient resources would also impact the medicine you can buy and the doctors you can afford. You seem to glance over this blatantly obvious fact.

Uh no. You have made the exact point I'm making as well. This is why an occupation of idleness, like pontificating about dualism or about infinite causality, is of little interest to someone who is disadvantaged.

I do not agree with Maimonides (whom I admire greatly) that metaphysics should be a privileged art. On the other hand, that quote should not be taken out of the context of Guide for the Perplexed. Maimonides was a theologian. Maimonides was the Jewish Aristotelian, just as Aquinas was for Christianity and Avicenna was for Islam. The Guide was a document largely about how rationality will lead you to God. In other words, metaphysics was a critical endeavor because it was the substructure of religion.

But you know, the guy died 800 years ago and the intellectual esteem of metaphysics isn't quite the same these days. And metaphysics falls pretty low on the priority list of people who live hard lives.

[Michel]

Originally Posted by Aedes

Uh no. You have made the exact point I'm making as well. This is why an occupation of idleness, like pontificating about dualism or about infinite causality, is of little interest to someone who is disadvantaged.

It need not be of little interest. It's just a pursuit that a person is unable to take.

It appears as though I have misinterpreted you but I still think you're wrong as far as the person-community relationship goes. I mentioned why already. I also think that it's silly and outlandish to claim that the less privileged someone is, the more of his devotion goes to family and love.

I do not agree with Maimonides (whom I admire greatly) that metaphysics should be a privileged art. On the other hand, that quote should not be taken out of the context of Guide for the Perplexed. Maimonides was a theologian. Maimonides was the Jewish Aristotelian, just as Aquinas was for Christianity and Avicenna was for Islam

.

Are you implying that I took him out of context?

The Guide was a document largely about how rationality will lead you to God. In other words, metaphysics was a critical endeavor because it was the substructure of religion.

OK.

But you know, the guy died 800 years ago and the intellectual esteem of metaphysics isn't quite the same these days. And metaphysics falls pretty low on the priority list of people who live hard lives.

OK.

No offence, but I'm not sure what the last 3 quotes of yours add to this discussion.

[Aedes]

Yes, you are taking his quote out of context. You're looking at the quote without asking yourself what metaphysics means in the context of his society vs ours, and more importantly what it means within the document in which it appears.

What my quotes add to the discussion is an idea of what Maimonides actually meant in his own context. It makes no sense to agree or disagree with him if you haven't even explored what he meant.

[jgweed]

Originally Posted by Michel

The general person just does not have enough time to tackle these issues because he is burdened with longer work hours, debt, and whatever else that keeps this consumer culture in operation. ***** They are systematically burdened, and such burdened is intended because it keeps certain classes in power and other classes out of power. It's not at all a coincidence that in the West, white men dominate politics, religion and philosophy.

It may be that the duties of life make such paths difficult, but it does not take a Samuel Smiles to point out that they do not make it impossible, if the desire is there. It is possible for a woman to be born in the projects and end up sitting in the Supreme Court; I would think that one were to poll the Members of this community, one would find many who work, raise a family, keep up the yard, and do charity work.

And to suggest that this is intended, presumably by the "power classes" or "white men," seems---without any sort of warrant or explanation about how a select group of people can intend anything---unreasonable, especially in today's world.

[Michel]

Originally Posted by Aedes

Yes, you are taking his quote out of context. You're looking at the quote without asking yourself what metaphysics means in the context of his society vs ours, and more importantly what it means within the document in which it appears.

I examined your posts and I don't see where the relevance is. Even if i grant your point, it does not have any bearing on my argument. Or at least I don't see any relevance.

What my quotes add to the discussion is an idea of what Maimonides actually meant in his own context. It makes no sense to agree or disagree with him if you haven't even explored what he meant.

It really does not matter what he meant by the word metaphysics. What matters is that, whatever it is, it is privileged knowledge.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Michel

I examined your posts and I don't see where the relevance is. Even if i grant your point, it does not have any bearing on my argument. Or at least I don't see any relevance.

Perhaps this is the problem with metaphysics -- its inability to connect with planet earth. You are taking the subject of metaphysics as mentioned in a statement written nearly a millenium ago, ignoring the fact that the context was different, and even when I spell it out plainly you fail to appreciate its relevance.

Originally Posted by Michel

It really do not matter what he meant by metaphysics. What matters is that, whatever it is, it is privileged knowledge.

Of course it matters what he meant. If someone makes the statement "Metaphysics is privileged knowledge", the meaning of that statement is contingent upon what the speaker means by metaphysics, what they mean by privileged, what they mean by knowledge, and even what they mean by is.

[Michel]

Originally Posted by jgweed

It may be that the duties of life make such paths difficult, but it does not take a Samuel Smiles to point out that they do not make it impossible, if the desire is there. It is possible for a woman to be born in the projects and end up sitting in the Supreme Court; I would think that one were to poll the Members of this community, one would find many who work, raise a family, keep up the yard, and do charity work.

I'm not going to disagree with you because it would be indefensible and I'd look intransigent. No one here has denied the possibility of it nor was its possibility ever in question. That you are trying to take this discussion to a question of possibility rather than plausibility serves my point, I think.

And to suggest that this is intended, presumably by the "power classes" or "white men," seems---without any sort of warrant or explanation about how a select group of people can intend anything---unreasonable, especially in today's world.

An intentional action does not have to be some wholly conscious decision. We all have gender scripts and racial scripts that are encouraged and reinforced. Women are supposed to act in a certain why or theyre butches, whores, or prudes. Men are supposed to act a certain way or theyre wimps, weak, and emasculate. One only needs to take a look at major US cities to see that racial divisions reinforced and encouraged; a quick glance at urban cities will reveal a city geographically and racially divided by race, or certain US towns in the south to seperate schools dances for black students and white students. Or all one needs to do is watch the media influences on the mindset of the black male. They are learn that until recently black men were race enslaved by white men; they are treated as criminals within their own community by the police; the media highlights the social norm as white; the media highlights intellectual success as something for white men; they see success and power is visibly located in white groups; their communites possess a greater social disparity than white communites, etc. It goes on and on. All of these features do not just happen, they are reinforced and encouraged. Let me ask you: Do you think it's a coincidence that all of these things exist and serve to keep white men in power?

Or if you want to see actions with greater consciousness, take a look at the state and corporate propaganda to keep citizens from actively participating in politics, or social change or active democracy. Edward Bernays' Propaganda is a good place to start. And I don't think that pointing to some politican telling people to vote is going to change anything because the US is a polyarchy. It's the illusion of democracy with power shifting between a few select groups.

---------- Post added 11-14-2009 at 02:01 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Aedes

Perhaps this is the problem with metaphysics -- its inability to connect with planet earth. You are taking the subject of metaphysics as mentioned in a statement written nearly a millenium ago, ignoring the fact that the context was different, and even when I spell it out plainly you fail to appreciate its relevance.

Even if the context is different, you need to explain why it is relevantly different. I don't see where you have done this...at all.

Of course it matters what he meant. If someone makes the statement "Metaphysics is privileged knowledge", the meaning of that statement is contingent upon what the speaker means by metaphysics, what they mean by privileged, what they mean by knowledge, and even what they mean by is.

My statement declared that it makes no difference what he meant by the word metaphysics; I said nothing about the word privilege. If you think that he is understanding the word privilege differently than I am, or in some idiosyncratic way, then you need to argue that. I don't see where you have.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Michel

Even if the context is different, you need to explain why it is relevantly different. I don't see where you have done this...at all.

You keep saying how you've read what I've written, but not with any comprehension.

I've offered useful arguments as to why metaphysics would be understood differently by Maimonides than by you, so your metaphysics and his metaphysics are likely something different. I've studied Maimonides enough to somewhat illuminate why his 11th century perspective might lend different meaning to that sentence. But you seem like a rather unfriendly person and you're more interested in being dismissive than being conversational, so I think I'll step away from your thread and go talk to the wall instead.

[xris]

Privilege also incurs the necessity for it to be brought to your attention. Many live in ignorance of its existance and it remains therefor a secret to many. Is that fault of theirs or the society that classifies it as a higher aim in society. It is by its very mention an academic insular world of self serving thinkers. It is only with age do i even dare question the fundamental objectives of this academic process. It still lies outside of the common mans realm of interest,is it their problem or the professional philosophers? is it a problem?

[Michel]

Originally Posted by Aedes

You keep saying how you've read what I've written, but not with any comprehension.

Well, the 'lack of compehension' claim is no claim of mine. It seems to be some superadded claim or it is of your own judgement. As I see it, the problem does not rest on my comprehension skills, as you'd like to believe, but with your argument.

I've offered useful arguments as to why metaphysics would be understood differently by Maimonides than by you, so your metaphysics and his metaphysics are likely something different.

Right, and I agree. I just don't see why that the difference is relevant to my point. It's not enough to argue for a mere difference; it has to be a difference which somehow impacts my point. In other words, it has to be a relevant difference.

I've studied Maimonides enough to somewhat illuminate why his 11th century perspective might lend different meaning to that sentence.

I'm sure you have. Again, I don't see why this is relevant for the abovementioned reason.