Physical Events, Physics and Metaphysics

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by jeeprs

I don't think that believing that there is a higher, philosophical knowledge is a sign of gullibility. It is a hard thing to fathom, a hard thing to follow, and a hard thing to understand. It is not pop philosophy or a cult religion. So I think you are actually being rather condescending. But maybe this is just your way of defending your sense of normality.

Believing anything without evidence or reason is, I think, a sign of gullibility. And if you don't mind that you do this, it is a sign of not caring about whether what you believe is true or not. Which, I think, is much worse. You keep talking about a "sense or normality". I don't know what you mean by this, and why you think I have it. Whatever it is. I do think there is philosophical knowledge, but I don't understand why you think it is "higher" or, come to think about it, just what you mean by that.

[jeeprs]

Well can I ask, if you believe that Plato was wrong in saying that there is a faculty of higher knowledge, nous, and that the was a type of perception not available to the - how should we say - philosophically unskilled, then what might 'philosophical knowledge' consist of?

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by jeeprs

Well can I ask, if you believe that Plato was wrong in saying that there is a faculty of higher knowledge, nous, and that the was a type of perception not available to the - how should we say - philosophically unskilled, then what might 'philosophical knowledge' consist of?

Conceptual philosophical truths. As an example: knowledge implies truth. But I suppose that you have to know something about philosophy (epistemology) to understand why this is true. But then, you have to understand some chemistry to understand what it means to say that table salt is sodium chloride. (That is not, of course, a conceptual truth).

[jeeprs]

And you have to have some experience of higher states to know what they are. If you do, you know that 'higher states' and the associated 'higher knowledges' are not an example of gullibility or wishful thinking. They are hard to attain. There are sources of this kind of knowledge from all over the world, and from many different cultures. But it is more a matter that for the secular outlook, there really is 'no such thing'. All this proves is the boundary of secularism, that is all. And the reason I say you are defending your sense of normality, is because you cannot help but think I am kidding myself. You really cannot bring yourself to accept that such things might exist, if you were honest about it. So - I must be gullible.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by jeeprs

And you have to have some experience of higher states to know what they are. If you do, you know that 'higher states' and the associated 'higher knowledges' are not an example of gullibility or wishful thinking. They are hard to attain. There are sources of this kind of knowledge from all over the world, and from many different cultures. But it is more a matter that for the secular outlook, there really is 'no such thing'. All this proves is the boundary of secularism, that is all. And the reason I say you are defending your sense of normality, is because you cannot help but think I am kidding myself. You really cannot bring yourself to accept that such things might exist, if you were honest about it. So - I must be gullible.

Yes. I have to admit that I find it hard to believe without, or contrary to evidence. (It isn't that I don't think such things might exist. It is that I do not think such things do exist. Lots of things might exist that do not exist).

[jeeprs]

Well that's OK. Each to his own.

[longknowledge]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

I cannot follow you. But isn't it clear that both you and I know the very same thing; that Quito is the capital of Ecuador? So, what is the difference between first and second or third person knowledge. Are you saying that in the case of "mundane facts" there is no difference? What kind of knowledge is not about "mundane facts"? What about very unmundane knowledge like the velocity of light?

If you are maintaining that there is a kind of knowledge accessible to some, but not to others, I am afraid that is something you will have to support with evidence, unless you expect me just to take your word for it. I am, of course, confined to "mundane knowledge".

I've seen the light coming from the sun but I've never seen the "speed of light coming from the sun". According to Wikipedia:

In physics, the speed of light (usually denoted c) is a physical constant, the speed at which electromagnetic radiation, such as light, travels in (i.e., perfect vacuum). Its value is 299,792,458 metres per second.

So the "speed of light" is purely "theoretical". I can never seem to find "free space" in my "mundane" world, nor "a perfect vacuum", although my Orek comes pretty damn close. However:

Light travels more slowly in a transparent material than it does through a vacuum due to interaction of the light with the electrons in the material. . . . The actual speed at which light propagates through transparent materials, such as glass or air, is less than c.

So, when I look at "actual" sunlight coming through a window, or even through the air, its "actual speed" is less than its "theoretical speed" in a "theoretical perfect vacuum".

Of course, "theoretical", "actual" and even "speed" are not "mundane facts" that the physicist "makes" when she "makes" an observation, but rather "imaginary facts" that the physicist "makes" in order to explain the "mundane facts" she has "made". (The word "fact" comes from the Latin factum, "thing done", from the verb facere, "to do".)

Now, in order to explain these "mundane facts" of what the "actual physicist" "does", we have to rely on metaphysics because, as Ortega says, they are "metaphysical facts". And this requires a second person, the metaphysician! And to explain the actions of the metaphysician, we need a "third" person, the metametaphysician. And that's you because, after all, this is the Metaphilosophy Forum. (See Metametaphysics: New Essays on the Foundations of Ontology, edited by David Chalmers, et al., Oxford University Press, 2000.)

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by jeeprs

Well that's OK. Each to his own.

Of course. There is no law that compels you to believe on evidence and reason. Although, I bet that's what you do except when considering religion and philosophy. The question I have is, why the difference? Why do some people hand up their commonsense, along with their jacket before they enter the philosophy study?

[longknowledge]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

Of course. There is no law that compels you to believe on evidence and reason. Although, I bet that's what you do except when considering religion and philosophy. The question I have is, why the difference? Why do some people hand up their commonsense, along with their jacket before they enter the philosophy study?

Are you saying that "to believe on evidence and reason" is just "commonsense"? Then what do we need a "philosophy study" for?

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by longknowledge

Are you saying that "to believe on evidence and reason" is just "commonsense"? Then what do we need a "philosophy study" for?

It is commonsense to believe on reason and evidence. I did not say that reason and evidence were just commonsense.