Thread: Are metaphysics and epistemology dead ends?

*wooshs over head* alright, usually I'd take role in these philososy, logic, scientific conversations, but, I don't know nuttin' about this one. I'll just keep reading and pretend I get it.

I think you should read, "Ways to Practice" by the Dali Lama. As well as "Destructive Emotions"..

Originally Posted by Arrianna

As dark_glaive mentions, taken to it's logical conclusion, it does tend toward Nihilism no matter how hard the person I was speaking to denied it.

Conversations always eventually broke down to they're right and I'm wrong and I can't prove otherwise because you can't disprove a negative when any proof offered is discarded instantly if it doesn't fit in with their theory.

The only thing they believed in was their own intellect at the same time they ridiculed everyone elses. In my opinion, that equals believing in nothing because in the course of our conversation I saw no evidence of any intellect on their part and with out proof beyond their personal experience, which in their own beliefs is not admissable, it therefore does not exist.

Actually if epistemology and metaphysics boiled down to nihilism, they wouldn't exist, because their is already the thoery of nothingness. Both epistemology and metaphysics take for granted that their is knowledge and that there is some sort of reality that is experienced. The problem is that language is so complex and yet so limited. Most misunderstand the function of language but apply it equally to all things. In language all things must not be treated equally. A Sceptic or nihilist that takes an argument on epistemology or metaphysics to its logical conclusion will end with a theory of extreme doubt or nothingness; but an epistemologist or metaphysicist who take an argument on reality or knowledge to its logical conclusion, logically, has to retain the belief in something that they will consider knowledge or reality.

Originally Posted by dark_glaive

Having said that and basically conceded to you IILooney, what does that tell us? Does anyone really care? Does this affect the way anyone's life aside from ivory tower philosophers? Scientists certainly couldn't get anywhere if they didn't have some faith in their perceptions. I think logic should give us some practical results (hence why I use logic for my job but go on my emotions for my personal life. The two aren't totally independent of each other though). I don't mean to sound like an interogator, but I don't see a way to apply this to my life.

Of course no one cares, otherwise you'd see that on TV and in stores instead of britney and $0.50. Scientist have faith in their machines and methods, not their perceptions. Also, you questioned the practicality of this philosophical subject. It is capable of as much influence over your daily life as your religion and any other paradigm that may filter your perception. It is capable of directing your thoughts and well as your speech and actions. As for me, I use brain death, or severe mental suppression on the job; and logic and intuition everywhere else.

Originally Posted by Illoney

As for me, I use brain death, or severe mental suppression on the job; and logic and intuition everywhere else.

You obviously aren't a programmer.

They are hunched over like it is over isn’t it want a little moreover pour it over again.