[Benedict Broere]

Within the entry 'Links' I saw a to me very strange association: paranormal and metaphysics.

To me 'paranormal' has to do with levitation, forsight and all that, while 'metaphysics' forms the traditionally seen central activity of philosophy.
Even today many philosophers consider metaphysics, that is to say the reviewed version of it, as the actual of philosophy.

May be the association has to do with the different view the anglosaxon world and the continental world has on philosophy. But I thought this already was something of the past.

Metaphysics has to do with all that that is absolutely necesarry for this world to be able to exist. It has to do with all that that absolutely not can be ignored without losing the whole of this world. So it has to do with its most essential, that what matters most.

The paranormal (maybe) just concerns an aspect of what is there is as world.
To me therefor metaphysics comes right after or with the theory of everything. Because 'theory' suggests the possibillity of 'making it into real science' via 'verification and withstanding falsification'. While metaphysics will stay in the domain of the 'plausible'.

Actually I think both have the problem that their subject, this reality, exceeds the scientificly researchable. Or maybe future science can tackle this in overcoming the borders of our investigative mind.

Still, both stem from the same intuition, that somewhere in the past started to speak of this world as being 'cosmos' and 'uni-verse'.

They thought a Logos in the center of all this.

[Guille]

I agree, paranormal is all kind of mysticism, whiles metaphysics is rational philosophy. The first is for the un-cultured and the second is for the cultured. Paranormal is anything like luck, astral projection, souls... And although metaphysics might have theories or propositions including the ideas like souls, god, etz, these are always rationalized. This is a problem, because the distinction between what is metaphysical and what goes too far and becp,es paranormal (mythology/religion/spirituality), or too short and becomes physical (scientifc), is not sure, therefore the 'set' of what is metaphysical has beek broken (just as the set of what is paint art has broken, for the paints of today are far too abstract and different to put them in a set). But the reason why the words paranormal and metaphysics where together is because another use of the term 'metaphysics' is what refers to more-than-physical (this is the greek meaning of the world), and that is souls, etz. Anyway, in posmodern philosophy, metaphysics has died. And in neopragmantism (ex: Rorty) and postempiric pragmatism (ex: Searle), also abandoned metaphysics. Metaphysics--in philosophy--is dead (and there is no 'zombie'-like life in philosophy, if somethind dies, it is eaten by worms and dissapears).

[Benedict Broere]

You are expressing a belief. I think metaphysics is not dead at all. For instance the reduction of reality to the physical, and I have the impression that this your point of view, is a metaphysical point of view. There is nothing in science that will proof you that this reality is only physical. You assume this reality is only physical. Materialism is a metaphysical standpoint.

Btw, 'metaphysical' can also mean 'Laws and Constants'. Aristotle would love it. And Plato would go through the roof!

[mkirkpatrick]

Benedict,great thread starter,like it!I have been personally involved with both
the paranormal,and metaphysics for many years now,The basic difference is
I feel in the mode of how it is expressed,paranormal is most often associated
with phenomena,"things" happening in the objective world,a sudden gust of
air in a still room,an object glowing in the half light,objects moving of there
own accord,as if an invisible hand held them!(telekinesis)Then there is meta
physics,which is often centered in the mind,the power of positive thinking,is
part and parcel of this aspect,i have seen cancers withdraw from the individual,who has been recieving healing from a metaphysics group who specialized in mental healing work,they achieved outstanding results.The mind is so little understood,we need to try and find outmore.

kind regards michael.

[Guille]

Originally Posted by Benedict Broere You are expressing a belief. I think metaphysics is not dead at all. For instance the reduction of reality to the physical, and I have the impression that this your point of view, is a metaphysical point of view. There is nothing in science that will proof you that this reality is only physical. You assume this reality is only physical. Materialism is a metaphysical standpoint. Btw, 'metaphysical' can also mean 'Laws and Constants'. Aristotle would love it. And Plato would go through the roof!

I'm not a reductionist to science. I do not believe that the physics will explain everything. There is philosophy. But within philosophy, metaphysics has been abandoned. It is not a belief. Do you know any metaphysicist of today? Philosophers are either posmodern or pragmatic, and both types have abandoned metaphysics. Of course, these two movements will die and others will come, this is how everything in culture progresses (science, art, philosophy...). But not religion, it doesn't change, and that's why it stays behind. New types of philosophyzings are needed, including philosophizing about what metaphysics used to philosophize, but not using metaphysics, just other alternatives. Metaphysics gained in modernism it's most extreme and terrible properties, Kant-Hegel. But KH only constructed the biggest and worst building, the thing is that metaphysics by having such buildings, lead to it's deconstruction, to it's neglection, to it's abandonment. Nietzsche, Heidegger and Derrida (on the continental side) and James, Dewey and Croce (on the pragmatic side). The final difference is given by Gadamer's hermeneutics and Wittgenstein's languagology. I know that 'when there is science, there is philosophy' this is something no one can neglect. I do not assume that reality is only physical. And I know materialism is a philosophical viewpoint (posmodernists are materialists, pragmatists are materialists...).

[Benedict Broere]

What can be called metaphysics can be described as an effort to discover as much as possible of the general nature of reality.

R.G. Collingwood

[Guille]

Benedict,

The quote is correct, but I don't like the statements that state the obvious. There has to be some thinking, some innovation in it. For example, my signature 'science is observation and philosophy is interpretation' is very fundamental and easy to follow, but it says something which interests, which proves thinking. I'm not saying that Collingwood and you don't think, I'm just saying that metaphysics is the study of the general nature of reality by it's grammatical meaning, so there is no innovation in that. Just a thought though.

[Benedict Broere]

Guille,
Metaphysics, in my understanding, is an effort to organise information into the TOE. This is modern metaphysics. It has to do with our cognitive function to integrate ideas. And of course it is at first and formost science-oriented. It is it's alfa and omega. Out of this is, I think, a "E=mc2' possible. A 'Logos'. A 'TOE'.

[Guille]

Originally Posted by Benedict Broere Guille, Metaphysics, in my understanding, is an effort to organise information into the TOE. This is modern metaphysics. It has to do with our cognitive function to integrate ideas. And of course it is at first and formost science-oriented. It is it's alfa and omega. Out of this is, I think, a "E=mc2' possible. A 'Logos'. A 'TOE'.

Have you read postmodern philosophy? Even though one may not agree at all with the postmodern view, it is necessary to read them in order to make sense and be able of saying what metaphysics must be as you do. Why must philosophy become science orientated? Anyway, that is already happening. Science is 'eating' philosophy, and that is consecuence of damn Husserl and his phenomenology. It doesn't matter which method we use, whether the logical positivists' method (which was to make a philosophy with scientific modes) or the postmoderns' method (which is to make a science with philosophical modes). Any method leads to the dissapearance in vacuum, vaporization in nothigness of the subjects and objects, entity and identity, core and cortex of those two areas of culture that give us our understanding.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by <<<GUILLE>>> Have you read postmodern philosophy? Even though one may not agree at all with the postmodern view, it is necessary to read them in order to make sense and be able of saying what metaphysics must be as you do. Why must philosophy become science orientated? Anyway, that is already happening. Science is 'eating' philosophy, and that is consecuence of damn Husserl and his phenomenology. It doesn't matter which method we use, whether the logical positivists' method (which was to make a philosophy with scientific modes) or the postmoderns' method (which is to make a science with philosophical modes). Any method leads to the dissapearance in vacuum, vaporization in nothigness of the subjects and objects, entity and identity, core and cortex of those two areas of culture that give us our understanding.

Hey Guille, don't be so hard on Husserl___we wouldn't know how stupid Wittgenstein was without him...

regards