metaphysics is...

[Terrapin Station]

Great. So what was your idea about what philosophy is and how did you acquire it?

I acquired it by stumbling into Robert Paul Wolff's Ten Great Works of Philosophy in a bookstore. My idea about what philosophy was was that it had something to do with the stuff compiled in that book.

You certainly implied it. In your question.

I did. Which question?

[Skepdick]

...So give a reference to some philosophical work where that's not what metaphysics is.

https://philpapers.org/archive/ALVLIM-3.pdf

[Skepdick]

I acquired it by stumbling into Robert Paul Wolff's Ten Great Works of Philosophy in a bookstore. My idea about what philosophy was was that it had something to do with the stuff compiled in that book.

There's thousands of books in bookstores. What made you buy that one?

I did. Which question?

The one I quoted right after my statement.

Here it is again for your convenience:

How would you have an interest in something where you have no idea what it is?

[Age]

LOL you ONCE AGAIN could NOT help "yourself" and JUMPED straight back into saying 'things' as though they are 'irrefutably true'.

Is it 'irrefutably true' that there is NO such thing?

If yes, then you are doing what I say you are doing.

Re this, "There are no irrefutably true definitions" (and we could simply change that to "There are no true definitions") isn't a definition.

LOL Are you ABSOLUTELY 100% SURE and CERTAIN, without absolutely ANY doubt AT ALL, that there are absolutely NO "irrefutably true definitions"?

As for YOUR CLAIM that, "There are NO true definitions", then how are 'you' defining the word 'true' here?

[Terrapin Station]

'Conventional' is an EXTREMELY RELATIVE term.

Relative to conventions, sure. And?

Well ANY one could just as EASILY say that YOUR definitions are NOT the 'conventional definitions' and that the definitions that they give ARE the 'conventional definitions'. Which is what you are doing/implying.

Someone could do that, sure. But we can research/back up whether something is the conventional definition or not. Simply look at the relevant literature, cite some of it, etc.

[Terrapin Station]

...So give a reference to some philosophical work where that's not what metaphysics is.

https://philpapers.org/archive/ALVLIM-3.pdf

First principles are logical in nature.

[Skepdick]

First principles are logical in nature.

You continue to confuse the world of logic with the real world...

What does it even mean for something to be "logical" ?

[Terrapin Station]

There's thousands of books in bookstores. What made you buy that one?

First, there has never been thousands of philosophy books in bookstores, especially not in mall bookstores back in the early 70s. I stumbled upon it in a small philosophy section in a mall bookstore and I was intrigued.

How would you have an interest in something where you have no idea what it is?

Right. You can't have an interest in something when you have no idea what it is, but once you discover (something about) whatever it is, once you gain some idea of that thing, you can have an interest in it. How is this not obvious?

That in no way implies that you can't become interested in something that you didn't previously know about.

[Terrapin Station]

First principles are logical in nature.

You continue to confuse the world of logic with the real world...

What does it even mean for something to be "logical" ?

Logical, having to do with logic.

A paper that talks about a connection between logic and metaphysics isn't contrary to noting that the three traditional divisions of metaphysics includes first principles, as first principles are logical in nature.

[Terrapin Station]

LOL Are you ABSOLUTELY 100% SURE and CERTAIN, without absolutely ANY doubt AT ALL, that there are absolutely NO "irrefutably true definitions"?

Yes. And again, more than that, that there are no true/false definitions period, without the "irrefutable."

As for YOUR CLAIM that, "There are NO true definitions", then how are 'you' defining the word 'true' here?

The conventional way that truth is characterized in analytic philosophy: It's a property of propositions. It's a relation between a proposition and something else (the something else depends on the truth theory you buy; I use correspondence theory).

[Age]

So, now you CHANGE the terms and introduce the "philosophical" word to the 'metaphysics' word.

Um, you just quoted me saying, "What? No. In philosophy, metaphysics has always been the three things I specified, with the focus becoming almost solely ontology in the last 150 years or so. "

You responded to that with, "This is ABSOLUTELY FALSE."

I didn't change anything. If it's "absolutely false," that means that in philosophy (that's what I wrote and you quoted), metaphysics hasn't always been those three things. So give a reference to some philosophical work where that's not what metaphysics is.

But what you think/imagine what 'philosophy' IS is NOT what "others" think/imagine.

So, to these "others", "in philosophy", metaphysics is NOT what you CLAIM here.

What do you mean by 'philosophical work'?

SEE, to "others", there is NO such 'thing' as "philosophical work". There are, however, writings written by human beings.

If you want to define the word 'philosophy' in one particular way, which does NOT contradict NOR conflict with your other definitions of 'things' like, 'learning philosophy', 'studying philosophy', 'what philosophy is', 'philosophical works', and/or ANY thing else, then great. But I have YET to SEE it.

See, to "others", 'in philosophy, metaphysics just means 'that' what is more comprehensive or transcends the physical/matter. And ALWAYS HAS, to 'them'.

So, what you ACTUALLY WROTE, which I replied to, like I said, 'is ABSOLUTELY FALSE'.

[Terrapin Station]

So, to these "others", "in philosophy", metaphysics is NOT what you CLAIM here.

So reference something you have in mind already. Enough advertising that you can. Present the goods.

[Age]

Great. So what was your idea about what philosophy is and how did you acquire it?

I acquired it by stumbling into Robert Paul Wolff's Ten Great Works of Philosophy in a bookstore. My idea about what philosophy was was that it had something to do with the stuff compiled in that book.

LOL

You certainly implied it. In your question.

I did. Which question?

[Terrapin Station]

LOL

?

[Age]

Relative to conventions, sure. And?

Well ANY one could just as EASILY say that YOUR definitions are NOT the 'conventional definitions' and that the definitions that they give ARE the 'conventional definitions'. Which is what you are doing/implying.

Someone could do that, sure. But we can research/back up whether something is the conventional definition or not.

LOL ONCE AGAIN, you use the 'conventional' word but do NOT place 'it' in RELATION to ANY 'thing' specific.

Can you REALLY still NOT SEE what I have been getting AT?

How do you define the word 'conventional' here?

Simply look at the relevant literature, cite some of it, etc.

But the, so called, "relevant literature" has NOT YET concluded ANY 'thing', of ANY REAL substance NOR satisfaction. That is WHY 'you', human beings, are STILL, in the days of when this is being written, SO CONFUSED and STILL IN CONFLICT with each other over PAST literature. Even AFTER thousands upon thousands of years have past by.

If 'I' was 'you' I would disregard ALL, so called, "relevant literature", and just START LOOKING AT 'things' VERY DIFFERENTLY.

Thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things' is RIGHT HERE in FRONT of 'you'. All you have to is just BE OPEN to SEE 'It', for what 'It' Truly IS.