Advocate wrote: ↑Sat Aug 06, 2022 3:47 pm
Age wrote: ↑Sat Aug 06, 2022 2:41 pm
'Coherently' to who, exactly? (See, if you were really answering everything 'coherently', then your answers would be 'coherent', or more precisely, your words would be logical and consistent while forming a unified whole. Which they obviously are not.)
And,
What does the word 'metaphysics' even mean or refer to, to you, exactly? (See for me to be able to tell you what you have missed here, I need to know what you are referring to, exactly.)
They are obviously not that way to you because you have literally no idea what you're talking about. You've never undertaken to understand them in that respect At All, and especially not with the help of the author to understand any apparent discrepancies. In reality they are coherent.
Can you not recognize just how absurd it is to claim that I have never undertaken to understand your views when it is me who has been asking you questions, for clarification?
'you' are the author, and 'my' questions were posed to 'you'. So, it is OBVIOUSLY 'you', the author, who I am actually directing my questions to, for help to gain better clarity, of 'your' views.
It is like you can NOT see and recognize what is REALLY going on here.
Advocate wrote: ↑Sat Aug 06, 2022 3:47 pm
Metaphysics is a coherent set of answers to all of the deepest "what is the nature of?" questions. Of which i have provided about 30.
Now, 'you' providing 'us' with 'your' answers is going to achieve 'what', exactly?
And, your circular type of reasoning is sometimes referred to as a fallacy.
See, in one post you claimed that you are the person who can answer everything 'in metaphysics' coherently, but, now you claim that 'metaphysics' is a coherent set of answers to all of the deepest "what is the nature of?" questions.
The words 'in metaphysics' implies that you can answer everything IN some 'thing' called 'metaphysics', but now you say 'metaphysics' IS just a set of answers to, some questions. You can not accurately claim that 'metaphysics' is the answers themselves, while also claiming that you can answer everything IN 'metaphysics', which would be the answers themselves. So, just in this you are NOT be coherent AT ALL. And, to conflate this even further, your supposed answer to 'what is the nature of metaphysics?' is; all of the deepest "What is the nature of.." questions;
So, you have provided us with THREE different answers to the question; What is 'metaphysics'?
1. Metaphysics is; some 'thing' that you can answer every thing IN.
2. Metaphysics is; the coherent set of answers, themselves, to all of the so-called 'deepest', 'What is the nature of?' questions. And,
3. Metaphysics is; the deepest, 'What is the nature of ...?' questions, themselves.
So, to you, is 'metaphysics' the questions, or the answers, themselves? And, when you say, 'in metaphysics', then what are you referring to, exactly?
Oh, and by the way, when I look in just but one dictionary the definition for 'what metaphysics is?' is; the studying or dealing of 'the nature of some things', and thus is NOT the answers, nor the questions, themselves.
While "others" view 'metaphysics' as something different.
And this is not taking into consideration what the 'meta' - 'physics' words once meant or referred to, exactly, which was; 'meta', denoting some position behind, after, or beyond, or denoting some thing of a higher order, or outside of. Or, even referring to 'its' OWN Self. And, 'physics', referring to physical things, or just matter itself, which is just Nature, Itself, or just a 'natural thing'. (But then again absolutely EVERY 'thing' is, naturally, a 'natural thing' anyway, and which is just a part of Nature, Itself, obviously.)
So, one can take their pick here. Which one are you going to choose, and advocate for, here, "advocate"?