metaphysics is...

[Terrapin Station]

You'd say that knowing what something is amounts to knowing everything about it?

I am not saying that - you are saying it.

Nope. I didn't say anything like that.

You are also saying that knowing what philosophy is is necessary for having an interest in it.

Yes, I did say that. How would you have an interest in something where you have no idea what it is?

So, what is philosophy?

Again, if you're curious about that I can recommend a couple good, entertaining books that give an overview of it. If you're not curious enough for that, then okay, you're not curious enough to bother with this in my opinion.

[Terrapin Station]

LOL "traditionally".

Goes back about 2500 years. (Although the specific name "metaphysics" only dates to about 450 years ago . . . it was still the set of associated topics I specified even if it wasn't explicitly called "metaphysics" until then.)

[Age]

Begging the question: what are the first principles of logic? And the answer is: There aren't any!

The first principles of first principles thinking is that there are no first principles.

And it may very well be a moral hazard to confuse the world of logic with the real world.

That's not what begging the question is first off.

But that is EXACTLY what "begging the question" ACTUALLY IS, in the media, which is where some people get their information from.

Although, "begging the question" might mean something ENTIRELY DIFFERENT in 'philosophy' NOT EVERY one went through the EXACT SAME courses and classrooms, which you have been through and in.

So, just like EVERY thing else, "begging the question" ALSO means one thing to some people and other things to other people. Which I keep TELLING 'you' but which you seen to REFUSE to acknowledge and agree with.

SEE, as I have been saying the main reason WHY 'you', human beings, are still so CONFUSED after thousands upon thousands of years is because you are NOT Truly OPEN to other views and so BELIEVE that what you each ASSUME is true is ACTUALLY the truth. As you have, ONCE AGAIN, proven so well here.

And they're not first principles of logic--the field we're talking about isn't logic per se. They're first principles of metaphysics, which are derived via logic. An example per Kant is that experience isn't possible without at least the concepts of space and time.

[Skepdick]

Nope. I didn't say anything like that.

You literally said the question "You'd say that knowing what something is amounts to knowing everything about it?".

You asked that question. I didn't say anything like that.

Yes, I did say that. How would you have an interest in something where you have no idea what it is?

That is a GREAT question, isn't it?

It sure seems your knowledge of philosophy must have came before your interest in it! How else could you be interested?

Again, if you're curious about that I can recommend a couple good, entertaining books that give an overview of it. If you're not curious enough for that, then okay, you're not curious enough to bother with this in my opinion.

How could I possibly be curious about something I am not interested in ?

[Terrapin Station]

Begging the question: what are the first principles of logic? And the answer is: There aren't any!

The first principles of first principles thinking is that there are no first principles.

And it may very well be a moral hazard to confuse the world of logic with the real world.

That's not what begging the question is first off.

But that is EXACTLY what "begging the question" ACTUALLY IS, in the media, which is where some people get their information from.

Although, "begging the question" might mean something ENTIRELY DIFFERENT in 'philosophy' NOT EVERY one went through the EXACT SAME courses and classrooms, which you have been through and in.

So, just like EVERY thing else, "begging the question" ALSO means one thing to some people and other things to other people. Which I keep TELLING 'you' but which you seen to REFUSE to acknowledge and agree with.

SEE, as I have been saying the main reason WHY 'you', human beings, are still so CONFUSED after thousands upon thousands of years is because you are NOT Truly OPEN to other views and so BELIEVE that what you each ASSUME is true is ACTUALLY the truth. As you have, ONCE AGAIN, proven so well here.

And they're not first principles of logic--the field we're talking about isn't logic per se. They're first principles of metaphysics, which are derived via logic. An example per Kant is that experience isn't possible without at least the concepts of space and time.

People can use any term/any phrase any way they like, sure.
What of that, though?

[Skepdick]

Goes back about 2500 years. (Although the specific name "metaphysics" only dates to about 450 years ago . . . it was still the set of associated topics I specified even if it wasn't explicitly called "metaphysics" until then.)

Funny, I thought Aristotle wrote the book on metaphysics. But that was wee bit more than 450 years ago.

[Advocate]

All that jargonny crap is crap. Obtains just means "is".

[Terrapin Station]

Nope. I didn't say anything like that.

You literally said the question "You'd say that knowing what something is amounts to knowing everything about it?".

I literally asked that question, yes. I didn't, however, say anything like "Knowing what something is amounts to knowing everything about it."

You asked that question. I didn't say anything like that.

The reason I asked is because you asked "Why would you need to study x if you know what x is?" In other words, the only way "There's no need to study x" would follow from "I know what x is" would be if knowing what x is amounts to knowing everything about x.

Yes, I did say that. How would you have an interest in something where you have no idea what it is?

That is a GREAT question, isn't it?

It shouldn't be in my opinion because it should be pretty obvious.

It sure seems your knowledge of philosophy must have came before your interest in it! How else could you be interested?

By being interested once you discover what it is.

How could I possibly be curious about something I am not interested in ?

If you're not, then why are you asking? I couldn't care less if you're curious/interested in it, personally. If you are, and you don't know what it is, I can recommend books. If you're not curious/interested, okay. I don't care.

[Skepdick]

All that jargonny crap is crap. Obtains just means "is".

"jargons" are controlled vocabularies.

From another perspective "crap" is jargon...

[Age]

LOL "traditionally".

Goes back about 2500 years. (Although the specific name "metaphysics" only dates to about 450 years ago . . . it was still the set of associated topics I specified even if it wasn't explicitly called "metaphysics" until then.)

Okay, and to "others" 'metaphysics' traditionally means some 'thing' else, ENTIRELY.

But they would be WRONG, whereas you would be RIGHT, am I correct?

Your Honest answer would be much appreciated here.

[Terrapin Station]

Goes back about 2500 years. (Although the specific name "metaphysics" only dates to about 450 years ago . . . it was still the set of associated topics I specified even if it wasn't explicitly called "metaphysics" until then.)

Funny, I thought Aristotle wrote the book on metaphysics. But that was wee bit more than 450 years ago.

Aristotle didn't coin the term "metaphysics." Aristotle simply titled that book "τά μετά τά ϕυσιχά" "(The book) after the physics." Andronicus, who was compiling Aristotle's work, is the one who named it "Metaphysics" in the mid 16th century.

[Terrapin Station]

Okay, and to "others" 'metaphysics' traditionally means some 'thing' else, ENTIRELY.

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.

[Age]

That's not what begging the question is first off.

But that is EXACTLY what "begging the question" ACTUALLY IS, in the media, which is where some people get their information from.

Although, "begging the question" might mean something ENTIRELY DIFFERENT in 'philosophy' NOT EVERY one went through the EXACT SAME courses and classrooms, which you have been through and in.

So, just like EVERY thing else, "begging the question" ALSO means one thing to some people and other things to other people. Which I keep TELLING 'you' but which you seen to REFUSE to acknowledge and agree with.

SEE, as I have been saying the main reason WHY 'you', human beings, are still so CONFUSED after thousands upon thousands of years is because you are NOT Truly OPEN to other views and so BELIEVE that what you each ASSUME is true is ACTUALLY the truth. As you have, ONCE AGAIN, proven so well here.

And they're not first principles of logic--the field we're talking about isn't logic per se. They're first principles of metaphysics, which are derived via logic. An example per Kant is that experience isn't possible without at least the concepts of space and time.

People can use any term/any phrase any way they like, sure.
What of that, though?

What of that IS when you say what some 'thing' MEANS, then this is from YOUR perspective ONLY, and NOT what 'it' ACTUALLY irrefutably MEANS. You, however, continue to write as though what you say IS what ACTUALLY IS and IS irrefutably TRUE. Just like you did with that EXAMPLE of YOURS which I quoted to and responded to here.

'you', just like EVERY "other" human being, can use ANY term/any phrase ANY way 'you' like, AS WELL. Which is EXACTLY what 'you' do DO. 'you' are CERTAINLY NOT the arbitrator and holder of Truth. Therefore, I suggest STOP writing as though you BELIEVE you are.

[Terrapin Station]

What of that IS when you say what some 'thing' MEANS, then this is from YOUR perspective ONLY, and NOT what 'it' ACTUALLY irrefutably MEANS.

No, neither of those. Usually when people give the definition of something, what they'll give is the conventional definition (appropriate to whatever context). That's not "from their perspective only"--it's the conventional definition in the given context, and it's not what it "irrefutably means," as there is no such thing.

[Skepdick]

I literally asked that question, yes. I didn't, however, say anything like "Knowing what something is amounts to knowing everything about it."

You must have thought it to ask it! Because I certainly didn't imply it.

The reason I asked is because you asked "Why would you need to study x if you know what x is?" In other words, the only way "There's no need to study x" would follow from "I know what x is" would be if knowing what x is amounts to knowing everything about x.

How did you arrive at "there is no need to study x"? That sure seems like a contra-positive. Do you subscribe to classical logic? Because in constructive logics that inference rule is invalid.

Indeed - you have arrived at a conclusion that is false. Your logic doesn't seem to obtain...

It shouldn't be in my opinion because it should be pretty obvious.

It is obvious. It should be ss obvious as my inability to be interested in philosophy until I know what it is.

By being interested once you discover what it is.

That sounds like a contradiction to me...

So to be sure I am not misunderstanding you, I'll ask again. Can you, or can't you be interested in something if you don't know what it is?

If you're not, then why are you asking?

Because I am interested in knowledge. And I know that I don't know what philosophy is.

I couldn't care less if you're curious/interested in it, personally. If you are, and you don't know what it is, I can recommend books. If you're not curious/interested, okay. I don't care.

Those books you want to recommend... did they cause you to become interested in philosophy, or did you read them because you were already interested?

Said differently. Did you know what philosophy was before you read those books?