Philosophy Now Forum

Is there such a thing as 'MetaPhilosophy'?

One definition is;
(I do not agree in total)

Metaphilosophy (sometimes called philosophy of philosophy) is "the investigation of the nature of philosophy".[1] Its subject matter includes the aims of philosophy, the boundaries of philosophy, and its methods.[2][3]

Thus, while philosophy characteristically inquires into the nature of being, the reality of objects, the possibility of knowledge, the nature of truth, and so on, metaphilosophy is the self-reflective inquiry into the nature, aims, and methods of the activity that makes these kinds of inquiries, by asking what is philosophy itself, what sorts of questions it should ask, how it might pose and answer them, and what it can achieve in doing so.

It is considered by some to be a subject prior and preparatory to philosophy,[4] while others see it as inherently a part of philosophy,[5] or automatically a part of philosophy[6] while others adopt some combination of these views.[2] The interest in metaphilosophy led to the establishment of the journal Metaphilosophy in January 1970.[7]

Although the term metaphilosophy and explicit attention to metaphilosophy as a specific domain within philosophy arose in the 20th century, the topic is likely as old as philosophy itself, and can be traced back at least as far as the works of Plato and Aristotle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphilosophy

I believe Metaphilosophy is an essence represented by a fundamental human impulse where we can differentiate it from philosophy as a subject, the bastartdized incestuous academic philosophy and philosophy accused as mental masturbation/dildo.

The question is how to define Metaphilosophy appropriately and effectively.

Views?

If you are observing a scientist: philosophy of science
If I am observing you doing philosophy: metaphilosophy.
If somebody else is observing me observing you doing philosophy: metametaphilosophy.

Ad infinitum.

Or you can just call it introspection.

Why and how do you do what you do?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Oct 23, 2018 3:40 am Is there such a thing as 'MetaPhilosophy'?

One definition is;
(I do not agree in total)

Metaphilosophy (sometimes called philosophy of philosophy) is "the investigation of the nature of philosophy".[1] Its subject matter includes the aims of philosophy, the boundaries of philosophy, and its methods.[2][3]

Thus, while philosophy characteristically inquires into the nature of being, the reality of objects, the possibility of knowledge, the nature of truth, and so on, metaphilosophy is the self-reflective inquiry into the nature, aims, and methods of the activity that makes these kinds of inquiries, by asking what is philosophy itself, what sorts of questions it should ask, how it might pose and answer them, and what it can achieve in doing so.

It is considered by some to be a subject prior and preparatory to philosophy,[4] while others see it as inherently a part of philosophy,[5] or automatically a part of philosophy[6] while others adopt some combination of these views.[2] The interest in metaphilosophy led to the establishment of the journal Metaphilosophy in January 1970.[7]

Although the term metaphilosophy and explicit attention to metaphilosophy as a specific domain within philosophy arose in the 20th century, the topic is likely as old as philosophy itself, and can be traced back at least as far as the works of Plato and Aristotle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphilosophy

I believe Metaphilosophy is an essence represented by a fundamental human impulse where we can differentiate it from philosophy as a subject, the bastartdized incestuous academic philosophy and philosophy accused as mental masturbation/dildo.

The question is how to define Metaphilosophy appropriately and effectively.

Views?

All acts of observation, whether of an abstract (metaphysics, logic, math) or physical (empiricism, manual labor) exist from, through and as a continuum. All "meta" analogies are merely a progression of the framework through an expansive or contractive "circularity" where one definition or act exists through another definition or act as a form of repetition that inevitably creates a new framework of reason either as a "foundation" or "extension" of an existing phenomenon.

This nature of "meta" analogy, effectively is a repetition through mirroring that can be observed in the cycles of nature but extend into human endeavors considering man is an extension of the natural law he/she observes.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 23, 2018 5:49 pm This nature of "meta" analogy, effectively is a repetition through mirroring that can be observed in the cycles of nature but extend into human endeavors considering man is an extension of the natural law he/she observes.

Now I understand what you mean by 'mirroring'. I use the word recursion. Russian dolls. Self-similarity (from Gödel, Escher, Bach). Fractal-like properties (from Mandelbrot).

Recursion is computation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RE_(complexity)

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Tue Oct 23, 2018 5:54 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 23, 2018 5:49 pm This nature of "meta" analogy, effectively is a repetition through mirroring that can be observed in the cycles of nature but extend into human endeavors considering man is an extension of the natural law he/she observes.

Now I understand what you mean by 'mirroring'. I use the word recursion. Russian dolls.

Recursion is computation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RE_(complexity)

Yeah, I know...we are dealing with problems of entropy in language.

The question of any unity in philosophy is premised in a common language, even the story of the tower of babel (whether taken literally or metaphorically) observes the nature of how language acts as a common unifying median which forms phenomenon.

The problem of language creates social division and confusion where a scientist and common man could be saying the exact same thing but effectively "glide" past eachother like oil and water.

Hence you see why my focus on geometry is what it is...directed movement is universally axiomatic for no matter how complex you make it a point, line and circle will always be a point line and circle.

Now I will elaborate with a personal example:

With that in mind I was watching, some months back for a very brief period of time, a show on the history channel about "The Curse of Oak Island". In that show the people in charge, I cannot remember there names, found a tablet linked to the Knight's Templar (at least "rumored" to be from the Knight's Templar).

This tablet was inscribed in strict geometric symbols.

These geometric symbols are linked to ufo encounters around the world, which I can personally attest too considering my room has been "lit" up a few times (with separate outside observers) starting with the beginning of my "deeper" research in the nature of philosophy.

The ancient philosopher Hermes Trismestigus, whether his origin is real or myth is unknown, was told that geometry is the foundation of all understanding.

This is geometry is replicated in ancient Sumerian Tablets as well.


Now of course I am not arguing standard Euclidian Axioms, nor the dual Non-Euclidian perspectives, but rather a base premise where geometry and supertasks are one with this dualism providing the foundation for all further phenomenon.

Now to get back to my point about the Tablet. They found the tablet actually translated into multiple languages, 3-5 if I remember correctly, however this translation resulted in the languages saying similar things (not the same). This can be argued as each language embodying a specific perspective where each perspective does not contain the "whole" truth.

Now, I believe, if they continued trying to look into the tablets further it would be translated into further languages as this "geometric language" used seem to imply a common bond amidst all the language...much like a "prime" language so to speak that gave origin (or at least unified) all the languages in one degree or another with each language being an extension of it.

Food for thought.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 23, 2018 5:49 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Oct 23, 2018 3:40 am Is there such a thing as 'MetaPhilosophy'?

One definition is;
(I do not agree in total)

Metaphilosophy (sometimes called philosophy of philosophy) is "the investigation of the nature of philosophy".[1] Its subject matter includes the aims of philosophy, the boundaries of philosophy, and its methods.[2][3]

Thus, while philosophy characteristically inquires into the nature of being, the reality of objects, the possibility of knowledge, the nature of truth, and so on, metaphilosophy is the self-reflective inquiry into the nature, aims, and methods of the activity that makes these kinds of inquiries, by asking what is philosophy itself, what sorts of questions it should ask, how it might pose and answer them, and what it can achieve in doing so.

It is considered by some to be a subject prior and preparatory to philosophy,[4] while others see it as inherently a part of philosophy,[5] or automatically a part of philosophy[6] while others adopt some combination of these views.[2] The interest in metaphilosophy led to the establishment of the journal Metaphilosophy in January 1970.[7]

Although the term metaphilosophy and explicit attention to metaphilosophy as a specific domain within philosophy arose in the 20th century, the topic is likely as old as philosophy itself, and can be traced back at least as far as the works of Plato and Aristotle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphilosophy

I believe Metaphilosophy is an essence represented by a fundamental human impulse where we can differentiate it from philosophy as a subject, the bastartdized incestuous academic philosophy and philosophy accused as mental masturbation/dildo.

The question is how to define Metaphilosophy appropriately and effectively.

Views?

All acts of observation, whether of an abstract (metaphysics, logic, math) or physical (empiricism, manual labor) exist from, through and as a continuum. All "meta" analogies are merely a progression of the framework through an expansive or contractive "circularity" where one definition or act exists through another definition or act as a form of repetition that inevitably creates a new framework of reason either as a "foundation" or "extension" of an existing phenomenon.

I can see how your point relates to 'MetaPhilosophy'.

Everything lies along a continuum, so does Metaphilosophy.

This nature of "meta" analogy, effectively is a repetition through mirroring that can be observed in the cycles of nature but extend into human endeavors considering man is an extension of the natural law he/she observes.

Repetitive mirroring as in Yin-Yang complementarity?

Note this different view;
Humans are the co-creators of the laws of nature humans observe.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 2:48 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 23, 2018 5:49 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Oct 23, 2018 3:40 am Is there such a thing as 'MetaPhilosophy'?

One definition is;
(I do not agree in total)



I believe Metaphilosophy is an essence represented by a fundamental human impulse where we can differentiate it from philosophy as a subject, the bastartdized incestuous academic philosophy and philosophy accused as mental masturbation/dildo.

The question is how to define Metaphilosophy appropriately and effectively.

Views?

All acts of observation, whether of an abstract (metaphysics, logic, math) or physical (empiricism, manual labor) exist from, through and as a continuum. All "meta" analogies are merely a progression of the framework through an expansive or contractive "circularity" where one definition or act exists through another definition or act as a form of repetition that inevitably creates a new framework of reason either as a "foundation" or "extension" of an existing phenomenon.

I can see how your point relates to 'MetaPhilosophy'.

Everything lies along a continuum, so does Metaphilosophy.

This nature of "meta" analogy, effectively is a repetition through mirroring that can be observed in the cycles of nature but extend into human endeavors considering man is an extension of the natural law he/she observes.

Repetitive mirroring as in Yin-Yang complementarity?

Note this different view;
Humans are the co-creators of the laws of nature humans observe.

In regards to first point, yes. All phenomena exist through a continuum founded in replication of various definitions/limits/symmetry as a continuum. The replication of "limits" is the foundation of all phenomena and is the foundation of all structure as movement.

Yin Yang? Not only but:

1) Reproduction/Genetics
2) Geometric Forms
3) Number
4) All phenomena that exist as and through Frequency (all phenomena basically).
5) Personal Habits, Disciplines, Practices
6) Measurements of Time (Days, Weeks, Months, Holidays, Celestial Events, Natural Seasons, Atomic movement, etc.)
7) Music, Art
8 ) Thought and Emotion as alternating
9) Mirror Effect In Psychology.
10) Mathematical Theories Translating to Other Theories (Will have to look up word)
11) Philosophical Schools.
12) Religions (crucifixion allegory as an example)
13) Cultural Practices (Weddings and Funerals)
14) Political Structures.
15) Symmetry in nature (flow of ocean, mountain range, fire, wind)(branching in rivers, steams, trees, branches, leaves, cracks in rocks) etc.
16) etc.

Agreed...Humans are the cocreators of the laws as these laws are merely localizations of movement that give structure and form to the foundations of individual and group perspective. However as measurers of reality we are morally obligated to acts as stewards of it and measure reality in such a way that maintains a balance of natural law.

The ability for man to measured, through limits as limits, stems from an extension of Divine Reason considering the measurements we form, form us.

In simpler terms Laws are Localized sets of movements that exist as parts in themselves relative to other laws.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 4:23 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 2:48 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 23, 2018 5:49 pm

All acts of observation, whether of an abstract (metaphysics, logic, math) or physical (empiricism, manual labor) exist from, through and as a continuum. All "meta" analogies are merely a progression of the framework through an expansive or contractive "circularity" where one definition or act exists through another definition or act as a form of repetition that inevitably creates a new framework of reason either as a "foundation" or "extension" of an existing phenomenon.

I can see how your point relates to 'MetaPhilosophy'.

Everything lies along a continuum, so does Metaphilosophy.

This nature of "meta" analogy, effectively is a repetition through mirroring that can be observed in the cycles of nature but extend into human endeavors considering man is an extension of the natural law he/she observes.

Repetitive mirroring as in Yin-Yang complementarity?

Note this different view;
Humans are the co-creators of the laws of nature humans observe.

In regards to first point, yes. All phenomena exist through a continuum founded in replication of various definitions/limits/symmetry as a continuum. The replication of "limits" is the foundation of all phenomena and is the foundation of all structure as movement.

Yin Yang? Not only but:

1) Reproduction/Genetics
2) Geometric Forms
3) Number
4) All phenomena that exist as and through Frequency (all phenomena basically).
5) Personal Habits, Disciplines, Practices
6) Measurements of Time (Days, Weeks, Months, Holidays, Celestial Events, Natural Seasons, Atomic movement, etc.)
7) Music, Art
8 ) Thought and Emotion as alternating
9) Mirror Effect In Psychology.
10) Mathematical Theories Translating to Other Theories (Will have to look up word)
11) Philosophical Schools.
12) Religions (crucifixion allegory as an example)
13) Cultural Practices (Weddings and Funerals)
14) Political Structures.
15) Symmetry in nature (flow of ocean, mountain range, fire, wind)(branching in rivers, steams, trees, branches, leaves, cracks in rocks) etc.
16) etc.

Agreed...Humans are the cocreators of the laws as these laws are merely localizations of movement that give structure and form to the foundations of individual and group perspective. However as measurers of reality we are morally obligated to acts as stewards of it and measure reality in such a way that maintains a balance of natural law.

The ability for man to measured, through limits as limits, stems from an extension of Divine Reason considering the measurements we form, form us.

In simpler terms Laws are Localized sets of movements that exist as parts in themselves relative to other laws.

Note sure if you agree, in addition to the Laws of Nature, humans are also co-creators of the reality they are part and parcel of.

There is no absolute independent reality as in Philosophical Realism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 2:48 am Repetitive mirroring as in Yin-Yang complementarity?

Note this different view;
Humans are the co-creators of the laws of nature humans observe.

Repetitive mirroring as in re-descriptions (models) of what already exists. Kolmogorov complexity.

Humans cannot create laws of nature. A law implies something constant/deterministic/unchangeable.

Humans are part of nature’s “natural selection” mechanism.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 4:35 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 4:23 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 2:48 am
I can see how your point relates to 'MetaPhilosophy'.

Everything lies along a continuum, so does Metaphilosophy.


Repetitive mirroring as in Yin-Yang complementarity?

Note this different view;
Humans are the co-creators of the laws of nature humans observe.

In regards to first point, yes. All phenomena exist through a continuum founded in replication of various definitions/limits/symmetry as a continuum. The replication of "limits" is the foundation of all phenomena and is the foundation of all structure as movement.

Yin Yang? Not only but:

1) Reproduction/Genetics
2) Geometric Forms
3) Number
4) All phenomena that exist as and through Frequency (all phenomena basically).
5) Personal Habits, Disciplines, Practices
6) Measurements of Time (Days, Weeks, Months, Holidays, Celestial Events, Natural Seasons, Atomic movement, etc.)
7) Music, Art
8 ) Thought and Emotion as alternating
9) Mirror Effect In Psychology.
10) Mathematical Theories Translating to Other Theories (Will have to look up word)
11) Philosophical Schools.
12) Religions (crucifixion allegory as an example)
13) Cultural Practices (Weddings and Funerals)
14) Political Structures.
15) Symmetry in nature (flow of ocean, mountain range, fire, wind)(branching in rivers, steams, trees, branches, leaves, cracks in rocks) etc.
16) etc.

Agreed...Humans are the cocreators of the laws as these laws are merely localizations of movement that give structure and form to the foundations of individual and group perspective. However as measurers of reality we are morally obligated to acts as stewards of it and measure reality in such a way that maintains a balance of natural law.

The ability for man to measured, through limits as limits, stems from an extension of Divine Reason considering the measurements we form, form us.

In simpler terms Laws are Localized sets of movements that exist as parts in themselves relative to other laws.

Note sure if you agree, in addition to the Laws of Nature, humans are also co-creators of the reality they are part and parcel of.

There is no absolute independent reality as in Philosophical Realism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

I agree to the above statement, but it does not contradict absolute truth...It is just a horrifying and beautiful truth most people do not want to admit to.

However as co creators, or stewards may be a better word, we are extensions of the creator as the same means of measurement we apply are applied to us considering we exist through these measurements. This reciprocity is an inherent limit within the act of measurement which gives it a multidimensional nature.

A simple question, as measurers of reality, do the limits we apply form us or do we form them? A line is always a line, and on its own terms, is the same line regardless of size. The question of the source of consciousness, and the nature of divinity, is relegated to these limits...think about it for a little while. The limits which form comsciouness as a means of measurement are the same limits through which consciousness exists. In these respect the human condition as an extension of Divine Reason always has this Divine Reason exist simultaneously beyond it. An independent reality does not necessitate that we are not included in that reality.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 4:35 am Note sure if you agree, in addition to the Laws of Nature, humans are also co-creators of the reality they are part and parcel of.

There is no absolute independent reality as in Philosophical Realism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 5:04 am I agree to the above statement, but it does not contradict absolute truth...It is just a horrifying and beautiful truth most people do not want to admit to.

However as co creators, or stewards may be a better word, we are extensions of the creator as the same means of measurement we apply are applied to us considering we exist through these measurements. This reciprocity is an inherent limit within the act of measurement which gives it a multidimensional nature.

It sounds like you are both converging onto Constructivist epistemology: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construct ... istemology

Hurry up. Science has bee waiting for you

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 4:53 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 2:48 am Repetitive mirroring as in Yin-Yang complementarity?

Note this different view;
Humans are the co-creators of the laws of nature humans observe.

Repetitive mirroring as in re-descriptions (models) of what already exists. Kolmogorov complexity.

Humans cannot create laws of nature. A law implies something constant/deterministic/unchangeable.

Humans are part of nature’s “natural selection” mechanism.

Kolmogorov complexity observes computation but does not factor in the replication of certain universals in nature that do not equate to a Russian doll type of movement. Certain patterns appear not just in nature, but also human behavior, replication of numbers, geometric forms, etc.

A paradox occurs:

If all lines are measure through 1 line, as the foundation of the ratio is a line within a line,

but this foundational line is part of a much larger line ranging as infinitely larger

And this foundational line is composed of a line infinitely smaller,

With this pyramidal series of lines ranging from infinitely larger, medial foundation, and infinitely small progressing a in linear patter ad infinitum where the pyramid of lines is in itself reduced to a line relative to other pyramidal "projections"

With the infinitely large line and infinitely small line still being fundamentally the same line on there own terms, what we understand of a framework is a form of replication as mediation where the replication of a framework still results in the framework as only different relative to other frameworks, but effectively the same. Difference occurs in localization only as I may pick any point in the single pyramid (which is progressing in both directions) and the ratio of the newly pick foundational line will be the same as the line above and below it.

The replication of frameworks still requires certain constants which do not change.

OThe change may be relatively constant, but the law is created as a form of localization. The law of entropy observes change as dissolution. However if law "x" observes both the dissolution and reforming of properties than a different observation of change occurs allowing a separate framework of reasoning.

The creation of laws does not negate constants.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 5:32 am Kolmogorov complexity observes computation but does not factor in the replication of certain universals in nature that do not equate to a Russian doll type of movement. Certain patterns appear not just in nature, but also human behavior, replication of numbers, geometric forms, etc.

Can you give me example of those patterns?

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 5:04 am but this foundational line is part of a much larger line ranging as infinitely larger

And this foundational line is composed of a line infinitely smaller,

From the paradigm of quantum physics any mention of infinities is a religion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renormalization

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 5:04 am The law of entropy observes change as dissolution. However if law "x" observes both the dissolution and reforming of properties than a different observation of change occurs allowing a separate framework of reasoning.

The creation of laws does not negate constants.

Not sure what you mean by that. Constants can be represented in a computational world too. Any finite value can be expressed in a computational world.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 5:29 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 4:35 am Note sure if you agree, in addition to the Laws of Nature, humans are also co-creators of the reality they are part and parcel of.

There is no absolute independent reality as in Philosophical Realism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 5:04 am I agree to the above statement, but it does not contradict absolute truth...It is just a horrifying and beautiful truth most people do not want to admit to.

However as co creators, or stewards may be a better word, we are extensions of the creator as the same means of measurement we apply are applied to us considering we exist through these measurements. This reciprocity is an inherent limit within the act of measurement which gives it a multidimensional nature.

It sounds like you are both converging onto Constructivist epistemology: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construct ... istemology

Hurry up. Science has bee waiting for you

Actually it makes constructivist epidemiology as a constant and we are left with a mirror effect again where truth is replicated in different manners as an extension of one....Maybe science caught up with Protagoras, presocratic atomists and Parmenides...