Re: Joy of this, Joy of that

On Sat, 7 Dec 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 07/12/2024 16:39, D wrote:

So therefore, metaphysics doesn't really exist, except as thought forms to make us feel better (if we need that), in which case it's just a bunch of nice stories.

>
Well you are starting to make clear a completely metaphysical position here.
>
What do you mean by 'really exist' ?

With not exist, I mean s an unprovable, ideal reality separate from the material world. As existing, I mean as a pattern of electrons in a brain. So depending on what you prefer, either yes or no.

Do a persons hurt feelings 'really exist'? Or are they just pulling your strings?

See above. They exist as electrons in a brain.

Metaphysics is the study of the assumptions we make about everything in order to be able to describe and manipulate  things.
>
If your metaphysics and your language doesn't have room for the 50 kinds of snow that some arctic cultures can claim exists, do those types of snow exist for you? No. Do they exist at all? Arguable. It's just 'snow'.
>
It is clear you have no idea what metaphysics means and are confusing it with mysticism and religion.

Nope. It depends on the person I am talking with. With some it is mysticism and religion, with some, such as you, it is thought patterns. I have no quarrel with thought patterns, based on electrons. I have enormous quarrel with mysticist platonists.
Please refrain from telling me what I am confusing it with. I'd much rather you asked me or probe further. I find it annoying when you attribute things to me, and I think that is probably why our previous discussion escalated.

Sure, religion is a form of metaphysics, but *so is science*.

No, science is a method. It is far, far from religion. I do not share your opinion or definition here.

Religion is the study of a world that includes a supernatural component.
Science is the study  of one that does not.

I disagree. Religions are fairy tales. Science is a method and a process. Not a study. We simply disagree about definitions here. I suggest we drop it.
Religion: The belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers, regarded as creating and governing the universe.
Science is defined as the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world through a systematic methodology based on evidence.
Those are my definitions, and I disagree with yours. So if you are arguing from different definitions, we will never agree. I think that's pretty obvious.

The question of whether or not there is a supernatural component is proved by neither. In the end you assume what you assume, have faith in it and proceed to collect $200 and avoid going to jail, so to speak.

It is not something that needs to be proven. By definition, anything outside the world, cannot be proven inside the world, and hence is inherently nonsensical, like one of my examples of metaphysics above.
The real world, and all in it, has been proven by G.E. Moore. We have already
been over this, we disagreed violently, and I will _not_ waste my time repeating
the exact same discussion.

I have no intrinsic problem with 'materialism' apart from the fact that like religion, it is a remarkably narrow and exclusive view and wholly unsatisfactory in the limit, and like religion, insists it  is the One True Fact.

I disagree, per the above. I think materialism is the most honest, and inclusive position we have. It is also a rich position, and one that is constantly expanding, to include more and more. Religion, as per my definition, is again nonsense, apart from the pragmatic interpretation of if it helps you, or the materialistic interpretation (like metaphysics) as thought patterns in the brain, and at the end of the day, electrons.