In classical philosophy Metaphysics is exactly what it sounds like.
Beyond or before physics.
Descartes described Metaphysics as a system of understanding what is true regarding the world and how we come to know things are true. With the purpose of providing a base for his physics.
What this means is that Metaphysics, classically deals with the ideas of how our minds (or souls) interact with our body and with God, and how we come to have perceptions that are true. I.e. how we can come to know that the world around us is actually there and not a false belief created by our imagination or some evil demon deceiving us.
More currently it is more a study of things like time, or how we understand things. It tends to run rather closely with psychology, or cognitive sciences. as Descartes' Metaphysics directly evolved into the area of study we call psychology.
ya, exactly, I'd say Descartes may have started a form of empirical epistemology, but that didn't "directly" become psychology, imho, stuff like early psychophysics is way more crucial. Cognitive psych, dealing with the contents of the mind and stuff that Descartes seemed more interested in is really only 40-50 years old
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
profound hu? and it skipped all the babble.yea, i'm a genius.
No. It's idiotic.
Gravity and MagnEtism are physical forces. Discussed by the science of physics. They are very not metaphysical.
Not to forget that gravity, if it is even a force (and it probably isn't) is certainly not the ultimate force.
Originally posted by Bardock42
No. It's idiotic.Gravity and MagnEtism are physical forces. Discussed by the science of physics. They are very not metaphysical.
Not to forget that gravity, if it is even a force (and it probably isn't) is certainly not the ultimate force.
Ah, Mr.42. KMC's S.S. soldier extraordinaire, how've you been?
Anywho, both are unseen force nonetheless in the way metaphysical forces are. Ones that haven't even been fully understood, again, in the same way metaphysical forces haven't been.
jeez. mammons right, lol.
You did lose your flare to debate vigorously and just spout senseless and thinly veiled puns here and there like saying wow 3 times in 2 repsonses.
I disagreed with your (formerly) flattening ignorance with solid argument. It sould've read:
"What happened to the manly, chubby German big mouth we once knew, who was flat out ignorant and never a had solid argument?
hehehe..
what are you gonna say to that? wow..
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
jeez. mammons right, lol.You did lose your flare to debate vigorously and just spout senseless and thinly veiled puns here and there like saying wow 3 times in 2 repsonses.
I disagreed with your (formerly) flattening ignorance with solid argument. It sould've read:
"What happened to the manly, chubby German big mouth we once knew, who was flat out ignorant and never a had solid argument?
hehehe..
what are you gonna say to that? wow..
It's "flair", flare is a sudden burst of flame.
I guess there is some truth to it, I lost the interest to debate, I don't think I lost the flair though. I could go back and forth with you and embarass you thoroughly, but you would just stubbornly disagree, perhaps trying to save face, and honestly, I would not enjoy it. And that's the problem, I used to like debating and ripping ignorant or stupid people a new one, I don't anymore, so I shan't.
Originally posted by Bardock42
I guess there is some truth to it, I lost the interest to debate, I don't think I lost the flair though. I could go back and forth with you and embarass you thoroughly, but you would just stubbornly disagree, perhaps trying to save face, and honestly, I would not enjoy it. And that's the problem, I used to like debating and ripping ignorant or stupid people a new one, I don't anymore, so I shan't.
Meh. It's ok. You were never a real debator anyway for a true debator does not debate to humiliate, but to enlighten. So get to know what a debate is first off. For example, this is not a debate. I'm just merely writing to you. Can you tell the difference? And learn to use ad hominem correctly. Secondly you'd have to be important enough for me to become embarrased because of. Text on a flat panel especially when it is semi-nonsensicle 85% of the time is hardly worth getting ashamed over. Plus over the years you've proven to be insignificant dicussion-wise because any and everything you've tried to bring up or defend has been stupendously trivial, in turn making everything you've always written a glorious bore not to be taken serious, at all. Which is why everyone jokes around with you all the time. Yes all the time, Mr. 42. Even when you're seemingly serious.
Now i don't think you're stupid, or a bad kid. You could hold the pastries but otherwise you'll evolve. It'll just take a little longer with you. It's just how it is with people mild down-syndrome. Plus you're coping with a recent lose. You're grieving, i understand that, and I offer my condolences. I know you will miss Mrs. Kennedy Shriver as she did so much for your kind. But worry not. For I assure you, her spirit is alive and well.
lol.
Speaking of ghosts, shall get back to metaphyics?..
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
Something that exists in the absence of matter can be said to be metaphysical. Gravity and magnatism are a case example. But if you think I'm incorrect may you enlighten me as to why i am?I'd appreciate it actually.
Well firstly I'd argue that you have the definition metaphyics wrong. Secondly gravity doesn't exist without matter. Thirdly magnetism doesn't exist without matter (though I guess magnatism might).