the (bad?) art of metaphysics

[fancybred]

So I'm going to be sitting in on a philosophy of language seminar at UPitt, given by Robert Brandom. The first class was yesterday and very exciting -- Brandom has a new theory/formalism of "pragmatic metalanguages" that he wants to debug before giving the Locke Lectures next year. I won't try to relate the introduction he gave yesterday,

Comments

Illusion

[self_referent]

My analysis, based on this entry of yours, is that metaphysics is an illusion that man suffers from. In short, you are approaching a Zen viewpoint by doubting the objectivity (or even the value) of metaphysics.

;)

Re: Illusion

[fancybred]

It could be I'm approaching Zen. ;) I'm not sure if I'd use the word "objectivity"..."clarity", definitely. It's sort of a language issue I'm getting at...

Part of my personal problem with metaphysics is that I'm becoming less and less capable of understanding it. It could be that I'm just growing more anal, but I think that metaphysics is inherently hard to understand because it makes rampant abuse of overloading -- in the C++ sense. Concepts like "cause", "existence", "necessity", may have meaning in metaphysical statements, but if so very different from their ordinary, every-day ones. At some level, this isn't confined to metaphysics. Ad hoc polymorphism goes on all over the place in language, without too much confusion. E.g., "all over the place" obviously doesn't mean that language is a physical space. But I think metaphysics is especially bad because it is so abstract, and so you can't rule out these obviously non-sensical readings quickly enough.

Conjecture

[self_referent]

My current suspicion is that metaphysics, like theology, is something that the majority of people naturally tend toward as a result of their neurophysiology. In other words, when times were hard for humanity, metaphysics and theology were able to help believers have a slight advantage over purely objective people, and this eventually resulted in a huge majority of people who just naturally want to believe in a higher power, in a higher explanation, even in the absence of any signs that point toward such things.

Or it could be that many people are neurophysiologically programmed to have faith in theology, and that for some reason some embrace metaphysics instead.

Natural tendencies

[self_referent]

Most people are unwilling to straighten out their minds. They remain warped because they feel safer that way. They suffer from illusions (even though these illusions may have, in the past, made it easier for them to reproduce and propagate relative to objective folks).

Many people believe that "ultimately, there is justice when all is said and done [in this life]", even though we can easily come up with counterexamples. For instance, just take a stroll through a hospital. Talk to a five-year-old boy with a terminal illness. Talk to the family that has lost it all because their primary wage-earner has been killed by a drunk driver. Etc. Talk to the people who look at a cancer patient and try to figure out what the person did wrong in his life to end up that way (often, the person was perfectly innocent in many ways - but they desperately want to justify her condition, they desperately want to maintain the illusion of control over their lives). "Guilt is the stony heart of all cancers" is a line I came across while reading a

[self_referent]

It's easier for PhD students, than for other types of students, to realize the illusion of control over one's life. There is no control. We even lack control over levels of life commonly thought to be controllable (by Westerners). The undergraduate (especially if she hasn't done research) tends to believe in a neat hierarchy of academic ability, and then she is shaken upon attempting world-class research. Her hierarchy, an illusion, is shattered. Eventually, and probably with some bitterness, she comes to realize that the race does not necessarily go to the swift.

[self_referent]

One might ask why it's easier for PhD students to realize the illusion mentioned above. This is because they are attempting something serious and nontrivial. They are attempting to bring about a new way of doing things, they are attempting to modify the external world in a relatively permanent way, and all such endeavors depend upon an uncomfortable amount of serendipity. So, for some it's easy to do so, and for others it's difficult, and there's no way to predict beforehand which will be the case for anyone.

Other such activities are:

1) Imposing justice through social change (MLK, Gandhi, Mossadegh, etc.). Note that Mossadegh was foiled while the others largely succeeded. Actually, that situation was doubly or triply ironic, but that's beyond the scope of this reply.
2) Writing great novels.
3) Achieving one's lofty goals (such as getting into a particular school, or into a particular profession, etc.).

[fancybred]

You know, I hold you personally responsible for any consequences resulting from an e-mail I sent to Frank Pfenning today in which I wrote that "the flatness of these objects is an illusion propagated by an interface that allows efficient sequential access."

[self_referent]

Heh, "illusion" is hardly ever used in the CS literature, I'm sure.

[self_referent]

You might say: "Well, self_referent, it seems that you have your own set of metaphysical ideas."

I would reply that this is not the case, because in fact it is a stronger thing to not reach conclusions in metaphysical matters.

Zen monks consider writing about Zen to be one of the worst things that one can do, for simply writing about it will make some ideas appear to be concluded or rigid, when the strongest thing is to have no metaphysical framework at all.

But, information must be communicated to others in some way, and nearly every author of every book on Zen at Borders or B&N knows that s/he transmits a corrupt form of Zen to the general public. But this is preferable to ignorance.

[fancybred]

but would it be okay to just add an introductory disclaimer, "ideas may appear more rigid/concluded than they are"?

[self_referent]

A purist would probably say no, because saying anything is saying something, and saying something presets one's mind to expect something. The goal of Zen is to be free of expectation.

[self_referent]

And if you can free yourself from all expectation, then presumably you are ready for anything. And this, in turn, seems to be Zen's primary importance as the foundation for most, if not all, Eastern martial arts.