Here's metaphysics, phor you! (And epistemology is the coolest subject in philosophy)

[tiresias2]

Metaphysics Metaphors
Metaphysic Metaphors
Metaphysi Metaphors
Metaphys Metaphor
Metaphy Metapho
Metaph

What do Metaphysics and Metaphors have in common? You guessed it-- Metaph. And a metaph is a unit of measurement for a bit of objective, real knowledge about the way the world is. Of course, a metaphysic and a metaphor both exceed their bounds

Comments

[pooperman]

Dude--this was awesome! I know that MM was totally directed at me (well, at least partially directed at me, but sometimes I like to be vain and pretend everything is about me), and I know you haven't forgotten the acronym 'MM' was already reserved for 'mental masturbation'. You got me good!

:)

I wish I had something more profound to say. At this point, your "the world makes its own best representation" is intriguing, but I'm missing the consequence of this. Are you saying that we can drop the scare quotes, knowing that they are implicit already in everything we say? Are you saying that, as we do, we can simultaneously hold to the metaphorical nature of our interaction with the world and make claims that basically sound like they are (and could easily be interpreted as) literal

[tiresias2]

Haha! I admit I had our discussions in mind when I wrote this. Of course, our views are so close (we're both hammering after the literalist), and I have been trying to come to terms with exactly at what point we drift apart. You've actually had a big influence in my own thoughts, developing my philosophical system, making me think of ways to flesh out the details of my system... so you know it's all out of respect, and not in jest :-).

But don't read too much into it, because this also deals with several other conversations I've been having, and have been thinking about (like all that stuff from apperception and his crony mendaciloquent, or otherwise known as 'the two guys who are unsuccessfully repressing their forbidden manlove for Immanuel Kant'. I been trying to figure out how my view relates to Kant exactly... All those distinctions they make between transcendental idealism and transcendental realism I find horribly fishy. Also, the way they try to make trancendental idealism a corrollary of empirical realism, I'm not seein' it yet

[pooperman]

"I'm trying to show how it is that the world can build a mind... I'm NOT trying to show how it is that the mind can build the world."

That makes a lot more sense to me. Thanks for the rephrase.

I'm trudging, very slowly, through Kant's CoPR right now. I'll probably be trudging for at least the next 6 months given my recent pace. I was motivated by apperception's and mendaciloquent's recent slew of posts, to which I had nothing productive to say and very little to learn.

I notice something potentially very similar, however, between at least appy's presentation of Kant and your ideas here, if you'll allow me a simplified mapping of how I see these labels working out:

transcendental/empirical --> metaphorical-objective/metaphorical-intersubjective
ideal/real --> 'the world'/the world

transcendental idealism --> the minds that 'the world' has built
trascendental realism --> the worlds that the minds have built
empirical realism --> 'the minds' that the world has built
empirical idealism --> the worlds that 'the minds' have built

[tiresias2]

I read the Critique a couple of years ago. It's just a pain in the ass, and I didn't do it with the fine comb required. Honestly, I don't find Kant very useful (not his ideas, but rather his system and the way he characterizes it-- he can't write). If my ideas overlap at all with his, I am content coming across them on my own, in my own way, with my own terminology. If Kant said it before me, then hopefully I can say it better. Someone needs to

[philosophyjeff]

I'm not sure about the linguistic facts here. 'meta' is certainly a root word for both, but I have never heard of a 'metaph'. Are you certain that it is a meaningful unit?

The danger is that you could be comparing things like 'cat' and 'cattle' and concluding that they must have something in common since they both start with 'cat'. Obviously that would be a mistake.

[tiresias2]

I'm not sure about the linguistic facts here. 'meta' is certainly a root word for both, but I have never heard of a 'metaph'. Are you certain that it is a meaningful unit?

I'm just doing a play on words here. Both the word 'Metaphysics' and 'Metaphor' share the sequence of letters: M-E-T-A-P-H. I'm taking this fact and inventing a whole new term with it (a Metaph), which has nothing to do with word roots. Like I said, it's just a play on the words. Really, it's a lame new word that will never catch on (Did you try to pronounce it?-- it doesn't roll of the tongue at all). Just messin' around trying to be clever. I'm not suggesting that there is some sort of linguistic-historical connection between 'metaphor' and 'metaphysics' based upon word roots or something. Does that clear it up?

The danger is that you could be comparing things like 'cat' and 'cattle' and concluding that they must have something in common since they both start with 'cat'. Obviously that would be a mistake.Well yeah, obviously. But like I said, I'm NOT making some

[anosognosia]

Where do I sign?

[tiresias2]

In the squared box next to where it says 'Your Sou--', errr, I mean 'Your Name' :-)

[panickybagel]

Hmmm. I think I get it.... Soooo, metaphim would be like epistemological seraphim? The guardians of knowledge-units, who stand at the shoulders of epistemological philosophers, except when they are sent among the people to inflict the penalty of metaphor?

Like reading a Mary Webb novel, right. Yeah, OK then, I totally get it. Thus I conclude my vastly important intellectual contribution to the discussion.