What is the difference between metaphysics and mysticism?

File: 1486015192576.jpg (89KB, 623x469px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 623x469px

>>2473425
logic

>>2473425
Metaphysics to mysticism is what modern medicine is to homoeopathy.

>>2473425
If you look at a tree growing up from its roots and into a solid trunk and then branching out into vast arrays of leaves and think "this tree is like humanity, its roots and trunk are strong like our ancestors, and we individually, are like the leaves growing and fading so fast again and again every generation and still the tree grows." You are having a metaphysical thought. You are looking at nature and trying to understand your reality.

If you look at a tree and think "This tree contains the souls of my ancestors and if I do a special dance they will talk to me" you are having a mystical thought.

See the difference?

>>2473556
>You are looking at nature and trying to understand your reality
isnt that just physics? basically what i want to know is how metaphysicians use logic non-discursively.
I hear many credible philosophers call metaphysics meaningless while others study it. Why is that?

File: 1462757339891.jpg (173KB, 1600x1200px)

173KB, 1600x1200px

>>2473529
>Metaphysics to mysticism is what modern medicine is to homoeopathy.
this is what rationalists who claim to be empiricists believe.

>>2473584
Yes and No? Metaphysics is to physics what metaphysics is to philosophy. That probably doesn't work at all as a logical statement.

I'm not really qualified to answer this. I'm not a real philosopher, and not a physicist to be sure. My tree story is the best answer I have. Let me try it another way.

A physicist looks at nature and tries to understand reality from a purely objective sense. The shape, mass working mechanisms, potential energies ect can all be quantified and measured and studied for comparative knowledge and a large scope understanding of trees. But they do not ask questions that are not falsifiable.

A metaphysicist can ask questions that may not be objective and falsifiable. The science of the physics is not really the debatable part of metaphysics. The science is left to the scientists. The difference is how the knowledge is used. For example a person can look at the tree rings and wonder what they are. A scientist can tell you what they are. A metaphysisist might ask what they mean about the nature of reality. For example when the scientist has told that they record physical events such as droughts and floods as periodic growths over time. We can then ask in metaphysics what does this mean as to the nature of reality and life. In this case a living organism recording in its own fashion the history of its life. Not by choice or by design but by nature it has evolved this ability to record these events in its body. What does this tell us about the nature of time? About the nature of living organisms? About the universe? Is there some record of all events that is somehow recorded in the form of all physical matter? The rocks of the earth, the motion of the stars, the fading light of the other side if the universe from the begging of time now just reaching our planet. Does the universe contain in its physical patterns a record of all things in the echoes and shadows of space and time just like the tree rings? That is metaphysics to me.