so, /sci/, what do you honestly think of metaphysics?

I think you should call it Ontology and take it to /lit/.

>>9156308
It is a nonsense term which fatuous plebs think makes them sound smart

>>9156312
Epistemology, mereology, there is a lot more in metaphysics than just ontology.
And analytical philosophy belongs on /sci/, /lit/ is for classics and meme books, so for /his/ but the level of discourse is lower.

>>9156331
what is the evidence for this claim?

>>9156338

"Of particular importance to early Analytic philosophers was the critique and eventual demolition of metaphysics. Metaphysics is the study of the ultimate nature of reality, and traditionally it has embraced highly speculative theories of the supernatural, theories that are usually as riddled with imprecision as they are lofty. In an age that was largely shaped by the success of the exact and evidence-based sciences, philosophers as well as the reading public at large had become wary of the precariously formulated assertions of metaphysicians, and they had increasingly begun to ask for reliable proof and other forms of substantiation. Analytic philosophers radicalized this skepticism by arguing that metaphysical statements are not just murky, unproven, or outright untrue, but altogether vacuous and literally void of sense."

File: 1503252667821.png (167KB, 694x632px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 694x632px

Physics without the science, aka bullshit

>>9156352
so literally just the fact that logical positivism existed? that's your evidence that metaphysics is nonsense?

>>9156365

Well on one side you have proof and logic and evidence, and on the other you have words with no distinct meaning and concepts that are arbitrary to each individual. Seems to me like one is for retards.

File: 1467946837483[1].jpg (79KB, 960x675px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 960x675px

>>9156352
Ironic that philosophers were destroying irrationality while mathematicians were embracing it.

>>9156381

There is a difference between a proposition in mathematics and one in language you div

>>9156377
so words like "existence", "reality", "truth", "cause", "effect", "whole", "part", "something", "nothing", "object", "property", "state", "event", "fact", "possibility", "necessity", "same", "different", "type", "individual", "universal", "particular", "change", etc. are all somehow indistinct and arbitrary to each individual?

>>9156331
>>9156352

feel like in recent decades people are trying to approach these problems using analytical tools. certainly philosophers at my university are.

>>9156402
>5

Those aren't exclusively metaphysical claims. Where as other bullshit like Platonism is

>>9156335
>And analytical philosophy belongs on /sci/
It, by definition, does not. Just because Aristotle titled his book "Metaphysics" which has nothing to do with the modern definition of "meta" or the modern definition of "physics" you think it belongs in "Science & Math"? Of course not, you're just a failed /lit/ troll trying to take your act on the road.

>>9156495
Pleb
"Metaphysics" is not like contemporary metaphysics at all. This is the only board where a few people are literate enough to understand.

>>9156491
metaphysics is the discipline that investigates all those concepts, yes
>bullshit like Platonism
how would you even formulate why platonism is bullshit without making metaphysical claims?

>>9156495
>you think it belongs in "Science & Math"?
it does if the question is what people on a science & math board think about metaphysics

>>9156495
>you think it belongs in "Science & Math"?
considering math and science are the axiomatic basis for contemporary metaphysics, yes. duh.

>>9156528
finally, someone whos not saying the other way round.