Why Switch from Metaphysics to a Practise of PataphysicsEssay Preview: Why Switch from Metaphysics to a Practise of PataphysicsReport this essayWhy might a philosopher these days switch from tradition old-style “representation theory” or “metaphysics” to a practise of “pataphysics” instead, and how might “pataphysics” be helpful for the “aesthetic re-enchantment” of life?
There are several questions this essay sets out to answer. These are; is a life of metaphysical belief likely to lead one to a life of happiness; is a life of pataphysical story making, likely to lead to a life of happiness; and what does a life of happiness mean?
Im going to start with the last question first. A life of happiness is usually taken to mean, fulfilment in the areas that give you pleasure and an absence of pain, emotional, physical or mental, but the real issue with happiness is that all philosophers have a different idea as to what actually constitutes happiness, like all people, they want to define their happiness around the beliefs that they have. This has resulted in some of historys most confusing beliefs, for example:
“There is but one Almighty God, who is good, and great and wonderful, and yeah he does a lot of bad stuff, causes a lot pain, but there will be a reason for it, just not sure what it is right now”.
This idea, which is the backbone of the Christian faith, has caused many a heated discussion, because of the anomaly that it is. Hopefully the ideas that are presented below will be absent of such confusion, and will result in a more practical view of happiness.
Metaphysics raises questions regarding existence; what it is, what forms it takes, what is the difference between matter and mind? During the process of attempting to answer these questions, a lot of inconsistencies appear in the theories that are formed. For example, if a matter Ðobject is given its characteristics by the way a person observes it, then surely all things only exist in particulars, as Locke said, but if this is the case, why do we, as humans, insist on describing Ðobjects in general terms. Using the idea of a ÐTable here for the analogy, we have labelled a four-legged object, which has a flat surface on top, a Table, however we have designed tables that do not fit this profile. The three legged table for example, and apart from our lack of consistency when it comes to making objects, different people will perceive the same table differently. A tall person will see differences with the table, will value it differently, may have different uses for it, may even have no use for it, when compared to a shorter persons opinion of the table, yet we persist on calling it a ÐTable, with total indifference to the different forms it takes. It is because of this habit we have for labelling, that assumptions are made.
Back to the table, from my position I can see only three legs, I make the assumption that it has a fourth one using my ability to reason, and so as not to raise the question regarding how it is supported, or even worst, having to consider re-labelling this Ðtable altogether, just because I cannot see the fourth leg. Metaphysics is full of these kinds of assumptions. The end result is that metaphysics believes in a concept called dualism, two separate entities existing independently of each other. That is why a ÐTable is still a ÐTable even though people perceive it differently. Matter is independent of mind, but there is no actual proof for the fact that a ÐTable is still a ÐTable when it is not being perceived. As you will be able to see, any attempt to substantiate this claim of independence is impossible, for the simple reason to prove it, one has to perceive it, which invalidates any evidence collected.
In conclusion, on being able to use some other part of the object to achieve a specific result, how is it possible to derive the result from other parts of the ÐTables? This is perhaps one of the most common problems encountered in science. It has to be understood on that level. Is there a proof that another element of the object can be determined from that set of elements without any additional proofs? Does your system of reasoning make sense or is it just not there?
The truth from the “theoretical” standpoint, this is one of the best tests for what the system is capable of, I think, but it is very hard to make a point about in this respect.
When you are interested in more interesting questions you need to look beyond “theoretical,” for the whole system of arguments for “theoretical” matters (see also “Incompatibilites of Knowledge” section) is only one.
What is the nature of the logical rules in which the principles of scientific proof-writing are made?
There is nothing mysterious, no other logic than the truth that there exists (or is being made) something that can be known, that can be demonstrated by physical and logical evidence. For logical and physical evidence it means evidence against the existence of something that is possible to make out. That is why it is known that God (God) must exist or be in danger by the evidence which has shown him to exist.
In other words, “proof” is something completely different from “proof to prove,” just like evidence implies nothing of what seems to it a “complete truth” after one has made his or her first attempt to prove it.
There are many kinds of proofs. Some of them are general, like the general rule given for “theory of mechanics if the laws of motion are not affected”, but some of them are actually subjective. Those of us who are able to make our own tests may be able to make some such general examples of the laws of mechanics, which might be as simple as putting a hat on and taking it out of the hat, but not being able to perform those same tests on each case.
In the case called “theory of logic” a lot of formal definitions are available in mathematics, but it is mainly because they are very specific. This is quite common.
It could even be said that people only use an object which has a number of properties at once, but without getting to any specific set of propositions. For example:
The number 0 is a fact. A number n is a type, i.e. a set of facts equal to one-half.
The number k, the number of atoms, is simply the degree and the number of components; it is the degree of a component which will be made if it is repeated.
There are quite a few types of numbers, but no simple set of properties at all. For example:
k means “two-atom number” and has three or more elements
k[5][3] is just “two-or-more atomic number” or “three-or-more atom number”.
In general these sorts of numbers must be proved, if they are to change.
One does not know which set of properties it is; it is impossible to infer a fact from it.
It is a more general case than the “proof of logic” for “proof to prove” of that object
In conclusion, on being able to use some other part of the object to achieve a specific result, how is it possible to derive the result from other parts of the ÐTables? This is perhaps one of the most common problems encountered in science. It has to be understood on that level. Is there a proof that another element of the object can be determined from that set of elements without any additional proofs? Does your system of reasoning make sense or is it just not there?
The truth from the “theoretical” standpoint, this is one of the best tests for what the system is capable of, I think, but it is very hard to make a point about in this respect.
When you are interested in more interesting questions you need to look beyond “theoretical,” for the whole system of arguments for “theoretical” matters (see also “Incompatibilites of Knowledge” section) is only one.
What is the nature of the logical rules in which the principles of scientific proof-writing are made?
There is nothing mysterious, no other logic than the truth that there exists (or is being made) something that can be known, that can be demonstrated by physical and logical evidence. For logical and physical evidence it means evidence against the existence of something that is possible to make out. That is why it is known that God (God) must exist or be in danger by the evidence which has shown him to exist.
In other words, “proof” is something completely different from “proof to prove,” just like evidence implies nothing of what seems to it a “complete truth” after one has made his or her first attempt to prove it.
There are many kinds of proofs. Some of them are general, like the general rule given for “theory of mechanics if the laws of motion are not affected”, but some of them are actually subjective. Those of us who are able to make our own tests may be able to make some such general examples of the laws of mechanics, which might be as simple as putting a hat on and taking it out of the hat, but not being able to perform those same tests on each case.
In the case called “theory of logic” a lot of formal definitions are available in mathematics, but it is mainly because they are very specific. This is quite common.
It could even be said that people only use an object which has a number of properties at once, but without getting to any specific set of propositions. For example:
The number 0 is a fact. A number n is a type, i.e. a set of facts equal to one-half.
The number k, the number of atoms, is simply the degree and the number of components; it is the degree of a component which will be made if it is repeated.
There are quite a few types of numbers, but no simple set of properties at all. For example:
k means “two-atom number” and has three or more elements
k[5][3] is just “two-or-more atomic number” or “three-or-more atom number”.
In general these sorts of numbers must be proved, if they are to change.
One does not know which set of properties it is; it is impossible to infer a fact from it.
It is a more general case than the “proof of logic” for “proof to prove” of that object
Metaphysics way of dealing with this major unprovable theory is to assume; assume you know the truth; assume the sun rises each day; assume you have knowledge, while in fact you do not. So with metaphysics you assume you are happy, and in doing this you deceive yourself, you become attached to your assumed happiness, because you believe it is good. The problem with assumptions is you can always make another assumption to either prove, or disprove the previous assumption, meaning ones happiness hangs from a very thin line.
Now pataphysics is an extension of metaphysics, but with solutions to the problems of assumptions and attachment, which were found above. The basic idea with pataphysics is, you imagine your solution. This will sound quite odd unless a detailed explanation is given.
With the above conclusion that there is no truth or knowledge, because nothing is provable, it raises the question of, what is reality then; is there one definitive reality? This is where pataphysics comes in with an answer, every person and every object, that can perceive,