Rafael, he was arguably the first systematic empiricist, but empiricism dates back all the way to the beginning of philosophy: Thales of Miletus advocated the use of empirical evidence to understand the nature of the world (and, says the legend, used that insight both in order to predict a solar eclipse and to corner the market for olive presses and become rich).
I share your suspicion of metaphysics. Actually, I do enjoy pondering metaphysical questions, but I know to keep my speculations where they belong. For me, philosophy (and metaphysics in particular) is useful as a way of organising and understanding our knowledge. I think my view is closely aligned with yours.
It may be that it is possible, in principle, to derive knowledge about the real universe purely by thinking about it. But, it may also be that the thinking required is as complex as making the actual universe. If that's the case, then this really is an "in principle" argument, as no brain (or machine) that resides *within* the universe would be able to execute the thoughts required to derive the universe.
I've always been rather fond of Spinoza's metaphysics. It's not that I'm at all convinced by his arguments, but it seems to me that he had good insights into the nature of physics and thinking, and his metaphysics is his attempt to put a solid foundation underneath those insights. His idea of attributes as different ways of conceiving of substance makes sense to me if I think of it as a way of avoiding category errors (also thinking about different levels of abstraction). (This is my interpretation, of course; proper Spinoza scholars might disagree. I don't mind, because I am less interested in knowing what Spinoza (or any philosopher) thought, and more interested in using them as a way to have interesting thoughts of my own.)
I don't disagree with much you say. Except I don't even think an a priori derivation of reality by thought is possible even in principle. But of course that's irrelevant, as you say, it's not practical anyway!
I totally agree. Btw, I don't know if you had the chance to look at the last book os Sabine Hossenfelder, Existential Physics. I don't know if it can be considered a work of "scientific metaphysics," but I think it can be a good starting point for a more empirical-based metaphysics.
I tend to agree with you on this point. I would be interested to hear your take on Kant's Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals which completely eschews lived experience in favor of a moral reductionism that seems only to exist in the realm of logic. When contrasted with the Golden Mean of Aristotle, Kant's concept of virtue seems to be rather shabby, which surprised me due to the subtly of his epistemological works.
Mike, well, I subscribe to virtue ethics, so I reject Kant's approach as too simplistic and unrealistic. I am not a moral realist, but rather a moral naturalist, along the lines of Philippa Foot: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/482752.Natural_Goodness
I agree with your view. Do you think the real world works based on a very complex algorithm? Meaning that the web of cause-effect could be "written down" by an advanced form of AI maybe. If yes, do you think it will be possible to "look at the future" then in a very precise way?
Michele, that's the idea known as Laplace's demon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laplace%27s_demon). No, I doubt it will ever be implemented, even by an advanced AI. Too complicated, too many variables.
Massimo, would it be fair to say that Aristotle was the first empiricist based on his biology or am I off the mark?
Ah.. of course, it seems pretty obvious that empirical observations would be the beginning of it all. See how much I have to learn 😁?
Thanks Massimo :)
Rafael, he was arguably the first systematic empiricist, but empiricism dates back all the way to the beginning of philosophy: Thales of Miletus advocated the use of empirical evidence to understand the nature of the world (and, says the legend, used that insight both in order to predict a solar eclipse and to corner the market for olive presses and become rich).
We all have much to learn! Glad to be of help.
I share your suspicion of metaphysics. Actually, I do enjoy pondering metaphysical questions, but I know to keep my speculations where they belong. For me, philosophy (and metaphysics in particular) is useful as a way of organising and understanding our knowledge. I think my view is closely aligned with yours.
It may be that it is possible, in principle, to derive knowledge about the real universe purely by thinking about it. But, it may also be that the thinking required is as complex as making the actual universe. If that's the case, then this really is an "in principle" argument, as no brain (or machine) that resides *within* the universe would be able to execute the thoughts required to derive the universe.
I've always been rather fond of Spinoza's metaphysics. It's not that I'm at all convinced by his arguments, but it seems to me that he had good insights into the nature of physics and thinking, and his metaphysics is his attempt to put a solid foundation underneath those insights. His idea of attributes as different ways of conceiving of substance makes sense to me if I think of it as a way of avoiding category errors (also thinking about different levels of abstraction). (This is my interpretation, of course; proper Spinoza scholars might disagree. I don't mind, because I am less interested in knowing what Spinoza (or any philosopher) thought, and more interested in using them as a way to have interesting thoughts of my own.)
I don't disagree with much you say. Except I don't even think an a priori derivation of reality by thought is possible even in principle. But of course that's irrelevant, as you say, it's not practical anyway!
I totally agree. Btw, I don't know if you had the chance to look at the last book os Sabine Hossenfelder, Existential Physics. I don't know if it can be considered a work of "scientific metaphysics," but I think it can be a good starting point for a more empirical-based metaphysics.
Davide, I haven't looked at Sabine's latest yet. On my list.
Prof. Pigliucci,
I tend to agree with you on this point. I would be interested to hear your take on Kant's Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals which completely eschews lived experience in favor of a moral reductionism that seems only to exist in the realm of logic. When contrasted with the Golden Mean of Aristotle, Kant's concept of virtue seems to be rather shabby, which surprised me due to the subtly of his epistemological works.
Mike, well, I subscribe to virtue ethics, so I reject Kant's approach as too simplistic and unrealistic. I am not a moral realist, but rather a moral naturalist, along the lines of Philippa Foot: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/482752.Natural_Goodness
Thanks Prof! I appreciate the link.
I agree with your view. Do you think the real world works based on a very complex algorithm? Meaning that the web of cause-effect could be "written down" by an advanced form of AI maybe. If yes, do you think it will be possible to "look at the future" then in a very precise way?
Michele, that's the idea known as Laplace's demon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laplace%27s_demon). No, I doubt it will ever be implemented, even by an advanced AI. Too complicated, too many variables.
Very interesting, thank you!