Objective Idealism currently has the best metaphysical foundation, mainly thanks to the recent efforts of Bernardo Kastrup.
Materialism, as in metaphysical materialism, really is not tenable. The hard problem of consciousness cannot be solved by materialist assumptions about reality. But the implications of this are so terrible for the modern physicalist that they simply choose to ignore them.
This notion usually comes from a lack of study. Metaphysics is part of Western philosophy, and its modern form has little to do with its supposedly Greek roots. Philosophy as such pretty much died in late antiquity, and turned into the handmaiden of theology in the middle ages(where you get the horrendous monster that is scholasticism) and in the last 200 years, it turned into the handmaiden of science/technology. Most academic philosophers now do little more than speculate on the data that science provides them. I've been to several Philosophy departments in Europe and China, and I can tell you that philosophy professors and students are some of the least conscious beings there are. Modern philosophers embarass the discipline by basically accepting the idea that the brain generates consciousness, and not the other way around. They will never say anything profound or personal or real. It's just sophism at this point.
You have to keep in mind that the practical part of original philo-sophia and especially metaphysics was inherited by mystical fraternities. Platonism seems abstract and speculative to many people, but what about Iamblichus and his practical Theurgy that is informed by Late Antiquity Neo-platonism? What about the neoplatonic metaphysics that was inherited by the Sufi orders? Metaphysics certainly has progressed, just not within abstract philosophy(which is dead as dry bones).
Asolsutsesvyl, I would say it really comes down to skillfully wielding the tools of logic and mysticism, which means to not overextend their use beyond what can be expected of them.
The main practical use of logic, in my opinion, is to prevent yourself from falling into traps that would have otherwise occupied your entire life, such as getting sucked into a cult and believing in their message up until you die an old groupie. Cold hard logic can help you see through inconsistencies and give you just enough of a boost to disentangle yourself from the domination of others.
Where does logic end? Logic only works in categories and is wielded by the conceptual self; therefore it will not be able to comprehend the ineffable and, more formally speaking, the coincidentia oppositorum so heavily featured in genuine mysticism. Coincidentia oppositorum can be perceived but the moment you write it down, it turns into a paradox which cannot be comprehended by any logician.
A true student of metaphysics will eventually get to the limits of speculation, which is where you realize that any proper study of being/ontology must involve personal experience and go beyond the conceptual. This naturally gives birth to the old understanding of philo-sophia and mysticism.
Mysticism proper is concerned with the practical means towards bringing you towards pre-conceptual awareness. Being as such, and well beyond the confines of science and logic, which never claim to investigate what something really is, but only measure.
Since the ego, the unself, is so hard to pierce through, and since truly dwelling in pre-conceptual awareness is no easy task, I don't see how modern attempts to marry science to mysticism(such as what the Cassiopaeans claim) is possible.
In my opinion, you're best off trying to get really good at one of them.
Also beware of the tendency of cult survivors to go on a James Randi like crusade against cults/spiritual organisations/metaphysicians, where disappointment with themselves and anger fuels a sudden obsession with logic and intellectual over-analysis.
Materialism, as in metaphysical materialism, really is not tenable. The hard problem of consciousness cannot be solved by materialist assumptions about reality. But the implications of this are so terrible for the modern physicalist that they simply choose to ignore them.
(06-12-2021, 07:08 AM)Asolsutsesvyl Wrote: Most simply cannot be verified, that's the basic problem with metaphysics and why it hasn't progressed much along with science. Picking things and simply caring about logical consistency in what you piece together is, in my understanding, about the best a person can do.
This notion usually comes from a lack of study. Metaphysics is part of Western philosophy, and its modern form has little to do with its supposedly Greek roots. Philosophy as such pretty much died in late antiquity, and turned into the handmaiden of theology in the middle ages(where you get the horrendous monster that is scholasticism) and in the last 200 years, it turned into the handmaiden of science/technology. Most academic philosophers now do little more than speculate on the data that science provides them. I've been to several Philosophy departments in Europe and China, and I can tell you that philosophy professors and students are some of the least conscious beings there are. Modern philosophers embarass the discipline by basically accepting the idea that the brain generates consciousness, and not the other way around. They will never say anything profound or personal or real. It's just sophism at this point.
You have to keep in mind that the practical part of original philo-sophia and especially metaphysics was inherited by mystical fraternities. Platonism seems abstract and speculative to many people, but what about Iamblichus and his practical Theurgy that is informed by Late Antiquity Neo-platonism? What about the neoplatonic metaphysics that was inherited by the Sufi orders? Metaphysics certainly has progressed, just not within abstract philosophy(which is dead as dry bones).
Asolsutsesvyl, I would say it really comes down to skillfully wielding the tools of logic and mysticism, which means to not overextend their use beyond what can be expected of them.
The main practical use of logic, in my opinion, is to prevent yourself from falling into traps that would have otherwise occupied your entire life, such as getting sucked into a cult and believing in their message up until you die an old groupie. Cold hard logic can help you see through inconsistencies and give you just enough of a boost to disentangle yourself from the domination of others.
Where does logic end? Logic only works in categories and is wielded by the conceptual self; therefore it will not be able to comprehend the ineffable and, more formally speaking, the coincidentia oppositorum so heavily featured in genuine mysticism. Coincidentia oppositorum can be perceived but the moment you write it down, it turns into a paradox which cannot be comprehended by any logician.
A true student of metaphysics will eventually get to the limits of speculation, which is where you realize that any proper study of being/ontology must involve personal experience and go beyond the conceptual. This naturally gives birth to the old understanding of philo-sophia and mysticism.
Mysticism proper is concerned with the practical means towards bringing you towards pre-conceptual awareness. Being as such, and well beyond the confines of science and logic, which never claim to investigate what something really is, but only measure.
Since the ego, the unself, is so hard to pierce through, and since truly dwelling in pre-conceptual awareness is no easy task, I don't see how modern attempts to marry science to mysticism(such as what the Cassiopaeans claim) is possible.
In my opinion, you're best off trying to get really good at one of them.
Also beware of the tendency of cult survivors to go on a James Randi like crusade against cults/spiritual organisations/metaphysicians, where disappointment with themselves and anger fuels a sudden obsession with logic and intellectual over-analysis.