Peter Jones writes:

> > Yes, of course. All such discourse is metaphysics, what else could it
> > be? It is a question of faith if we wish to go beyond this
> > acknowledgement and ascribe 'ultimate reality' in the direction of our
> > metaphysical gestures.
> When I say metaphysical, I don't mean "heopelessly insoluble".
> I am just expressing wariness of the idea that there is
> some way of reaching metaphsyical conclsuins
> by logical or mathematical means, that avoids the pitfalls
> of traditional metaphysics.
> >  In this broad ecumenical spirit, materialism is
> > a metaphysics too.
> Of course.
> > But we should be no less empirically demanding with
> > respect to our metaphysics.
> Metaphysics is not, and never was, divorced from empiricism.

Empiricism as a philosophical movement has traditionally been opposed 
to metaphysics. It hasn't just been a mild disagreement either, but an 
at times vicious dispute (well, as vicious as philosophers get). David 
Hume suggested that the best place for books on metaphysics was 
in the fire, and his successors including logical empiricists and analytic 
philosophers of the past century have generally tended to agree with 

Stathis Papaioannou
Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to