Is Metaphysics nonsense?

Yes, make ontology the prime meta-category of philosophy be done with it. As things stand, too many appeal to the mere existence of the branch 'metaphysics' as grounds for presupposing the validity of dichotomies and abstractions which lack actual supportive indications.

Yes, Kant showed so and BTFO metaphysics and more specifically ontology forever, nowadays its just larping fags

>I am the better pleased with the method of reasoning here delivered, as I think it may serve to confound those dangerous friends or disguised enemies to the Christian Religion, who have undertaken to defend it by the principles of human reason. Our most holy religion is founded on Faith, not on reason; and it is a sure method of exposing it to put it to such a trial as it is, by no means, fitted to endure.

*world for what it is is dependent on your senses and what they can perceive*
oh no!

Yes.

All christfags, deists, and pagan larpers ITT are just mad their inane ramblings serve no purpose in real world issues asides from further inculcating their own schizophrenic delusions.

Attached: 225px-Painting_of_David_Hume.jpg (225x276, 12K)

How in the flying fuck do you figure that user

>do you consider that to be objectively true or subjectively?

You've never read Kant have you?

FYI he ended up accepting a Spinozian "ether/One" in the end of his life and wrote about it in his last work but it was hidden away until the 20th century. The idea that Kant btfo or rejected speculative metaphysics doesn't align with reality.

I Kant read Kant.

I just Kant

where does one start with hume? he seems based and not pseud

>he ended up accepting a Spinozian "ether/One" in the end of his life and wrote about it in his last work but it was hidden away until the 20th century

sauce?

That's a bad argument for why metaphysics is nonsense.

Also, it isn't nonsense, but what IS nonsense is thinking that the metaphysical is independent of the physical, aka Plato. Observe someone else in thought and realize that their body is contributing to the formulation of their thoughts; then realize that your body just contributed to the formulation of that thought, and the next one as well, and so on.

enquiry on understanding

>Is Metaphysics nonsense?
Of course.

“It is in this very fathom- long physical frame with its
perceptions and mind, that, I declare lies the world, the
arising of the world, the cessation of the world, and the path
leading to the cessation of the world”
- Rohitassa Sutta , S.I.61

“Friend, that by which one has a perception of the world and a
conceit of the world , that in the discipline of the noble ones, is called
the world? By what friend has one perception of the world and a conceit
of the world.?
By the eye" friends, one has a perception of the world and a
conceit of the world, by the ear …………. by the nose …………. by the
tongue…….. by the body ………… by the mind, friends, one has a
perception of the world and a conceit of the world . That friend by
which one has a perception of the world and a conceit of the world,
that in this discipline of the noble ones, is called ' the world'.
(S iv 95)

"Thus, monks, a Tathàgata does not conceive of a visible thing as apart from sight; he does not conceive of an unseen; he
does not conceive of a 'thing-worth-seeing'; he does not conceive
about a seer.
He does not conceive of an audible thing as apart from hearing;
he does not conceive of an unheard; he does not conceive of a
'thing-worth-hearing'; he does not conceive about a hearer.
He does not conceive of a thing to be sensed as apart from
sensation; he does not conceive of an unsensed; he does not
conceive of a 'thing-worth-sensing'; he does not conceive about one
who senses.
He does not conceive of a cognizable thing as apart from
cognition; he does not conceive of an uncognized; he does not
conceive of a 'thing-worth-cognizing'; he does not conceive about
one who cognizes
- AN 4.24"

Attached: buddha.gif (466x625, 205K)

Lmao imagine being an empiricist

Well it just is.

>matter of fact and existence

I WISH Hume could have passed into sophistry and illusion once his fat ass stopped being a matter of fact and existence.

I agree. He even admits that reason itself is pointless and only serves base passions. Explains his gluttony. This is why it shocks me that young Schopenhauer held any affinity toward him.

>but dude I can remember my past lives because I'm like so enlightened and because of that you should accept this elaborate metaphysical scheme involving rebirth lmao!!! Also you should totally check out these later Buddhist thinkers who constructed even more elaborate systems of metaphysics!!!
Buddhist-posters have so little self-awareness (no-pun intended) that it's sometimes astonishing

Attached: 1557681722751.jpg (320x371, 62K)

In his last work that wasn't published until 1936 (and which was ignored by many scholars/thinkers who wanted to be fashionably "post-Kantian") he ends up accepting ideas somewhat similar to the Spinozian substance, Neoplatonic One, eastern equivalents etc

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opus_Postumum

quora.com/Is-the-Opus-Postumum-neglected-by-Kant-scholars-If-so-why

METAphysics

>I'll take the world for what it is.

Stay in your lane betaphysics

Attached: 9D3AA3FA-593D-49E1-8513-29FF4FAC1A57.png (327x316, 165K)

my only experience with metaphysics so far is plato and yes it seems bullshit

t. thinks metaphysics = "woo woo mysticism"

No the point of metaphysics is you can see it but you’ve taken it for granted. Metaphysics is the obvious obvious, but people are stupid. This thread for example. Nobody here actually reads lol

But seeing is subjective

Touché

It was once widely accepted that the Earth was the center of the universe, and also that it was flat. The arrogance of rational materialism in its total rejection of any metaphysical notion is on full display here. Who is to say that a similarly paradigm shifting discovery wouldn't radically change how we view the world? Yes, we seemingly live in a physical material world, but the rules of mathematics and physics bend considerably at sufficiently extreme speeds and temperatures. Perhaps one of the most pertinent questions regarding metaphysics is the origin of consciousness.

Attached: sufi.jpg (597x640, 160K)

Is Science even a science?

Attached: B39EAD1B-9FFB-4F79-9ED1-0E170169D1AF.png (233x229, 15K)

"Nonsense" is an entirely metaphysical construct. Try again

Reason itself can never be the impulse to any action or thought... We only reason about something or the other because we first feel some way about things. Reason is indeed a tool which, although capable of reciprocally directing and refining our 'passions', cannot truly precede them. This observation is in no way an assertion that "reason itself is pointless"... What a ridiculous strawman.

second half of this

No, and Hume actually did metaphysics and he actually admits it. What he opposes is the 'metaphysics of the schoolmen' aka Scholastic stuff, and that of the moderns (really meaning Cartesian/Lockean people).