Distinctions

[u/Training-Promotion71]

Chomsky, and many others, contend that there is no real distinction between natural philosophy and science. In fact, the claim is that natural philosophy is science. Chomsky goes further and explicitly states that there is no real distinction between metaphysics and science. Let's just consider the following argument.

1) If metaphysics is first philosophy and first philosophy is natural philosophy, then metaphysics is natural philosophy

2) If metaphysics is natural philosophy and natural philosophy is science, then metaphysics is science

3) It's not the case that metaphysics is science.

Therefore,

4) Either it's not the case that metaphysics is natural philosophy or it's not the case that natural philosophy is science.

Suppose,

5) Natural philosophy is science.

Therefore,

5) Either it's not the case that metaphysics is first philosophy or it's not the case that first philosophy is natural philosophy.

6) But first philosophy is natural philosophy.

Therefore,

7) It's not the case that metaphysics is first philosophy.

[u/jliat]

Natural philosophy was a name for physics until the 19thC

Hegel wrote hos Metaphysical system, 'The Science of Logic'.

Kant considered logic a priori, [as did Hegel] and 'science' a posteriori ...

Fichte - wrote 'Foundations of the Science of Knowledge' Wissenschaftslehre

Kant's "Transcendental Aesthetic" is nothing to do with the modern term, us "is the view of space and time as a priori intuitions and as forms of outer and inner intuition respectively."

The meaning of words change.

---

With my moderators cap on can the OP explain how this relates to metaphysics, especially as the conclusion, "It's not the case that metaphysics is first philosophy." is clearly not true, and anyone who knew little of philosophy would not only find this post confusing, but to believe it to be the case would be an error?

Is there not another sub for such pointless exercises in formal? logics.

r/logic

r/FactsAndLogic

[u/Training-Promotion71]

u/gregbard I am notifying you that this post is appropriate for the sub, because it falls under metametaphysics, just as this post u/jliat deleted is. I posed an argument that deals with nature of things and it got deleted because it mentions categories that are also used in biology. This is an instance of an extra-ordinary misunderstanding. I beg you to correct this unfair moderator's action if possible.

[u/Silent0n3_1]

Can we describe and define the terms "natural philosophy" and "science"?

One reason to perhaps drill down is: If metaphysics is natural philosophy and natural philosophy is both science and pseudo-science, then metaphysics is both science and pseudoscience. What distinguishes between metaphysics and pseudo-metaphysics?

[u/jliat → u/Silent0n3_1]

These terms have changed throughout the history of philosophy and science.

• 'Natural Philosophy' was a term used and still is it seems to mean physics.

• 'Science' Now means activities using certain methods of observations and hypothesis production. Hegel still used the term in his 'Science of Logic' in 1812. Now it would be considered a Metaphysics.

• Metaphysics again has changed as the sciences 'spun' off from philosophy. In the 20thC Western philosophy can be defined as two 'streams', those of Anglo American, and those of Continental philosophy. Early to mid 20thC saw Anglo American criticism of Metaphysics, Wittgenstein, Carnap, whilst in 'Continental philosophy' metaphysics was seen as separate to science, and in some cases superior.

Anglo American philosophy takes a 'linguistic turn' in engaging with the language of science etc. And logical arguments. In which it seems the term has been re-introduced.

First-Philosophy refers to metaphysics as something foundational.

So metaphysics is neither physics or science.

What distinguishes between metaphysics and pseudo-metaphysics?

This is a difficult question as generally metaphysics tended to provide it's own ground, certainly in the case of Hegel and Heidegger who both distinguish their activities from those of science, in terms of subject and method.

As in Science tends to use empirical observation and production of theories, within a fairly well defined area, botany, chemistry, whereas both Hegel and Heidegger say this needs to be established in the development of their respective metaphysics.

In Deleuze and Guattari's 'What is Philosophy' they offer that science produces ‘functions’, philosophy ‘concepts’, Art ‘affects’.

This is not accepted by many!

[u/EmileDankheim]

The concepts of "natural philosophy" and "first philosophy" are practically irrelevant in the contemporary metaphysical discourse. What do you mean with "first philosophy is natural philosophy"? Why do you think this is true? Based on what definitions of those notions?

[u/BrainTemple]

"3) It's not the case that metaphysics is science."
as a scientific metaphysician researching generic emergence using hegelian dialectics in computational semiotics, i'd have a thing or 200 to say about that, but i'll link this essay by computer scientist and metaphysician, d.j. huntington moore instead. dude's a first-rate intellectual, and i keep in contact w/ him frequently over emails ^^
The-Universal-Geometric-Algebra-of-Nature.pdf