I’m a fan of A.J. Ayer, even though he has been heavily bashed for his verification principle. (The reason why I think he has been bashed will or will not be highlighted later.) I think he has THE point. Whatever you (philosophy) do, please.. metaphysics.. no.. I’m referring to cases of metaphysics taken too far where it involves cryptic diagrams and an essay exemplar of which when copied onto Microsoft Word generates a page where 50% is underlined in red— spelling and grammatical ‘errors’. I think scientism is to science as metaphysics is to philosophy (not in a strict sense).
Please, stop already.
I think everything in this world is ruled by pragmatism, of which I shall or shall not discuss at a later date. Therefore, I do not see a frank need to introduce unnecessary complications unless the complications have a pragmatic purpose (I shall leave the examples to your own imagination)— which I think of course, exists BUT, it is not for the LOVE OF ‘KNOWLEDGE’ OR ‘TRUTH’.
Please.. Get a grip.
Like a messy room that can never be cleaned up, or whose owner(s) can never muster the ability/motivation to clean it up, or an unconsciously deliberate ploy by the ones in charge of cleaning it up— not to clean it up fully so that the mess will always exist and they’ll retain their ‘jobs’, or a case where the benchmark of cleanliness is set to too high a standard—
What we do is to HIDE IT. Like The WISE NATALIE TRAN FROM COMMUNITYCHANNEL (that is what I do to my room, btw.)
Clarification: I am aware that my distaste for the subject which I have talked about can be largely due to my ignorance in the subject. I have attempted to catch up on a specific recent development in the subject (having chanced upon it when searching for something else) but I failed to completely grasp what the subject at hand is about (even after reading up on it and searching for background information for quite sometime. But again, from what I saw, I’m not the only one who thought that was ‘slightly’ ridiculous)— this, I admit, is largely due to my weakly-established knowledge for the field of metaphysics for what I have been taught or largely read up on are the applied fields of philosophy. Nevertheless, I think that even if I fully understand what I had read, the outcomes of what I’d thought about it wouldn’t have been much different.
I am also, not doing any personal or general attacks on anyone or anything or any organised group. I write things on my blog to be ‘logged’. If I’m around with what I think to be an extremist metaphysician, I would normally, never mention anything said above because I do not like to cross unnecessary paths with anyone and am never dogmatic on my views— if you talk to me, I’ll be more likely to find points to agree with you more than anything else— not because I’m submissive and untruthful (I’ll find points to agree on but I will never lie about anything that I don’t. I will also point things out politely if need be), but I find arguments of a trivial, ends-in-themselves nature which we know that wouldn’t bear any appreciable results useless.
And I do not speak with such a dismissive and ‘certain’ (a cousin of ‘egoistic’) tone. The reason why I have made the ‘clarification’ is to emphasize the difference between myself-in-interaction and myself-in-self-conversation-or-deliberate-writing. You (whoever it is) should therefore know that if you are one of those mentioned in the post, you were not the intended audience. But if you have read it, just appreciate this fact. The way you speak to someone whom you share a perspective with and someone whom you’re at odds with is different.
(I realise that my clarification is longer than the actual post but that is just me— I tend to write a lot when left to my own devices and I like to be clear. Thanks.)