Commentary on Daniel Dennett on Sean Carroll’s podcast: Minds, Patterns, and the Scientific Image Part I

Commentary on Daniel Dennett on Sean Carroll’s podcast: Minds, Patterns, and the Scientific Image Part I

Commentary on Daniel Dennett on Sean Carroll’s podcast: Minds, Patterns, and the Scientific Image Part I
— Read on better-questions-than-answers.blog/2020/01/23/commentary-on-daniel-dennett-on-sean-carrolls-podcast-minds-patterns-and-the-scientific-image-part-i/

Reading this transcription, I’ve come upon some thoughts.

I wonder if “metaphysics” should be defined as a proposal of mapping onto one another two facets which appear involved with one aspect. Is Metaphysics a description, or an attempt to describe or promote a particular view of that one aspect in consideration of two facets?

In reading the transcript at this link to post, I can’t help but be impressed how the Philosopher that he’s interviewing is really proposing a metaphysics in the sense that I just put forth.

He refers to “the scientific image” and “the manifest image”, which is a classical 20th century notion that I guess Dennet came up with (i’m not looking at the post right now while I’m writing this comment, and I’m not quite remembering who it was that came up with this idea).

It made me ponder all the other philosophical proposals, Albeit ones that appear in a certain light, a certain hue, so to speak, of what is considered philosophical. 

When I think about it, A certain brand or a certain appearance of philosophy shows itself as, first a philosopher assuming what is given, assuming what is generally regarded as common by the people that are reading her proposal or his, and then speaking from that standpoint as if what they are talking about philosophically is indeed commonly and generally known, at that, to everyone who is thinking philosophically. It seems like a certain flavor of philosophy is assumed to be global across what is philosophical. And so these kinds of philosophers who have proposed to give us a picture, an initial picture of what this assumption grants.

I don’t mean this in the sense of the Philosopher is defining for us how she or he is philosophically situating whatever matter at hand, whatever discourse they’re going to put forth whatever argument. I mean it in the sense that there is an underlying assumption of common philosophy that goes unsaid, and if one was to challenge what this unspoken assumption was, often enough, the rebuttal to that is that the person is ignorant, uneducated or, what I have gotten here and there, speaking nonsense. 😆

If the reader wants to, she Can sort through my years of posts and the probably thousands of comments and a few long discussions that I’ve had with various people here and there to find out or to see firsthand how these conversations actually unfold.

But aside from that issue…

I’m saying that the Philosopher first assumes what is common and then moves to define the stakes and the players of whatever game he has, as though everyone can surely agree on what is assumed of the game, such that it can never be questioned.

And I think this accounts for what we do understand as metaphysics in the sense that such philosopher is supposed to be encountering what is real and what could be something else. Because of this configuration, due to this kind of automatic reckoning that everyone every human is supposed to be able to gather conceptually given the right definitions, given the right educational level of or for discourse and understanding, because of this assumes common ability for human beings to work with knowledge, philosophy therefore is about mapping opposites into a unity, or at least mapping what appears as such a case compared to what appears as another case and mapping those two appearances together to come to this, I don’t know, proposal of reality.

Now, I’m not saying this to suggest that it is an incorrect way of doing things or that it is somehow coming to incorrect conclusions or improper modes or anything like that. I am simply saying that what these people are involved with is metaphysics, and in this way that I described that is what metaphysics is.

And I’m also saying that in so much as Philosophy might be concerned in this way and assumed to only be concerned with this method and it’s manner of coming to conclusions and or discussing things with others,  in so much as it is indeed understood to be sacrosanct and undefeatable so far is what we’re dealing with and what we are able to present to other people, we are indeed dealing with real things.

My point really comes down to why should I be so concerned with what reality is and what I do in it or how I do it how I think about it or the actions that I might proceed to encounter within it.

This question thus does not invalidate that indeed we can consider real things and that philosophy does concern reality in real things, I’m simply saying that there’s another type of philosophy that is equally as valid that isn’t entirely concerned with whether or not we can argue various things about reality, and that indeed who and what I am as a human being and a creature of the universe only partially hast to do with this metaphysical consideration of reality

Basically I’m really saying I’m not sure that reality is that important, but that indeed is it is important to others. I wonder if this is where Philosophy, in reality, begins.