This isn't a question about metaphysics, but it is directly related.

There appears to be no materialists here. This is probably because most materialists don't even consider themselves to be materialists in a metaphysical sense - they just dismiss metaphysics as indistinguishable from fairytales. People like Richard Dawkins have a very good understanding of how science works, but don't understand how science is related to other forms of knowledge, because they don't accept that there are any other form of knowledge. That there are no people like Daniel Dennett here is probably because he is one of a kind. I'd be very interested if there's a Dennett admirer reading this. If so, please do respond.

For everybody else..

What do you think science is? And how do you think it relates to materialism? If you had to define science to some visiting aliens who have come here to understand humanity, how would you define it?

What is science?

I just realized, didn't lesbian Ymir come back from transformation naked? Which makes sense because she was a pure titan, and therefore doesn't have a human body at the nape. yet armin still had his pants on when he became the colossal. of course he also still somehow has pants after being burned beyond burned.

just trying to figure out if grisha ripped his son's clothes off first or not.

The theology and metaphysics of the TES universe is one of the deepest and most unique areas of TES lore, and it has some clear influences from lots of world religions and concepts like Hinduism, Gnosticism, Dualism, Zoroastrianism, etc (MK did study comparative religion I believe)

Christianity is the most influential and popular religion in the world, and particularly in the west, so it makes sense the developers wouldn't want to take from it too heavily and would prefer to look to more unknown and ancient influences.

As a Biblical & Theological Studies major though, I can't help but wonder, what are some parts of TES theology and metaphysics that are influenced by or borrow concepts from Christianity?

Its like a 2 minutes video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEunth9YCgo and says the big bang is still happening, that humans are a part of it.

heres so me of it: "Way out in space, and way out in time. Billions of years ago, you were a big bang, but now you're a complicated human being. And then we cut ourselves off, and don't feel that we're still the big bang. But you are. Depends how you define yourself. You are actually--if this is the way things started, if there was a big bang in the beginning-- you're not something that's a result of the big bang. You're not something that is a sort of puppet on the end of the process. You are still the process. You are the big bang, the original force of the universe, coming on as whoever you are. "

Let's try to get a grip on Bakker's metaphysics here. It's been awhile and I'm a little rusty but these are I think some of the most salient points. I know there are no final answers

- So we got a Solitary God who is annulled/annuls himself to give birth to multiplicity: the Hundred. Looking here at a kind of Gnostic Pleroma lacerated by differentiation.

- The Hundred are like (in TES lore) mini-Amaranths which "stabilize" the volatility of Outside into pocket universes/demesnes.

- Earwa is the point of maximal objectivity where souls, in the friction produced between their wills and the brute conditions of the world, generate experience or Bakker's equivalent of loosh which the Hundred feed on.

- Safe to say the Hundred are like gnostic Archons: they "farm" realities; the soil is objectivity, the crop is subjectivity.

- The Consult are trying to provoke a second occlusion. The first was the One God nullified by his many manifestations, and the second is the Consult trying to occlude Earwa from the sight of the Hundred.

- Kellhus was trying to use the dynamics of faith and belief as they can only manifest in an objective world to either create his own demesne or create a beach-head in the Outside from which he might wage a metaphysical war on the Hundred.

- There's a Zero God in there somewhere.

Addendum:

- Based on Bakker's own Blind Brain Theory, he seems to be saying: the Gods (like the human brain) operate with a power of sight that is functionally indistinguishable from a kind of ontological blindness.

- Also a deep gnostic (and Platonic) principle: "Reality and falseness are two words for the same thing." I don't think any of this is really opposed to how Bakker describes the human brain: no sight without a constitutive blind spot (medial neglect as he calls it). The Gods are blind precisely for being able to see.

- Mimara seems to have pierced through the Kenoma/Outside and seen a glimpse of the True God. I hope Bakker's got something in the works for this entity/force/principle, there's only so much black cum a man can take.

2nd Addendum:

- "There is a head on a pole behind you." Pretty obviously means Kellhus found a way to ground his own axis or "reality-pole" in the Outside, that's why he's constantly referencing it, so long as he stays in its ambit he doesn't get caught on the pole or monad of a Ciphrang. Damnation isn't like being tortured by a being but by a principle, an entire malignant universe. I like t

Can you please suggest a book on cosmology and metaphysics from Hindu perspective? (I have Cosmo by Carl Sagan and was thinking of reading Jean Paul Sartre but Sartre's work, I've heard, is based on atheism while I want things from ancient Vedic perspective?)

Naya flair halya raixa, paile dekhina

Part 1: Link. Adapted from the book - Sanskrit Non-translatables by Rajiv Malhotra and Satyanarayan Dasa Babaji.

Estimated reading time: 5 minutes, 3 seconds. Contains 1012 words.

_____________________

Overview : METAPHYSICS

• Saguna/Nirguna ≠ Qualified/Qualityless
• Atma ≠ Soul
• Maya ≠ Illusion
• Jiva ≠ Soul
• Kaivalya ≠ Salvation
• Hinduism ≠ Monotheism or Polytheism (current topic of the post)
• Om ≠ Amen

Intro: Metaphysics

Almost all Indian metaphysical systems deal with the nature of the individual self, the external insentient world, Universal Self or Brahman and the ultimate goal of man, namely, to escape from the limitations of this phenomenal life.

The Indian rishi-s had direct intuitive vision of metaphysical concepts such as atma, jiva, maya, etc., which are the fundamental truths of reality and verifiable by one willing to make an effort.

• In the Vedantic thought, these entities are not independent but inseparably related and dependent on the one ontologically independent principle – the Brahman.

• Indian metaphysics also deals with the nature of causation. Vedanta propounds the theory of causal relation called satkaryavada (Vedantic theory of causality) which holds that the effect does not come into existence out of nothing. Any effect is always potentially present in its cause and is only a manifestation of that potential, just as a whole tree is potentially present in a seed and manifests from it.

An important corollary that follows from the principle of satkaryavada is that the cosmos, including all the sentient jiva-s and insentient matter in it, is eternal and has not been created ex-nihilo at some point in time. The whole cosmos is only subject to cyclic manifestation and concealment, and not creation and destruction. Indian seers strongly believed that being cannot arise from void or non-being and vice versa. Abrahamic traditions, however, believe exactly the opposite and maintain that God created the universe and its contents.

________________

Hinduism is not Monotheism/Polytheism

Western scholars tend to map the Vedic tradition onto the Judeo-Christian theological framework with categories such as monotheism, polytheism or pantheism, without any foundational basis.

Unfortunately, today, some Hindus too have adopted this c

Hello, recently my girlfriend has discovered a passion for metaphysics. I try my best not to turn my nose at different belief systems so ive been supportive. Recently she signed up for the University of Metaphysics, and while I recognize that chances are she won't make a career out of it, if it makes her happy and helps her explore this passion to the fullest im all for it.

I've been talking to friends about it, and yknow how some people are in regards to these sorts of things, loudly proclaiming she's being scammed and wasting her time. I try to tune it out but its been so loud I've developed concerns about the intentions of this institution. Basically is it an establishment run my grifters or, at the very least, do they hold a legitimate belief in this and are trying to spread their knowledge.

I'm very realistic about the fact she likely won't ever have a "job" in this field (maybe she can build some tiny side hustles with it) but I really dont care about that. If anything im happy she's found a passion she's motivated to explore to this extent, and if this is a legitimate avenue to do that, great! People spend thousands of dollars all the time on courses that do nothing for them professionally, but allow them to better understand and explore their hobbies and passions all the time, whether it be hiring a guitar teacher or ski instructor, and as far as I'm concerned this really isn't that different.

I'm a social scientist and Zen Buddhist practitioner. This question is for people who are familiar with the philosophy of science and/or Buddhist metaphysics, but would love to hear thoughts anybody might have to offer:

I understand Buddhist metaphysical theory is extraordinary diverse across schools and these theories were not developed to guide scientific inquiry...however: metaphysics grounds research methodology by providing a framework to think about the nature of reality, human observation and perception, and the possibility of building knowledge. Most social sciences are rooted in realism (which assumes a reality independent of human observation) or constructivism (which, in its strongest forms, argues for multiple realities dependent on human observation). Such metaphysical theories rely on dualistic accounts of reality (subject-object) though Buddhism posits that this distinction is false and instead argues for non-dualism (again: this is my understanding from Zen Buddhism, it may differ across schools).

I was wondering if you anybody is aware of attempts to create a philosophy of science (or, more broadly, knowledge-building) that is rooted in Buddhist metaphysics and/or non-dualism? What assumptions would we make and what would such a methodology entail?

I know this is a highly specific and maybe even a technical question, but it's interesting to ponder and would be curious to hear thoughts.

edit: I’m receiving a lot of personal advice on how to use Buddhist philosophy in my life and, tbh, it wasn’t asked for. I know that this isn’t important in terms of personal practice. I also understand the limitations here. I’m looking to discuss potential application of Buddhist metaphysics for a philosophy of knowledge production and science. I might be a Buddhist but I’m also a social scientist trying to solve real-world problems here, and interested in seeing if there’s synergy in terms of metaphysical bases for action.

Is there a different subreddit (or flair) where this might be more appropriate? I would like some help brainstorming metaphysics for a 5e campaign world that pulls somewhat strongly from Judeo--Catholic-Islamic cosmology and some of their respective medieval-era philosophical traditions. Particularly stumped on how to deal with the inner planes, and the astral. Although I think I've got an idea for the Feywild that works using Plato, Plotinus and the Christian neoplatonists, there's still some kinks with the metaphysics of it.

(Currently using Aristotelian virtue ethics plus a bastardized Thomistic hylomorphism to synthesize the Outer Planes and the afterlife with the cosmology I'm going for, if that means anything to anyone.)

I'd imagine Jews, Catholics and Muslims well informed on their respective religious and intellectual traditions might find this most interesting or be most helpful. If it's allowed by the rules, feel free to DM me if interested. But comments are helpful regardless.

!!!

I'm having trouble reconciling some metaphysical issues in my (very loosely) Hindu-based fictional world. There are two "tribes" of deities: the Celestials, which are solar, and the Hlonir (sg. hlor), which are lunar. The Celestials are actually animate pieces of the shattered Sunchild, an attempt by the Sun to create an offspring, a second sun, that unfortunately failed, falling to earth and leaving its shattered remains to develop into the Celestials.

By the current time, the Celestials have split into three factions (good, evil, and neutral), each of which has created, through various magical means, a child race to act as servants or companions. These three child races--humans, Rathnukar (demons), and Glothgana (angels)--have in them an ajna, that is, a will that in turn shares in some of the "sun-essence" the Celestials possess.

To combat the growing threat of the Aqbudur, the evil Celestials, the Sun creates a new tribe of gods, whose essences and nature are fundamentally different than the Celestials. These are the Hlonir, wandering lunar deities whose task it is to help foment resistance to the Aqbudur across the various realms. Unlike the Celestials, the Hlonir have no sun-essence; they cannot engage in the magical act of Making, whereby a Celestial can impose its will upon nearby reality. They can, however, change their shape, size, and so forth, which the Celestials, for all their power, cannot do.

During the act of Making, a Celestial, because it is imposing its will upon the universe, opens its mind to other Celestials, who then become aware of what it is doing. To avoid making their plans known to their enemies, the Aqbudur created the unholy magical language of Qubdur, ("to bind by speaking"), putting some of their own essence into it and permitting them to cast black sorcery without opening their minds to their enemies, the benevolent gods.

Here is the difficulty: I have established, at least in my own mind, that the Aqbudur, to conserve their own power, are extremely unlikely to devise any system of writing for Qubdur. The method of writing Qubdur, the Tar-Thrak ("the hateful letters"), was devised by the fallen hlor Nakhsul, who had succumbed to darkness. But making the Tar-Thrak would require using Qubdur, using Qubdur would require having an ajna, or portion of the sun-essence...but Nakhsul, being a hlor, has no ajna.

I don't know how to reconcile that the one person who I would like to create this system of mystica

Is there a comprehensive study guide recommending books covering the main areas of metaphysics in depth? Looking for something similar to Peter Smith’s study guide on logic!

I was reading this essay on Deleuze and Derrida concerning immanence and transcendence. The essay mainly outlines the two different projects where one is creating a new metaphysics while the other is trying to deconstruct metaphysics from within. At one part it says that (one of) immanence's critique of transcendence is that:

>transcendence represents my slavery and impotence reduced to its lowest point: the absolute demand to do the absolutely impossible is nothing other than the concept of impotence raised to infinity. This is why transcendence itself poses precise and difficult ethical problems for a philosophy of immanence: If transcendence represents my impotence (power = 0), then under what conditions can I have actually been led to desire transcendence?

And then, >immanence poses a precise and difficult problem for a philosophy of transcendence: How can one bridge the interval that separates the transcendent from the immanent - for instance, the interval between the undeconstructability of justice from the deconstructability of the law?

The essay asks us to think in terms of a practical philosophy. Although the author advocates an immanent approach, at the end they say that it seems to them >that it is at this level - at the practical and not merely speculative level - that the relative merits of philosophies of immanence and transcendence need to be assessed and decided

I'm extremely fond of Deleuze's metaphysics but is there a way to situate Deleuze in a metaphysics of transcendence without doing away with the horizontality of his project? He admired Spinoza's philosophy where we are modes of the substance. What happens if we have two substances instead one? Although in his lecture on Spinoza he does say that any philosophy of emanation is hierarchical. That's why I need some help in getting me started in some direction. I'm not very well read in Deleuze as I have been reading him only for a few months. Any help is welcome!

So, just to outline what I understand to be metaphysics, it is the study of being, the study of existence. What does it mean to exist? Do we have a soul? What is the “fundamental” nature of reality? And so on and so on. So metaphysics would be what? The study of the discourse around these questions? Or is it just a “deeper” metaphysics? Introductory articles and links to this topic would be greatly appreciated.

My usual podcasts are

- Brain Science, Econ Talk, 99% invisible, Philosophize this etc.

I want to learn more about other topics like thought experiments / alternate reality.

I really don't know how to explain much. I would say thought provoking podcasts like the ones related to nature / mind / society etc. (except Physics / Aliens / Conspiracy theories)

For example: Recently i listened to podcasts about how a city can work as a network of consciousness.

Thank you for suggestions.

I'm trying to understand the application of symbolic logic to philosophy because that might inspire me to do well in my logic class where we're talking about gamma and sigma and these turnstile symbols for logical consequence. Thank you.

Part 1: Link*. Adapted from the book - Sanskrit Non-translatables by Rajiv Malhotra and Satyanarayan Dasa Babaji.*

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes, 58 seconds. Contains 795 words

TLDR - Hinduism believes in the inherent unity of every Polytheist manifested entity. Brahman is m/ not exhausted in the Pantheism manifestation of both the sentient and insentient world. Monotheism has only one God but no multiple manifestations or forms of the one God – this is against dharmic ideas. Polytheism refers to existence of distinct, unrelated gods – this is different from the integral and unified, yet distinct entities in Hinduism. Pantheism espouses all things as being God but God is exhausted in immanence and there is no transcendent God which is opposite to the concepts in Hinduism.

_____

Few terms within METAPHYSICS;

>Saguna/Nirguna ≠ Qualified/Qualityless | Atma ≠ Soul | Maya ≠ Illusion | Jiva ≠ Soul | Kaivalya ≠ Salvation | Hinduism ≠ Monotheism or Polytheism (current topic of the post) | Om ≠ Amen

Intro: Metaphysics

Almost all Indian metaphysical systems deal with the nature of the individual self, the external insentient world, Universal Self or Brahman and the ultimate goal of man, namely, to escape from the limitations of this phenomenal life.

The Indian rishi-s had direct intuitive vision of metaphysical concepts such as atma, jiva, maya, etc., which are the fundamental truths of reality and verifiable by one willing to make an effort.

• In the Vedantic thought, these entities are not independent but inseparably related and dependent on the one ontologically independent principle – the Brahman.

An important corollary that follows from the principle of satkaryavada (Vedantic theory of causality) is that the cosmos, including all the sentient jiva-s and insentient matter in it, is eternal and has not been created ex-nihilo at some point in time. The whole cosmos is only subject to cyclic manifestation and concealment, and not creation and destruction. Indian seers strongly believed that being cannot arise from void or non-being and vice versa. Abrahamic traditions, however, believe exactly the opposite and maintain that God created the universe and its contents.

_____

Hinduism is not Monotheism/Polytheism

Western scholars tend to map the Vedic tradition onto the Judeo-Christian theol