Do you consider Man a metaphysical being?

[thehehe]

I was thinking this morning -yes, it does happen sometimes-, and realized that I was certain of the metaphysical dimension of Man, thanks to the language. I explain myself:
As the only being gifted by the language, Man as an incredibly ability: to make things "exist" in his mind -the conceptual thinking. Well in fact I would prefer "in-sist" (while this word is not a correct word, I know) rather than "exist": to make things appear inside the mind and not outside. The ability of creating, in a mind, an object which is not there. Yes, of course, an object that he already knew. However, he can do that above the physical dimension. So, to me, this is clear that man is metaphysical. I was even considering that the metaphysical mind could be more real than the physical body: "I think so I am". I speak, so I am. I could consider everything physical as an illusion. I could consider the human body as an illusion, while I could not for the human brain and conceptual thinking.
It adds a spiritual (not necessary religious) dimension of Man, dimension that still can be contested.
As this explanation surely has a lot of defects and weaknesses, I wanted you to criticize and discuss the question. Are you convinced that Man is the only metaphysical being, and are you even convinced that a metaphysical dimension exists (or in-sists? Sorry, I truly do not like to match exist with the metaphysic)

 

[Neochristian]

Only if he is a philosopher.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Eudaimonist]

I don't use the word "metaphysical" in the same way that you do, but I'll just say that I view any animal species with a reasonably developed brain as having some sort of mental life, possibly even involving imagination. I doubt that we as human beings are alone in this.

I don't see mind as indicative of some non-physical dimension. I take a dual-aspect view of the mind-body relation.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Neochristian]

I try to keep it to the original meaning, strangely coined by the guy famous for using eudaemonia.

 

[Neochristian]

If you mean nonphysical say nonphysical. It saves on confusion, good sir.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[durangodawood]

...I was certain of the metaphysical dimension of Man, thanks to the language....

So, we have a metaphysical dimension because we recognize meaning, and meaning is essentially non-physical?

 

[thehehe]

Well -I consider metaphysical on its etymological meaning, "above the physical".

 

[Neochristian]

Before and after.

 

[thehehe]

Before and after.

Also.

 

[Neochristian]

Trust me, just say nonphysical. You'll save on so much confusion. You'll thank me later. You might even answer some of the questions you seek just by using the right word.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Neochristian]

Also.

Primarily.

 

[durangodawood]

Well -I consider metaphysical on its etymological meaning, "above the physical".

Isnt "above" just a value judgement rather than a fact of reality?

 

[Neochristian]

Isnt "above" just a value judgement rather than a fact of reality?

As far as I know, in this case it is.

 

[durangodawood]

I wonder if in fact the physical came first, and mental objects and meanings are emergent phenomena in the world, enabled by the amazing complexity of the human brain-mind.

 

[Neochristian]

I wonder if in fact the physical came first, and mental objects and meanings are emergent phenomena in the world, enabled by the amazing complexity of the human brain-mind.

That is the current scientific answer.

 

[Neochristian]

Materialism accounts for all phenomena in the universe except, I believe, dark matter and dark energy, and maybe consciousness.

That means almost everything can be explained in terms of being physical.

That's not as much of a problem as you might imagine though. The nonphysical, or the metaphysical, as you call it, still may exist, and almost certainly does.

 

[expos4ever]

I think we needlessly confuse an already difficult matter by using the word “metaphysical”. And I am, likewise, suspicious of the concept of “the physical”, not least since I suspect there is great variety in the meaning different people attach to this word.

Yes, of course, human beings have access to an inner world of feelings, images, and concepts, but I think we introduce needless confusion by trying to stuff the elements of that inner world into a philosophical category. In any event, I see no reason to believe that only human beings can experience and, in some sense, construct this inner life.

On the matter of language: I believe the experts (e.g. Steven Pinker) assert that one should not argue thus:

1. Humans alone use language (that is debatable anyway);
   
   
2. Language is the fundamental unit of thinking;
   
   
3. Therefore only humans can think (at any reasonable level of complexity)
   

I believe that while language is obviously a central aspect of being human, it is not the basis of how we actually think (and I say this fully conceding that thinking as we experience it at least, usually manifests in terms of “inner sentences”).

 

[Neochristian]

Would you include emotions in the category of thought?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Eudaimonist]

Well -I consider metaphysical on its etymological meaning, "above the physical".

Meta- means "after".

Edited to add:

It can mean "beyond", but not "above". In philosophy, it doesn't necessarily refer to anything non-physical.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[expos4ever]

Would you include emotions in the category of thought?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not sure who this is directed at, but I would say this is a very difficult question for a layman to answer. So, I have no idea.