I think that too is a fair thing to point out. It's a self refuting argument. This is why I'm so big on metaphysical arguments though. With a metaphysical argument you have to reason out a consistent system of how and why knowledge and morals are the way they are. It sort of weeds out incongruent arguments or else your metaphysical argument won't work.
At the root of any metaphysical axiom is a fundamental article of faith that the whole thing is built on which is why I regard most metaphysics to be dishonest and unproductive
I don't know why faith is such a bad thing. I have faith that my federal tax return will show up in the mail any day now. Just because it hasn't yet doesn't mean it won't come eventually. People who invest have faith there is a return but they still hedge. A metaphysical model would not work on anyone's time but it's own.
I think the most decent metaphysical argument would be the argument of hierarchical metaphysics advocated by both Aristotle AND St. Thomas Aquinas. Both of them, despite having at least 1,500 years between them came to the conclusion that there was a hierarchy of metaphysical importance with each step in the hierarchy filled with objects and creatures of an increasing level of epistemological capability and ethical responsibility. The only difference between the arguments being that Aristotle felt the hierarchy was natural and etched into the universe where as Aquinas felt the Christian God was the creator and head of the hierarchy. To me the fact that multiple philosophers agreed on most aspects of this model makes it a compelling metaphysical argument.
I hear you, metaphysics can be a useful exercise, it’s a tool to use and then go build more practically minded sets of ideas upon. There are countless philosophers with bizarre and shitty ideas that have created metaphysical narratives that are logically consistent, if the foundational suppositions that the metaphysical narrative is based on is bizarre and shitty so will be the rest, sound logic or not
Keep in mind that most of the great classical works of antiquity were not in Italy during the time of St. Thomas Aquinas but were being held by Muslim kings during the Islamic Golden Age. So there is very little chance that Aquinas read or copied any of Aristotle's work.
I’d rather read the metaphysical meandering of a Muslim king than the rational idealism of Hegel or the emo bs the existentialists cooked up. Worshiping ones own intellect is a fatal trap too many philosophers have fallen onto. Aquinas was a solid guy considering his situation, nothing bad to say about him though I thought he referenced the republic a few times
I think that too is a fair thing to point out. It's a self refuting argument. This is why I'm so big on metaphysical arguments though. With a metaphysical argument you have to reason out a consistent system of how and why knowledge and morals are the way they are. It sort of weeds out incongruent arguments or else your metaphysical argument won't work.
At the root of any metaphysical axiom is a fundamental article of faith that the whole thing is built on which is why I regard most metaphysics to be dishonest and unproductive
I don't know why faith is such a bad thing. I have faith that my federal tax return will show up in the mail any day now. Just because it hasn't yet doesn't mean it won't come eventually. People who invest have faith there is a return but they still hedge. A metaphysical model would not work on anyone's time but it's own.
I think the most decent metaphysical argument would be the argument of hierarchical metaphysics advocated by both Aristotle AND St. Thomas Aquinas. Both of them, despite having at least 1,500 years between them came to the conclusion that there was a hierarchy of metaphysical importance with each step in the hierarchy filled with objects and creatures of an increasing level of epistemological capability and ethical responsibility. The only difference between the arguments being that Aristotle felt the hierarchy was natural and etched into the universe where as Aquinas felt the Christian God was the creator and head of the hierarchy. To me the fact that multiple philosophers agreed on most aspects of this model makes it a compelling metaphysical argument.
I hear you, metaphysics can be a useful exercise, it’s a tool to use and then go build more practically minded sets of ideas upon. There are countless philosophers with bizarre and shitty ideas that have created metaphysical narratives that are logically consistent, if the foundational suppositions that the metaphysical narrative is based on is bizarre and shitty so will be the rest, sound logic or not
Keep in mind that most of the great classical works of antiquity were not in Italy during the time of St. Thomas Aquinas but were being held by Muslim kings during the Islamic Golden Age. So there is very little chance that Aquinas read or copied any of Aristotle's work.
I’d rather read the metaphysical meandering of a Muslim king than the rational idealism of Hegel or the emo bs the existentialists cooked up. Worshiping ones own intellect is a fatal trap too many philosophers have fallen onto. Aquinas was a solid guy considering his situation, nothing bad to say about him though I thought he referenced the republic a few times