Morphic Tide
Well-known member
No ideal is inseparable from its origin, otherwise you'd be abandoning this very statement to saying the philosophical framework is built on myths about Magna Carta and Ancient Greek politics. And such is incompatible with the spread of ideas between culture groups, most especially given how the United States basically brute forced its system of government onto Japan with minimal cultural changes.
Another way of putting it is that the way the Constitution has been upheld by judges in the past has established the precedent that the policy must be sound despite its religious basis, so the current state of affairs with LGB rights very strongly disproves any such narrative. Since them getting their rights has manifestly improved society, even by most of the measures the religious arguments use to demonize them, one must show truly groundbreaking information
Metaphysics aren't first principals, first principals are another way of putting axioms. Things that are explicitly not logical, because logic must have starting points to inform it. Platonic Realism is a vastly inferior descriptive method to mathematics because it operates only on ideal generalizations. It has poor descriptive value for any real object, and minimal predictive power because of the axiom that there exist ideal forms it concerns itself with. It admits to doing nothing of material value, it is purely a philosophical "game".
Edit: Doing a bit more research, Aristotelian Hylomorphism is directly contradictory to Platonic Realism, being born of answering some fundamental flaws with Platonic Forms with regressing to a concept of constituent matter, which was further modified into the origins of modern chemistry and ultimately the abandonment of metaphysical "Prime Matter", of which the nearest analogue is String Theory, which has the unfalsifiability problem mentioned in later paragraphs where the proponents haven't been able to figure out how to show it could be wrong. /edit
The importance of first principals, in the sense of the original assumptions one's reasoning is based on, is well illustrated by Principia Mathematica, a book which re-derives mathematics from extremely few principals of set theory, ultimately taking over three hundred and fifty pages to conclude that 1+1=2, though it's a rather infamously inefficient proof for deliberately being excessively rigorous, which is one of the reasons why axioms are so common because logic that pure is so time-consuming and counter-intuitive as to not be productive to almost anything, including the few geniuses able to readily engage in it.
What those dismissals tend to center around is that your principals are unfalsifiable. You make arguments that literally can't be proven wrong, which is utterly unacceptable to modern standards of logic because of the influence of Empiricism and how it has so utterly transformed human living conditions. Genuine metaphysics always fails this test, because it is explicitly defined as operations of reality that are unobservable.
Mathematics and logic are not metaphysics, because they make no such claims. They claim only descriptive value, that one can translate phenomena into their lexicon and thereby infer consequences accurately; both have actually determined that they cannot accurately ascertain the whole of reality, because there is no end of detail, in the case of mathematics being partly due to the proof of infinite sets incapable of being mapped to the natural numbers.
Last edited:
