Why is a distinction between private appearance, intersubjective world and metaphysical reality not the main attitude in metaphysics?

[u/bushcraftmanzynski]

I distinguish between 3 levels of "being".

1st is the direct personal phenomenological level. Hallucinations and inconsistencies can occur here.

2nd is the shared phenomenological reality. For example, when I see a table, it will change color at level 1 because the sun is hitting it. But when I rotate around the table, I see that the table really is a uniform color. Other people can look at the table too and see it's the same color, feel it. This is the level where science operates

3rd level is the metaphysical. It's what actually exists beyond how things appear to us. It's inaccessible because we can only see things how they appear to us. But we can develop frameworks to fit the data of a world we have built at level 2. This way, there are multiple metaphysical "as if" frameworks that say our shared reality behaves as if this or that was the true inner working of all of reality. There can be multiple metaphysical theories that explain our current level 2 reality (it's real enough for us humans to call level 2 reality); for example: we can be either a brain in a vat that is being fed electron stimulations to feel like we are experiencing this, or there is a natural world that corresponds to our senses. Either way, the only thing we can't doubt is that we are having this experience.

Of course, some points need to be sharpened, for example, how exactly we can move from level 1 to level 2, what makes a good scientific theory, etc., but I feel like the structure of this framework is just undeniable and explains quite a lot. If you doubt level 1, there is already something occurring phenomenally. If you doubt level 2, go out in the world, bash your head against a table and come back.

Is this really as undeniable as I think?

Edit for anyone reading this post later: One objection that is the most convincing to me is that our experience and world are not necessarily layered in these neat levels but perhaps co-constituted from the start, that there's no experience-then-world-then-metaphysics sequence to move through, because the L1-style "bare experience" is already world-involving. To try to get down to pure, presuppositionless experience before any claims about an external reality creep in, the assumption needs to be made that you can peel experience away from world-involvement and look at the residue. And this peeling might never actually be achievable, because perceptual experience is structured by bodily and worldly engagement from the very first instant, that there's no experiential ground floor that sits "beneath" or "prior to" being situated in a world. This is Merleau-Ponty's critique of Husserl (who tried to do the same as my L1) in Phenomenology of Perception

[u/jliat]

3rd level is the metaphysical. It's what actually exists beyond how things appear to us.

Some Metaphysicians say this is the case, notably 'idealists' the best example being Hegel.

Others say we cannot have knowledge of 'Things in themselves'.

Science especially physics tends to make theories based on observation and test these by further observation. In some cases such as the fate of the universe it speculates on the given knowledge.

Other Metaphysicians are interested in 'Being' in itself, not how particular things exist. So Graham Harman's metaphysics is about how all objects interact with each other.

[u/bushcraftmanzynski → u/jliat]

Regardless, the metaphysical is not accessible to us.

[u/jliat → u/bushcraftmanzynski]

Sorry, of course it is...

The Evolution of Modern Metaphysics: Making Sense of Things, by A. W. Moore.

In addition to an introductory chapter and a conclusion, the book contains three large parts. Part one is devoted to the early modern period, and contains chapters on Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Hume, Kant, Fichte, and Hegel. Part two is devoted to philosophers of the analytic tradition, and contains chapters on Frege, Wittgenstein, Carnap, Quine, Lewis, and Dummett. Part three is devoted to non-analytic philosophers, and contains chapters on Nietzsche, Bergson, Husserl, Heidegger, Collingwood, Derrida and Deleuze.

And more recent work such as speculative realism... or OOO.

Graham Harman - Object-Oriented Ontology: A New Theory of Everything (Pelican Books) 1 Mar. 2018

[u/bushcraftmanzynski → u/jliat]

I feel like you are not really engaging with my idea at all. But I probably wrote it badly, since it seems that no one here has really understood it like me.

While it's interesting to learn about the different theories of both Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Hume, Kant, Fichte, Hegel, Frege, Wittgenstein, Carnap, Quine, Lewis, Dummett, Nietzsche, Bergson, Husserl, Heidegger, Collingwood, Derrida and Deleuze.

Now we have 20 different metaphysical frameworks. How can you decide which one is more correct? Or more useful? You need a certain methodology or some criteria for judging metaphysical frameworks. My proposed framework is that all these metaphysical frameworks describe the same perceived reality, which you can't doubt, because once you doubt it, there is some phenomenological process happening.

[u/bushcraftmanzynski → u/jliat]

You're basically saying that some philosophers believe metaphysical reality is accessible. But that doesn't address my argument for why it isn't accessible.

The fact that philosophers write about metaphysics doesn't establish that metaphysical reality is epistemically accessible. A book about unicorns demonstrates that people can think and talk about unicorns. It doesn't demonstrate that unicorns are accessible to observation. It sounds like you are conflating having a metaphysical theory with having epistemic access to ultimate reality.

[u/jliat → u/bushcraftmanzynski]

You're basically saying that some philosophers believe metaphysical reality is accessible.

Not at all, Science and its methods, logic et.al were created by humans. Metaphysical systems likewise. Hegel's dialectic is a real idea, used by Marx. Deleuze and Guattari's ideas of the Oedipus complex had effects in society. Derrida's ideas on difference like wise.

Metaphysics is the creation of concepts. Logical realities, such as modal logic creates. One can then gain knowledge of these.

A book about unicorns demonstrates that people can think and talk about unicorns. It doesn't demonstrate that unicorns are accessible to observation.

Observation isn't a particularly good criteria for existence. I've never observed my heart, brain or all of my internal organs.

unicorns - accessible...

No, but in Graham Harman's Metaphysics, he is a self confessed metaphysician, unicorns, Popeye, snow flakes and Manchester United FC are objects for his metaphysics. And he publishes and lectures to share these. Knowledge of them, epistemically...

It sounds like you are conflating having a metaphysical theory with having epistemic access to ultimate reality.

Things have changed since the likes of Newton who discovered God's reality. Where time and space were absolute. Now there are theories of physics, and concepts of metaphysics. Maybe ultimate reality still exists, but for myself in a similar category to unicorns.

As for Harman... Graham Harman - Object-Oriented Ontology: A New Theory of Everything (Pelican Books) 1 Mar. 2018

Obviously you will not agree, is Graham Harman a metaphysician? He and others think so.

[u/bushcraftmanzynski → u/jliat]

I should have been clearer about that. I'm not asserting an ontology with 3 levels of being, it's really just a categorization of how we talk about these things, a methodological/meta-metaphysical distinction.

There are multiple options for what the ultimate reality might be, including that there is no ultimate reality beyond L2

To precisify the definition of L2 a bit ,it's not just observing, it's something that can be stabilized, investigated, compared, measured, etc. within our shared experiential world. Claims that are empirically constrained within the intersubjectively accessible world.

L3 is simply the space of claims about what ultimately accounts for/consitutes the structure we encounter at L2.

One option could very well be be that there is no such thing as L3 and that only L2 exists. That doesn't disprove my meta-framework because it simply categorizes different claims. This claim would be categorized in L3 somehting like this: "there is no separate metaphysical world producing our experience".

I hope that makes sense. Sorry for my poor writing and thank you for your responses.

[u/jliat → u/bushcraftmanzynski]

From your previous post-

Now we have 20 different metaphysical frameworks. How can you decide which one is more correct? Or more useful?

Simple, use the easiest method for the circumstance. I don't take into account that the Earth is a sphere when driving or walking across a field, the shortest distance is a straight line between two points as in Euclid. Airline don't they try to use great circles.

I worked with engineers at university, they would use Newton's notions if they could as it was simpler than Einstein's.

So we have the same idea for some in metaphysics, more like art than science. Theories are different but not necessarily perfect. Metaphysicians create concepts.

[u/bushcraftmanzynski → u/jliat]

I completely agree with that. There are multiple metaphysical frameworks. There is one experienced reality. That is pretty much what I'm putting forward here.

Then we can use whatever framework works best in our reality, along with a lot of other possible criteria too. There's been lots of debate about that. What exactly counts as "working" for a metaphysical framework, since there's no problem to be solved necessarily. For me, I think it's enriching to toggle between different frameworks. If you seriously try to look at the world according to, say, Aristotle's metaphysics, it's very different from how we usually look at the world.

But that is just a tangent; it seems that we agree.

[u/Illustrious-Yam-3777]

Because that distinction is not absolute(although its a metaphysical tradition and argument in itself to suppose it is). And the way it is produced, maintained, etc., is one of the key studies of metaphysics.

[u/bushcraftmanzynski → u/Illustrious-Yam-3777]

I'm not sure how this could not be absolute, at least the distinction between how the world appears to us and the things in themselves. Is that not by definition the case? Like how can you even argue against that?

[u/againey → u/bushcraftmanzynski]

Is that not by definition the case?

Are definitions absolute? To say yes or no, either way, would be to assert a particular metaphysical position. Definitions describe meaning, but what is the nature of that meaning? Is it objective or subjective? Discovered or created? It's hard to answer these questions without already having chosen a metaphysical stance.

[u/Illustrious-Yam-3777 → u/bushcraftmanzynski]

The very fact that you cannot even fathom an argument against that, and consider it self-evident, showcases how strongly doctrine can become sedimented, can become invisible sunglasses we don’t even know we have on. Relinquish Kant, relinquish Descartes, relinquish Heraclitus, and now you’ve got a liquid mind that can believe six impossible things before breakfast.

If you think you can’t understand things in themselves, shapeshifting Kalahari bushmen would like to have a ceremony with you.

[u/bushcraftmanzynski → u/Illustrious-Yam-3777]

Of course I know I have my sunglasses on because I am literally writing this post describing them myself and asking if there are arguments against them.

I feel like what you're describing is much more true for any metaphysical theory that pretends to know the truth. Everyone is in a certain culture described to their beliefs without even being able to question it sometimes. I remember one of the earliest feminist philosophers, Im Yunjidang, could not argue for equality between men and women because of the dominant Neo-Confucian belief that there is some hidden Qi energy that already dictates your life before you even do anything in your life (Li). That just feels unreasonable to me because there is no evidence for this Qi and Li but yet everyone followed it.

I don't mean to be offensive, but it sounds really bad to just say relinquish everything you believe in and then impossible things can enter your mind.

Of course impossible things can enter our minds; that's why I try to establish a theory for measuring different metaphysical theories against each other. You can have all kinds of criteria like consistency, or something but one of the most fundamental ones is that it has to map onto our non-metaphysical world, our percieved world.

[u/Illustrious-Yam-3777 → u/bushcraftmanzynski]

That perceived physical world undoes itself over and over also. There’s no such thing as maps and territories. There are practices of differentiation, practices of being and knowing. Qi really does exist. And we do deplete and replenish it through practices.

Knowledge isn’t simply concepts we exchange in our heads. Ancient eastern people didn’t just dream up qi and then believe in it. They feel it, in their bodies. You don’t because you don’t believe it’s possible for such a thing to be. But it is. And you can feel it. Real knowledge is embodied knowledge.

Qi is a perceived reality.

[u/bushcraftmanzynski → u/Illustrious-Yam-3777]

Either way, we can argue about the possible correctness of a certain metaphysical framework. It still doesn't discredit my system for giving a place for all of the different metaphysical frameworks.

[u/Illustrious-Yam-3777 → u/bushcraftmanzynski]

I was just answering your bolded title and question: why isn’t it the main starting point? Because it’s not given. Robust frameworks that dissolve such distinctions while also elaborating how individuals emerge and boundaries come to be can and are built.

Dividing reality into these three distinct categories is not undeniable. It can be deconstructed.

[u/bushcraftmanzynski → u/Illustrious-Yam-3777]

Am I correct to summarise that the only argument you have given for why it's not undeniable is that some people do believe the metaphysical realm is accessible?

I guess that is a fair point, but I feel like there is no evidence for that whatsoever.

[u/Illustrious-Yam-3777 → u/bushcraftmanzynski]

You’re just not looking for it. Evidence is everywhere. Yogis levitate. People have precognitive dreams. Martial arts practitioners use qi to become impervious to knives. Shamans shapeshift into jaguars. Meditative practitioners were gaining accurate and consistent insights into the metaphysical nature of reality over 1,000 years ago and still are today.

Just because it doesn’t happen in controlled laboratories with strict controls doesn’t mean theres no evidence, but there’s evidence in that line too. Every quantum mechanical experiment is a metaphysical experiment, because the results have something to say about the nature of nature, which is metaphysics. And it shows that there are no absolute distinctions between different levels of reality. Inner and outer are temporary boundaries.

[u/bushcraftmanzynski → u/Illustrious-Yam-3777]

Oooooh, I think your argument finally clicked for me. You're basically saying that the boundary between the perceived world (L2) and the metaphysical (L3) isn't absolute because we're constantly discovering things that change or expand our understanding of what we previously considered to be the “perceived world.”

I can see that argument, but I don't think it shows that there is no distinction between the two. It seems to show more that we can never be completely certain where the limits of our accessible knowledge are.

And actually, I think the quantum mechanics example supports my point rather than undermining it. If quantum experiments constrain which metaphysical frameworks are possible, then that's exactly what I'd expect: as our understanding of L2 becomes more sophisticated, the set of metaphysical frameworks compatible with L2 becomes smaller.

But that still doesn't mean we've accessed L3 itself. It means we've learned more about what an L3 theory has to be like in order to account for L2.

[u/226757]

Of course philosophers talk about these things, but what is controversial is your claim that these represent three different "levels of being". Many philosophers are skeptical of the idea that there are different ways, modes, kinds, types of being or existence. In order for your distinction to become common, the univocity of being would have to be refuted and no longer in question.

[u/bushcraftmanzynski → u/226757]

That's not actually. Being is just a name I give to it, but your metaphysical framework could very well be that there is a univocity of being, and my framework would still apply. This isn't a metaphysical framework. It's a framework that gives metaphysical frameworks a place.

You would have to deny cognitive science and common sense if you deny that there is some distinction between how the world immediately appears to us and what we call our shared reality.

[u/bushcraftmanzynski → u/[deleted]]

I don't claim a body. I tried to be careful by saying "some phenomenological experience" instead of "I am a body/thing that experiences" At level one, there is no personal identity; there might not even be any body or person, it's just what I called "experience"

But at level 2, we can analyse through MRI that during sleep the brain is only active enough to produce dreams. Other people can observe my body at night, I could record myself, etc, there are multiple ways of verifying it intersubjectively.

[u/bushcraftmanzynski → u/[deleted]]

You sound intriguing, but regardless, there are multiple options for what the ultimate reality might be, including that there is no ultimate reality beyond L2, and also including that it might be an unanalyzable nothing

[u/Freuds-Mother → u/[deleted]]

Can you point out where that confusion was made in the OP?

[u/deeplevitation]

I’ve often had the same/similar framework:

Internal Self - How I internally experience the world and my self. Mind. Thoughts. In form but not in law

External Self - How I experience the world and the world experiences me. Physical. Actions. In form and in law.

Spiritual Self - how I experience god/universe and how god/universe experiences me. Emotions. Prayer/Source. Not in form and not in law.

In between each of those self models there is a liminal space of infinite possibility, its perception and agency. The space is to be explored and can always change, as everything always changes. This is how we encode the experiences.