Why do you put faith in metaphysical claims that can't be empirically tested? Are you just a science-ignorant caveman?
>>24979312Metaphysical "claims" aren't claims at all, just nonsense.
>>24979312>Why do you put faith in metaphysical claims that can't be empirically tested? Because everybody making physical claims that can be empirically tested is weak and gay.
>>24979312didn't readPBUH!
it's exceedingly easy to test the gamut metaphysical claims that one might make
>>24979312From the Traditionalist point of view, the critique that metaphysical doctrines lack proper grounding or proof is rooted in a modern epistemological framework that privileges empirical observation and discursive reasoning above all other forms of knowledge. Modern skepticism measures truth by standards appropriate only to contingent, phenomenal realities, and thus cannot meaningfully assess metaphysical claims, which belong to a higher order of being. Intellectual intuition, the faculty by which metaphysical truths are apprehended, is not subject to ordinary reasoning or sensory evidence. It is self-evident to the purified intellect or to one properly initiated, and its validity is grounded in direct realization rather than argumentation or experiment. From this standpoint, questioning metaphysical knowledge on the basis of ordinary proof is analogous to criticizing a painter for failing to demonstrate the existence of color to someone who has never seen.Because metaphysical cognition depends on a supra-rational faculty, denying the possibility of intellectual intuition and then insisting on conventional proof constitutes a category error. The objection does not point to any deficiency within the Traditionalist system itself, but rather reflects the limitations of the modern intellect, which has been cut off from the means of accessing higher truths. Traditionalists see such critiques as pseudo-problems. They arise not from genuine flaws in metaphysical doctrine, but from evaluating it with a framework that by definition cannot reach the domain it seeks to describe. The grounding for Traditional metaphysics exists entirely within the sphere of disciplined intuition and initiation, and once that faculty is recognized, the supposed lack of proof ceases to be a meaningful issue.
>>24979365wow, i've have not read anything like this
>>24979365>It is self-evident to the purified intellect or to one properly initiated, and its validity is grounded in direct realization rather than argumentation or experiment.What's direct realization? Taking psychedelics until you "get it"?
>>24979312You can believe even in more loaded nonsense under the pretense of "empirical evidence". Most people don't actually know wtf a black hole is or if it even exists, they just happy to align with currently existing models so people trust their purported existence blindly.
>>24979414*believe in even*they just happen tofuck me.
>>24979312is it a metaphysical claim to say that "being exists" and "non-being doesn't exist"? because neither are empirically testable and must therefore be baseless, or the "base" isn't scrupulous empiricism but simply the obvious.
>>24979365>but rather reflects the limitations of the modern intellectOn the contrary, that's puré romanticism cope, the limitation is on the traditionalist system that has to rely on dogma to sustain it's claims, empirical systems can qdvance much more since the field of action used Is much bigger, that's why you can create medicine and agricultural technologies while traditionalist have to sing to gods if they're sick or they have a place of insects eting their crops
>>24979312It's a metaphysical claim to assert empirical testing is the yardstick of truthOP refutes itselfQED
>>24979912>>24979365I agree with both positions. Wtf is wrong with me? Im just going to study field theory and math
>>24979312I put faith in metaphysical claims because it's impossible not to, and if you think this is not the case that just means you're so invested in your interpretation that you can't see the forest for the trees. We all put faith in some interpretation of reality, even it that's simply the assumption that we take reality at face value. Science really has nothing to do with it.
>>24979379>Taking psychedelics until you "get it"?That's one option. Could meditate, pray, any spiritual practice. Getting it is known as stream entry, kensho, gnosis, unknowing, realisation, awakening, etc. Google those terms and find appropriate practice and tradition
>>24981521It's too hard though, and when you have brainrot from too much media consumption it's impossible to do any religious practice.
>>24979312Science doesn't deal with metaphysical or supernatural claims in any way
>>24982719No it's not. You haven't even tried.
