Great video! I'm reading "Crisis of the Modern World" by Rene Guenon now and there he explains very well the difference - philosophy is supposed to be a transitory, preparatory and preliminary stage in order to attain wisdom, so it's like a tool, but this transitional stage/tool was turned into an end in itself. This is why modern philosophy is now only "human", rational and ignorant of the super-rational. At some point many philosophers forgot the true nature of wisdom...
Excellent video. Really impressive. Thank you so much for sharing your views on this topic. If you don't mind I want to add something to your explanations. As a philosophy student, I understand Metaphysics as the study of metaphysical properties of reality. Let me explain it a bit: There are physical objects in the world and these physical objects have physical properties like heat, size, shape, colour, dimension, weight, mass, etc. These properties are physical because they are dependent on particular physical objects. But there are metaphysical (beyond physical) properties, which are common to all physical objects. Such as existence or possible existence (being), relation, quality, essence, change, substance, cause, quantity, accident, one-ness, whole-ness, time, space etc. These properties are common to all physical objects, and so these properties transcends these objects in a way. For example: this laptop is black and this book cover is red. So, black and red are physical properties of these two particular physical objects. But both the objects, 'exists', and exists in 'time' and also in 'space'. So, these properties of 'existence, time and space' are common to both of them (and to all others also), are metaphysical. So, this is how I understand 'General Metaphysics'. There is also a 'Special Metaphysics'. In special metaphysics we study 1. cosmology (study of material world at large), 2. psychology (study of soul), 3. theodicy (study of god). I always watch your videos and this is quite impressive to have such great quality content on here CZcams. There is so much garbage on social media, and it is really difficult to find something fresh and truly valuable content like yours, now a days. One more thing, watching such a raw video is very unique and fresh experience. No editing, no flash flash cut cut flash flash bla bla, etc. Your videos are raw, original, and so real. Thank you once again.
Thank you for your comment and appreciation! I appreciate your valuable insights on this subject, they are very informative. I'm glad you find the channel useful; our goal however is not to express any personal views, but only those of authorities, so none of these views are really "mine" :)
@@imanmoeinianThank you so much for your reply. I totally understand that these are not your personal views. You are explaining the ideas of those great philosophers, in easy to understand language, emphasising the core central points, summing up their views in their totality, to help the listeners to understand them. I truly appreciate your efforts. My comment is for those people who understand what 'physics' is, but have not idea about 'metaphysics'. So, the people from non-philosophy background can also join this talk. The subject you are talking about is of extreme importance. I wish more and more people can join your talks and understand the importance of it.
"The philosopher thinks about things. It is a mind approach. My approach is a no-mind approach. It is just the very opposite of philosophizing. It is not thinking about things, ideas, but seeing with a clarity which comes when you put your mind aside, when you see through silence, not through logic. Seeing is not thinking. “The sun rises there; if you think about it you miss it, because while you are thinking about it, you are going away from it. In thinking you can move miles away; and thoughts go faster than anything possible. If you are seeing the sunrise then one thing has to be certain, that you are not thinking about it. Only then can you see it. “Thinking becomes a veil on the eyes. It gives its own color, its own idea to the reality. It does not allow reality to reach you, it imposes itself upon reality; it is a deviation from reality. Hence no philosopher has ever been able to know the truth. “All the philosophers have been thinking about the truth. But thinking about the truth is an impossibility. Either you know it, or you don't. If you know it, there is no need to think about it. If you don't, then how can you think about it? “A philosopher thinking about truth is just like a blind man thinking about light. If you have eyes, you don't think about light, you see it. Seeing is a totally different process; it is a byproduct of meditation. “Hence I would not like my way of life to be ever called a philosophy, because it has nothing to do with philosophy. You can call it philosia. The word ‘philo’ means love; ‘sophy’ means wisdom, knowledge - love for knowledge. In philosia, ‘philo’ means the same love, and ‘sia’ means seeing: love, not for knowledge but for being - not for wisdom, but for experiencing.”
. The philosopher thinks about the truth. His approach is rational. Reason is his instrument, and here just the opposite is the case. I am an irrational man. And the people who have gathered around me - around the world - the appeal to them is my irrationality, because reason has failed so utterly. For three thousand years in the West, ten thousand years in the East, philosophers have been struggling to find the truth, and not a single philosopher has been able to find it. “The way of philosophy does not go with truth at all. It is just rational gymnastics. So one philosopher can argue against another philosopher, and they go on arguing for centuries, but they have not come to agreement on a single point. Philosophy is the worst wastage of human intelligence that is possible. When I say I am not a philosopher, I simply mean that my approach towards reality is not through the head, it is through the heart. “I also say that I do not preach a religion because religion is something like love - you cannot teach it. There is no way to teach love, and if you teach love and somebody becomes trained under your teachings, he may go to Hollywood and become an actor, but he will never become a lover. Your very teaching, your very discipline will be the barrier. So I say I don't teach religion. Religion is something that passes heart to heart, not head to head. The moment religion passes head to head, it becomes theology. It is no more religion.” “Philosophy has not reached to any conclusion and it will never reach - it is an exercise in utter futility. It is a good game if you want to play an intellectual game, an intellectual gymnastics; it is hair splitting. “But I am not interested in it at all - and I know it from the inside: I have been a student of philosophy and a professor of philosophy too. I know it as an insider that the most useless activity in the world is philosophy, the most uncreative, the most pretentious - but very ego-fulfilling, gives you great ideas of knowledgeability without making you wise at all.” “Philosophy means mind, philosophy means thinking, philosophy means going away from yourself. Philosophy is the art of losing yourself in thoughts, becoming identified with dreams. Hence I am against philosophy, because I am all for religion. “You cannot be philosophical if you want to be religious; that is not possible. Religion is existential, philosophy is intellectual. Philosophy is about and about, religion is direct. Philosophy is thinking about things you don't know. Religion is a knowing, not thinking. Philosophy depends on doubt, because the more you can doubt the more you can think. Doubt is the mother of thinking. “Religion is trust, because the more you trust the more there is no need to think. Trust kills thinking; in trust, thinking commits suicide. And when there is no thinking and trust pulsates in your being, in each pore of your being trust permeates you, overwhelms you, you know what is. “Philosophy tries to know, but never knows. Religion never tries to know, but knows. Philosophy is an exercise in futility, of futility. Yes, it talks about great things - freedom, love, God, meditation - but it only talks about. The philosopher never meditates. He talks about meditation, he spins and weaves theories, hypotheses, inferences about meditation, but he never tastes anything about meditation. He never meditates. “Hegel, Kant - these are philosophers; Buddha, Kabir - these are not philosophers; Plato, Aristotle - these are philosophers; Heraclitus, Plotinus - these are not philosophers, although in the books of philosophy they are also called philosophers. They are not! To use the word 'philosopher' for them is not right, unless you change the whole meaning of the word. Aristotle and Heraclitus cannot be called philosophers in the same sense. If Aristotle is a philosopher, then Heraclitus is not; if Heraclitus is a philosopher, then Aristotle is not. “When you are thirsty you cannot be satisfied by the formula H2O. Howsoever right it is - that is not my concern, that is irrelevant - right or wrong, the formula H2O cannot quench your thirst. You would like water, and whether you know about H2O or not does not matter. For millions of years man has been drinking water without knowing anything about H2O, and it has been perfectly satisfying. “Philosophy talks about water, religion drinks.”
Much appreciation for your explanation! I was stuck trying to improve my writing training that I didn't know the difference. Good luck on your journey! I don't know much about Instagram, I'm just trying to improve on Twitter. If I have an Instagram, I'd follow you. 🙏
Thank you for these metaphysics content. I am looking forward to hear more of your view on these metaphysicians. I learn best when a modern person learns these principles and then teaches them so that I can understand and use them in the modern times.
Every time you hold up that Bollingen Coomaraswamy volume my mouth waters. I feel like a dog who's just seen the perfect bone. I have the soft copy, but what a joy it would be to hold the paperback.
Thanks for another great video! Philosophy is for knowledge of the relative and particular, but metaphysics is glimpsing the absolute. I started with the Guenon book recently and have roughly one third remaining. It's given me an entirely new perspective on things. On a side note, that Coomaraswamy book is REALLY expensive. wow.
Do you think that metaphysics as defined by coomarswami, unifying the fragmented consciousness, is the same as what 'philosophy' means as expounded by the pythagoreans? Namely the purification of the soul into making it divine?
Of course! The "philosophy" of the Ancients is much closer to pure metaphysics. In this video we have modern philosophy in mind, which is as you know very different from that of the Pythagoreans for example.
Good point. Rene Guenon himself points out in "Crisis of the Modern World", Chapter I that Pythagorianism was actually a preservation and re-adaptation of the old, esoteric, traditional wisdom, related to the Orphic and Delphic traditions - so it was metaphysical in its essence.
Do you have any formal education in philosophy or is it just this pseudo-spiritual oriental nonsense? Metaphysics is field of study in Philosophy and the name itself originates from Aristotle's work "Metaphysics" (In Ancient Greek τὰ μετὰ τὰ φυσικά - "that which comes after physics"). Metaphysics itself has further subdivisions in it's field (One is ontology, the field concerned with Being (ὄντος). What you are describing does not have anything to do with metaphysics but rather with pseudointellectual mysticism and pop philosophy. I am not even going to address the claim that "Metaphysics is not systematic", go read Spinoza for starters and you will see how much his metaphysical system "isn't systematic.
What you call "pseudo-spiritual oriental nonsense" is a universal and consistent doctrine that has been around for many millennia, way before Aristotle himself, it is what Plato, Meister Eckhart, Shankara, and Rumi preached and taught. I have elsewhere said that the Metaphysic that we talk about is not the same as modern metaphysics, or even Aristotle's "first philosophy"; the study of "being qua being" is really nothing more than ontology, and the metaphysics taught as a branch of philosophy in universities hardly goes beyond epistemology. Whereas this pure metaphysics has a wider scope, and is neither "oriental" nor "occidental", it is formless and universal and due to its limitlessness it cannot be properly defined. I don't indulge in personal views, but simply propound the ideas of such eminent authorities like A.K. Coomaraswamy, Frithjof Schuon, and Rene Guenon, who were no less rigorous than modern philosophers; one cannot read the works of Guenon and think that he is more stupid than other thinkers. Also, based on personal experience, a "formal" education in philosophy in today's world doesn't teach you much, and to survive and outgrow a college education in general would require many years. We have to do the work ourselves.
@@chungustrismegistus5506 Of course, Scholastics themselves show profound knowledge of both philosophy and theology. Problem here is that video uploader makes it theology/spiritualism=metaphysics, which is beyond stupid. If he studied works of Thomas Aquinas he could see how philosophy and theology differ and how traditional metaphysics influenced the cannon, not reverse
I think he just didn't get the point across nearly well enough... Now even among Guénon and Coomaraswamy (both of whom I'm certain the uploader takes as authorities) there was a bit of a different (but not opposed) way of expressing what the problem with so called modern/profane "philosophy" was and is, but the core distinction as far as Coomaraswamy is concerned is, quoting him here, that "modern philosophies are closed systems, employing the method of dialectics, and taking for granted that opposites are mutually exclusive. In modern philosophy things are either so or not so; in eternal philosophy this depends upon our point of view." The main problem with the video is that he contrasted "metaphysics" with "philosophy" rather than "traditional philosophy" with "modern philosophy" or whatever is preferred. Now, as for metaphysics being a branch of philosophy, that's related to the whole "metaphysics has a practical purpose and philosophy doesn't", which simply refers to philosophy not being so much a field of study but rather a method, the way you go about studying metaphysics is with philosophy. The reason why this connects with a distinction in practicality in what Coomaraswamy discussed is that so called (modern) philosophers have a tendency to see the activity as good in its own as some modern artists see their activity as good in its own and talk of "art for art's sake"; this is simply an indictment of a tendency, saying that (generally speaking, and in our times) a "metaphysician" is someone who would have a clearly established purpose in its study of "reality", but a philosopher is simply someone doing "philosophy for philosophy's sake". As for "metaphysics not being systematic", Coomaraswamy does not say this, rather, he says that "metaphysics is not a system, but a consistent doctrine", which, well, obviously "metaphysics" isn't one system, it would be absurd to claim this, but the point being made, without overextending an already long reply, is that, in Coomaraswamy's terms, philosophers (and remember this refers to a tendency among modern ones) are primarily concerned with the development of personal theories, be it those of others of his own, it is idiosyncratic, but the metaphysician is simply concerned with truth without concern for personal expression, which is why Coomaraswamy says: "it is just as easy for me to think in terms of the Hermetic philosophy as in terms of Vedanta". And if you wonder why he says "metaphysics is not a system" when that appears self evident, it's mostly due to how what is previously discussed in the essay this is from can give the impression that Coomaraswamy is speaking of a system which he calls "metaphysics" rather than of the field itself properly speaking. I'll say that whole last paragraph is a bit too contextual, so if you want further clarification, you can ask me if you want but it might better to just read the essay yourself (in particular I think the "everyone sees things their own way" objection is obvious, and it is addressed there), you can find it a free PDF of it online from publishers of Coomaraswamy's writings (World Wisdom), it's called "The Vedanta and Western Tradition".
Metaphysics is nothing more than the the conceptual analysis of what exists and how it exists. Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy & metaphysics is also based on logic and reasoning. I dont know what the hell you mean by "metaphysics uses the whole faculty of the human being" or "metaphysics is based on direct vision of universal reality." How exactly does analyzing what is use the whole faculty of the human being? How does my stomach help me form sentences of the form "there exists x s.t. P(x)," which is the building block of all metaphysical analysis? On one level my stomach provides stimuli which allow me to create sentences such as "I am hungry" which can be analyzed as the proposition "hungry(a)", where "a" is my proper name. Nevertheless, this is still a conceptual exercise. Furthermore, how does our sense perception give us access to any universal truths? This claim immediately runs into the problem of induction which has been a problem in metaphysics for hundreds of years. It also runs into the problem of universals, which has been a problem in metaphysics for thousands of years. What youre talking about, all this bs about Rene Guenon and Meister Eckhart is to serious metaphysics what a witch doctor is to a neurosurgeon: a non-rigorous, unsubstantiated and unthoughtful waste of time. Furthermore, what does ot mean that philosophy is systematic? Continental philosophy might be like that but continental philosophy is not really philosophy. What philosophy posits are theories & then it analyzes those theories. These are not "opinions" of individual people, these are conceptual models whoch feature, like any model, a particular language, often a formal language, ie w well defined functions and non-logical axioms; as well as the logical axioms. These theories are universal theories, in that they are complete, ie model P(x) iff P(x) is supposed to be modeled. The rest of your spiel about metaphysics being practical and applicable to life is just nonsense. Its especially hilarious that you dont subordinate stoicism to this supposed paradigm for what is metaphysics, when stoicism is literally the sine qua non of a philosophy of life.
For starters, there is much more metaphysics beyond Western "academic" philosophy. Metaphysics is the study of the universal structure of Reality, which is concomitant with the first philosophy as understood by Plato, pythagoreans, the Egyptians, the Eastern masters, and the ancients. That is to say: asceticism, the search for noetic contemplation and virtue, was an internal and ontological transformation, ergo metaphysical in its true sense applied to practical life, the living praxis par excellence. Many of these same metaphysical conceptsl that you sentimentally discredit, have existed consistently by philosophers (who today consider themselves mystics) and traditions from diverse inconex cultures of the world throughout recorded history, because it is a sapiensal truth. The term "continental philosophy" has only a vague meaning to distinguish it from analytical philosophy. Today, of course, the philosophy you describe is nothing more than a doxography that occupies a narrow associative rationalism with pseudometaphysics reduced to an abstract discourse, more a dead letter than anything else. The "problems" you mention are actually pseudoproblems and those "conceptual models" are nothing more than rational constructions or imaginative hypotheses, and there fore completely individual conceptions, which is where the desire to be original at all costs comes from. It is better to invent a new error than to repeat a truth already expressed by others. Confusing "general" with "universal" is, to say the least, naive. "Systematic" means a strictly limited and delimited set of theories by definition. Stoicism is just an offshoot of platonism.
Great video! I'm reading "Crisis of the Modern World" by Rene Guenon now and there he explains very well the difference - philosophy is supposed to be a transitory, preparatory and preliminary stage in order to attain wisdom, so it's like a tool, but this transitional stage/tool was turned into an end in itself. This is why modern philosophy is now only "human", rational and ignorant of the super-rational. At some point many philosophers forgot the true nature of wisdom...
Why do you look like the perfect combination of both the dudes in your thumbnail.
bro is onto something 😂😆
Haha
Kasmay
😮😮😮
Hilar
Excellent video. Really impressive. Thank you so much for sharing your views on this topic. If you don't mind I want to add something to your explanations. As a philosophy student, I understand Metaphysics as the study of metaphysical properties of reality. Let me explain it a bit:
There are physical objects in the world and these physical objects have physical properties like heat, size, shape, colour, dimension, weight, mass, etc. These properties are physical because they are dependent on particular physical objects. But there are metaphysical (beyond physical) properties, which are common to all physical objects. Such as existence or possible existence (being), relation, quality, essence, change, substance, cause, quantity, accident, one-ness, whole-ness, time, space etc. These properties are common to all physical objects, and so these properties transcends these objects in a way.
For example: this laptop is black and this book cover is red. So, black and red are physical properties of these two particular physical objects. But both the objects, 'exists', and exists in 'time' and also in 'space'. So, these properties of 'existence, time and space' are common to both of them (and to all others also), are metaphysical.
So, this is how I understand 'General Metaphysics'. There is also a 'Special Metaphysics'. In special metaphysics we study 1. cosmology (study of material world at large), 2. psychology (study of soul), 3. theodicy (study of god).
I always watch your videos and this is quite impressive to have such great quality content on here CZcams. There is so much garbage on social media, and it is really difficult to find something fresh and truly valuable content like yours, now a days.
One more thing, watching such a raw video is very unique and fresh experience. No editing, no flash flash cut cut flash flash bla bla, etc. Your videos are raw, original, and so real. Thank you once again.
Thank you for your comment and appreciation! I appreciate your valuable insights on this subject, they are very informative. I'm glad you find the channel useful; our goal however is not to express any personal views, but only those of authorities, so none of these views are really "mine" :)
@@imanmoeinianThank you so much for your reply. I totally understand that these are not your personal views. You are explaining the ideas of those great philosophers, in easy to understand language, emphasising the core central points, summing up their views in their totality, to help the listeners to understand them. I truly appreciate your efforts.
My comment is for those people who understand what 'physics' is, but have not idea about 'metaphysics'. So, the people from non-philosophy background can also join this talk.
The subject you are talking about is of extreme importance. I wish more and more people can join your talks and understand the importance of it.
"The philosopher thinks about things. It is a mind approach. My approach is a no-mind approach. It is just the very opposite of philosophizing. It is not thinking about things, ideas, but seeing with a clarity which comes when you put your mind aside, when you see through silence, not through logic. Seeing is not thinking.
“The sun rises there; if you think about it you miss it, because while you are thinking about it, you are going away from it. In thinking you can move miles away; and thoughts go faster than anything possible. If you are seeing the sunrise then one thing has to be certain, that you are not thinking about it. Only then can you see it.
“Thinking becomes a veil on the eyes. It gives its own color, its own idea to the reality. It does not allow reality to reach you, it imposes itself upon reality; it is a deviation from reality. Hence no philosopher has ever been able to know the truth.
“All the philosophers have been thinking about the truth. But thinking about the truth is an impossibility. Either you know it, or you don't. If you know it, there is no need to think about it. If you don't, then how can you think about it?
“A philosopher thinking about truth is just like a blind man thinking about light. If you have eyes, you don't think about light, you see it. Seeing is a totally different process; it is a byproduct of meditation.
“Hence I would not like my way of life to be ever called a philosophy, because it has nothing to do with philosophy. You can call it philosia. The word ‘philo’ means love; ‘sophy’ means wisdom, knowledge - love for knowledge. In philosia, ‘philo’ means the same love, and ‘sia’ means seeing: love, not for knowledge but for being - not for wisdom, but for experiencing.”
. The philosopher thinks about the truth. His approach is rational. Reason is his instrument, and here just the opposite is the case. I am an irrational man. And the people who have gathered around me - around the world - the appeal to them is my irrationality, because reason has failed so utterly. For three thousand years in the West, ten thousand years in the East, philosophers have been struggling to find the truth, and not a single philosopher has been able to find it.
“The way of philosophy does not go with truth at all. It is just rational gymnastics. So one philosopher can argue against another philosopher, and they go on arguing for centuries, but they have not come to agreement on a single point. Philosophy is the worst wastage of human intelligence that is possible. When I say I am not a philosopher, I simply mean that my approach towards reality is not through the head, it is through the heart.
“I also say that I do not preach a religion because religion is something like love - you cannot teach it. There is no way to teach love, and if you teach love and somebody becomes trained under your teachings, he may go to Hollywood and become an actor, but he will never become a lover. Your very teaching, your very discipline will be the barrier. So I say I don't teach religion. Religion is something that passes heart to heart, not head to head. The moment religion passes head to head, it becomes theology. It is no more religion.”
“Philosophy has not reached to any conclusion and it will never reach - it is an exercise in utter futility. It is a good game if you want to play an intellectual game, an intellectual gymnastics; it is hair splitting.
“But I am not interested in it at all - and I know it from the inside: I have been a student of philosophy and a professor of philosophy too. I know it as an insider that the most useless activity in the world is philosophy, the most uncreative, the most pretentious - but very ego-fulfilling, gives you great ideas of knowledgeability without making you wise at all.”
“Philosophy means mind, philosophy means thinking, philosophy means going away from yourself. Philosophy is the art of losing yourself in thoughts, becoming identified with dreams. Hence I am against philosophy, because I am all for religion.
“You cannot be philosophical if you want to be religious; that is not possible. Religion is existential, philosophy is intellectual. Philosophy is about and about, religion is direct. Philosophy is thinking about things you don't know. Religion is a knowing, not thinking. Philosophy depends on doubt, because the more you can doubt the more you can think. Doubt is the mother of thinking.
“Religion is trust, because the more you trust the more there is no need to think. Trust kills thinking; in trust, thinking commits suicide. And when there is no thinking and trust pulsates in your being, in each pore of your being trust permeates you, overwhelms you, you know what is.
“Philosophy tries to know, but never knows. Religion never tries to know, but knows. Philosophy is an exercise in futility, of futility. Yes, it talks about great things - freedom, love, God, meditation - but it only talks about. The philosopher never meditates. He talks about meditation, he spins and weaves theories, hypotheses, inferences about meditation, but he never tastes anything about meditation. He never meditates.
“Hegel, Kant - these are philosophers; Buddha, Kabir - these are not philosophers; Plato, Aristotle - these are philosophers; Heraclitus, Plotinus - these are not philosophers, although in the books of philosophy they are also called philosophers. They are not! To use the word 'philosopher' for them is not right, unless you change the whole meaning of the word. Aristotle and Heraclitus cannot be called philosophers in the same sense. If Aristotle is a philosopher, then Heraclitus is not; if Heraclitus is a philosopher, then Aristotle is not.
“When you are thirsty you cannot be satisfied by the formula H2O. Howsoever right it is - that is not my concern, that is irrelevant - right or wrong, the formula H2O cannot quench your thirst. You would like water, and whether you know about H2O or not does not matter. For millions of years man has been drinking water without knowing anything about H2O, and it has been perfectly satisfying.
“Philosophy talks about water, religion drinks.”
Thank you for these wonderful extracts👌
Just found your channel and am loving your content so far
Much appreciation for your explanation! I was stuck trying to improve my writing training that I didn't know the difference. Good luck on your journey! I don't know much about Instagram, I'm just trying to improve on Twitter. If I have an Instagram, I'd follow you. 🙏
Thank you so much.
Thank you for these metaphysics content. I am looking forward to hear more of your view on these metaphysicians. I learn best when a modern person learns these principles and then teaches them so that I can understand and use them in the modern times.
No worries! I’m glad it was of help. New videos will be posted soon🤝
Every time you hold up that Bollingen Coomaraswamy volume my mouth waters. I feel like a dog who's just seen the perfect bone. I have the soft copy, but what a joy it would be to hold the paperback.
Thanks for another great video! Philosophy is for knowledge of the relative and particular, but metaphysics is glimpsing the absolute.
I started with the Guenon book recently and have roughly one third remaining. It's given me an entirely new perspective on things.
On a side note, that Coomaraswamy book is REALLY expensive. wow.
Well said! Yes, unfortunately they are very expensive and rare, but a digitized version of Coomaraswamy's Selected Papers is available on Archive.
Are you sure you´re not confounding metaphysics with mysticism?
Do you think that metaphysics as defined by coomarswami, unifying the fragmented consciousness, is the same as what 'philosophy' means as expounded by the pythagoreans? Namely the purification of the soul into making it divine?
Of course! The "philosophy" of the Ancients is much closer to pure metaphysics. In this video we have modern philosophy in mind, which is as you know very different from that of the Pythagoreans for example.
Good point. Rene Guenon himself points out in "Crisis of the Modern World", Chapter I that Pythagorianism was actually a preservation and re-adaptation of the old, esoteric, traditional wisdom, related to the Orphic and Delphic traditions - so it was metaphysical in its essence.
Do you have any formal education in philosophy or is it just this pseudo-spiritual oriental nonsense? Metaphysics is field of study in Philosophy and the name itself originates from Aristotle's work "Metaphysics" (In Ancient Greek τὰ μετὰ τὰ φυσικά - "that which comes after physics"). Metaphysics itself has further subdivisions in it's field (One is ontology, the field concerned with Being (ὄντος). What you are describing does not have anything to do with metaphysics but rather with pseudointellectual mysticism and pop philosophy. I am not even going to address the claim that "Metaphysics is not systematic", go read Spinoza for starters and you will see how much his metaphysical system "isn't systematic.
What you call "pseudo-spiritual oriental nonsense" is a universal and consistent doctrine that has been around for many millennia, way before Aristotle himself, it is what Plato, Meister Eckhart, Shankara, and Rumi preached and taught. I have elsewhere said that the Metaphysic that we talk about is not the same as modern metaphysics, or even Aristotle's "first philosophy"; the study of "being qua being" is really nothing more than ontology, and the metaphysics taught as a branch of philosophy in universities hardly goes beyond epistemology. Whereas this pure metaphysics has a wider scope, and is neither "oriental" nor "occidental", it is formless and universal and due to its limitlessness it cannot be properly defined.
I don't indulge in personal views, but simply propound the ideas of such eminent authorities like A.K. Coomaraswamy, Frithjof Schuon, and Rene Guenon, who were no less rigorous than modern philosophers; one cannot read the works of Guenon and think that he is more stupid than other thinkers.
Also, based on personal experience, a "formal" education in philosophy in today's world doesn't teach you much, and to survive and outgrow a college education in general would require many years. We have to do the work ourselves.
@@chungustrismegistus5506 Of course, Scholastics themselves show profound knowledge of both philosophy and theology. Problem here is that video uploader makes it theology/spiritualism=metaphysics, which is beyond stupid. If he studied works of Thomas Aquinas he could see how philosophy and theology differ and how traditional metaphysics influenced the cannon, not reverse
I think he just didn't get the point across nearly well enough... Now even among Guénon and Coomaraswamy (both of whom I'm certain the uploader takes as authorities) there was a bit of a different (but not opposed) way of expressing what the problem with so called modern/profane "philosophy" was and is, but the core distinction as far as Coomaraswamy is concerned is, quoting him here, that "modern philosophies are closed systems, employing the method of dialectics, and taking for granted that opposites are mutually exclusive. In modern philosophy things are either so or not so; in eternal philosophy this depends upon our point of view." The main problem with the video is that he contrasted "metaphysics" with "philosophy" rather than "traditional philosophy" with "modern philosophy" or whatever is preferred.
Now, as for metaphysics being a branch of philosophy, that's related to the whole "metaphysics has a practical purpose and philosophy doesn't", which simply refers to philosophy not being so much a field of study but rather a method, the way you go about studying metaphysics is with philosophy. The reason why this connects with a distinction in practicality in what Coomaraswamy discussed is that so called (modern) philosophers have a tendency to see the activity as good in its own as some modern artists see their activity as good in its own and talk of "art for art's sake"; this is simply an indictment of a tendency, saying that (generally speaking, and in our times) a "metaphysician" is someone who would have a clearly established purpose in its study of "reality", but a philosopher is simply someone doing "philosophy for philosophy's sake".
As for "metaphysics not being systematic", Coomaraswamy does not say this, rather, he says that "metaphysics is not a system, but a consistent doctrine", which, well, obviously "metaphysics" isn't one system, it would be absurd to claim this, but the point being made, without overextending an already long reply, is that, in Coomaraswamy's terms, philosophers (and remember this refers to a tendency among modern ones) are primarily concerned with the development of personal theories, be it those of others of his own, it is idiosyncratic, but the metaphysician is simply concerned with truth without concern for personal expression, which is why Coomaraswamy says: "it is just as easy for me to think in terms of the Hermetic philosophy as in terms of Vedanta". And if you wonder why he says "metaphysics is not a system" when that appears self evident, it's mostly due to how what is previously discussed in the essay this is from can give the impression that Coomaraswamy is speaking of a system which he calls "metaphysics" rather than of the field itself properly speaking.
I'll say that whole last paragraph is a bit too contextual, so if you want further clarification, you can ask me if you want but it might better to just read the essay yourself (in particular I think the "everyone sees things their own way" objection is obvious, and it is addressed there), you can find it a free PDF of it online from publishers of Coomaraswamy's writings (World Wisdom), it's called "The Vedanta and Western Tradition".
@@jiqian Cool reply! Thanks!
@@user-dm3jx9en5w Ah, thank you as well! Glad to help clarify.
Thanks so much!❤️🔥great content! Glad your channel caught my attention.!👍 🩵
Metaphysics is nothing more than the the conceptual analysis of what exists and how it exists. Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy & metaphysics is also based on logic and reasoning. I dont know what the hell you mean by "metaphysics uses the whole faculty of the human being" or "metaphysics is based on direct vision of universal reality." How exactly does analyzing what is use the whole faculty of the human being? How does my stomach help me form sentences of the form "there exists x s.t. P(x)," which is the building block of all metaphysical analysis? On one level my stomach provides stimuli which allow me to create sentences such as "I am hungry" which can be analyzed as the proposition "hungry(a)", where "a" is my proper name. Nevertheless, this is still a conceptual exercise. Furthermore, how does our sense perception give us access to any universal truths? This claim immediately runs into the problem of induction which has been a problem in metaphysics for hundreds of years. It also runs into the problem of universals, which has been a problem in metaphysics for thousands of years. What youre talking about, all this bs about Rene Guenon and Meister Eckhart is to serious metaphysics what a witch doctor is to a neurosurgeon: a non-rigorous, unsubstantiated and unthoughtful waste of time.
Furthermore, what does ot mean that philosophy is systematic? Continental philosophy might be like that but continental philosophy is not really philosophy. What philosophy posits are theories & then it analyzes those theories. These are not "opinions" of individual people, these are conceptual models whoch feature, like any model, a particular language, often a formal language, ie w well defined functions and non-logical axioms; as well as the logical axioms. These theories are universal theories, in that they are complete, ie model P(x) iff P(x) is supposed to be modeled.
The rest of your spiel about metaphysics being practical and applicable to life is just nonsense. Its especially hilarious that you dont subordinate stoicism to this supposed paradigm for what is metaphysics, when stoicism is literally the sine qua non of a philosophy of life.
For starters, there is much more metaphysics beyond Western "academic" philosophy. Metaphysics is the study of the universal structure of Reality, which is concomitant with the first philosophy as understood by Plato, pythagoreans, the Egyptians, the Eastern masters, and the ancients. That is to say: asceticism, the search for noetic contemplation and virtue, was an internal and ontological transformation, ergo metaphysical in its true sense applied to practical life, the living praxis par excellence.
Many of these same metaphysical conceptsl that you sentimentally discredit, have existed consistently by philosophers (who today consider themselves mystics) and traditions from diverse inconex cultures of the world throughout recorded history, because it is a sapiensal truth.
The term "continental philosophy" has only a vague meaning to distinguish it from analytical philosophy. Today, of course, the philosophy you describe is nothing more than a doxography that occupies a narrow associative rationalism with pseudometaphysics reduced to an abstract discourse, more a dead letter than anything else.
The "problems" you mention are actually pseudoproblems and those "conceptual models" are nothing more than rational constructions or imaginative hypotheses, and there fore completely individual conceptions, which is where the desire to be original at all costs comes from. It is better to invent a new error than to repeat a truth already expressed by others. Confusing "general" with "universal" is, to say the least, naive.
"Systematic" means a strictly limited and delimited set of theories by definition.
Stoicism is just an offshoot of platonism.