After reading through Baron d' Holbach’s work on morality, I am asking this question to seek further information on the subject of an objective, universal morality. I have long considered myself a materialist, naturalist, and social-constructivist in the strictest sense of the terms, but have also found myself pondering the question of morality and ethics as I’m sure everyone does. I really do believe a case can be made for an objective morality from a materialist standpoint, and I think Baron d' Holbach’s work on the subject has been very enlightening. I think by integrating his ideas with a Class Theory of Ethics, we can really begin to grasp how to forge ahead on a new moral basis and actually comprehend morality as it really and truly exists today and how can exist in the future, from a strictly materialist standpoint.
So where else can i go in my research? Where else can I learn about an objective morality absent of religion? Or at least spiritualism and metaphysics? I consider myself secular and firmly atheistic in my approach so I would not consider any god into the equation of morality, save for when god is understood in some social and material context which Marx, like others, correctly established two centuries ago. So, what would you recommend?
I’m not looking for a debate at this time, but I do want to branch off and discover whatever else there is to explore on the subject. So please recommend whatever you can. Preferably nothing too hedonistic or individualistic. Thank you in advance.
I am an undergraduate currently in a metaphysics class, and I want my project to be more on the continental side/critically-inclined.
Now I haven't read much of Baudrillard, but what I have has piqued my interest in him. Do you think that he could be read as a metaphysician?
If yes, then which of his texts do you think are the most metaphysical?
I'm also open to any other interesting reading suggestions in metaphysics at the moment if you have those.
Many thanks!
https://preview.redd.it/n6q2x8on0j371.png?width=960&format=png&auto=webp&s=4c4c03927aa70266d89e1b577ee0890860ac20fd
Hi all,
I'm wondering if someone more familiar with the contemporary realism/platonism vs. nominalism debate in metaphysics than I am could point me to the important defenders of nominalism these days (if there even are any)? I'm aware there are people defending trope theory---the idea that properties are really particulars, rather than universals---but I'm wondering about people who deny the existence of properties and relations altogether.
I'm aware of defenders of nominalism in the middle of the 20th century---(early) Quine, Goodman, and Sellars---but, post 1980 or so, I don't know of any important defenders of the position. I'm assuming there must be some, and I'm just unaware. If anyone could help me out, that'd be great!
I know neo-Thomists like Feser employ this notion, but it seems to have fallen out of fashion in general
For example, do relations exist as abstract entities?
If not, then what are we saying when we say that A bears relation R to B?
My first remix!
I downloaded the stems Foals gave out as part of their remix competition. I had so much fun making this! To make the most use of the stems I made myself only use samples from the song for the whole track, including the drum samples (I'd never done any of this before so it was a great way to learn). Effects, mixing and mastering all with stock plug ins.
https://soundcloud.com/metaphysician-1/foals-wash-off-metaphysicians-disco-mix
Does anyone know of any contemporary analytic metaphysicians who mention in their work reasons to oppose the common trend of naturalizing metaphysics?
Because in large cities the famous truths
already had been plumbed and debated,
the metaphysicians of South Jersey
lowered their gaze, just tried to be themselves.
They'd gather at coffee shops in the Vineland
and deserted shacks deep in the Pine Barrens.
Nothing they came up with mattered
so they were free to be eclectic, and as odd
as getting to the heart of things demanded.
They walked undisguised in the boardwalk.
At the Hamilton Mall they blended
with the bargain-hunters and the feckless.
Almost everything amazed them,
the last hour of a country fair,
blueberry fields covered with mist.
They sought the approximate weight of sadness,
its measure and coloration. But they liked
a good ball game too, well pitched, lots of zeros
on the score board. At night when they lay down,
exhausted and enthralled, their spouses knew
it was too soon to ask any hard questions.
Come breakfast, as always, the metaphysicians
would begin to list the many small things
they'd observed and thought, unable to stop talking
about this place and what a world it was.
