Metaphysical Assumption Slam Dunks/Mic Drops Happen in Living, Not Discussion
I have concluded that arguing over metaphysical assumptions is fruitless, particularly when focused entirely on the futile and counterproductive task of trying to prove the unprovable.
The challenge becomes even more daunting when a set of metaphysical assumptions are approached exclusively from within the framework of a contrasting set of metaphysical assumptions.
For example, a frank and earnest discussion about the assumed reality of uncreated freedom becomes daunting if the possibility of such an assumed reality is rejected outright. Moreover, such rejection entails disparate definitions of key premises and terms, starting with freedom itself—what it is, where it originated, and what it means.
Before long, the metaphysical discussion begins to bleed into the realms of ontology and epistemology as efforts to disprove the un-disprovable via various forms of evidence ramp up; evidence selected, formed, interpreted, and defined from the framework of disparate sets of metaphysical assumptions.
It seems to me that the only fruitful endeavor one can expect from one’s metaphysical assumptions is to live them—to think, feel, and act according to one’s core postulations about the fundamental nature of reality.
If one is serious and honest about the undertaking, one may experience what could be termed “living proof” of one’s assumptions, and such “living proof” moments are the only “slam dunks” and “mic drops” that assumptions provide.
Note added: For the sake of clarity, by uncreated freedom, I am not referring only to God's freedom, but all freedom.
The challenge becomes even more daunting when a set of metaphysical assumptions are approached exclusively from within the framework of a contrasting set of metaphysical assumptions.
For example, a frank and earnest discussion about the assumed reality of uncreated freedom becomes daunting if the possibility of such an assumed reality is rejected outright. Moreover, such rejection entails disparate definitions of key premises and terms, starting with freedom itself—what it is, where it originated, and what it means.
Before long, the metaphysical discussion begins to bleed into the realms of ontology and epistemology as efforts to disprove the un-disprovable via various forms of evidence ramp up; evidence selected, formed, interpreted, and defined from the framework of disparate sets of metaphysical assumptions.
It seems to me that the only fruitful endeavor one can expect from one’s metaphysical assumptions is to live them—to think, feel, and act according to one’s core postulations about the fundamental nature of reality.
If one is serious and honest about the undertaking, one may experience what could be termed “living proof” of one’s assumptions, and such “living proof” moments are the only “slam dunks” and “mic drops” that assumptions provide.
Note added: For the sake of clarity, by uncreated freedom, I am not referring only to God's freedom, but all freedom.
No comments have been added yet.
