metaphysics is...

[Skepdick]

Synthetic a priori depends on naturalism as the frame and system of belief. Naturalism is form of pantheism. The biosphere is an ecological system. Within that system humans retain inherent brain-mind patterns. Chomsky has described generative grammar, for instance, as deep structure of human language.It's probable in a habitat that is measurable by values of space and time that humans, by process of natural selection, are inherently able to synthesise values of space and time.

The frame of the system is still part of the system.

And I further draw your attention to the fact that you've framed your beliefs in the language of "systems"; and you've framed those beliefs in Chomsky's universal grammar.

The synthetic a priory is still synthesised and in so far as synthesis goes - I think "synthesis" means exactly the same thing as "first principles thinking".

It still begs the question: When we are synthesising ideas (such as the idea of "systems", "space" and "time") what are we synthesising those ideas from?

Experience! Obviously. "space" and "time" are empirical, not conceptual. Space is memory. We don't really know what time is.

[Terrapin Station]

It's precisely what it is. Your pre-supposed such things as "first principles".

If it's a preconception that we can avoid how would anything obtain without there being any logical requirements, such as that something obtains?

[Skepdick]

If it's a preconception that we can avoid how would anything obtain without there being any logical requirements, such as that something obtains?

Does logic obtain?

Does obtainment obtain?

Is that "something" required to "obtain"?

[Terrapin Station]

If it's a preconception that we can avoid how would anything obtain without there being any logical requirements, such as that something obtains?

Does logic obtain?

Obviously. How could this be in question?

[Skepdick]

Obviously. How could this be in question?

How could it not? Logic is invented. Its existence is contingent upon the will of its creator.

And it may very well be a moral hazard to confuse the world of logic with the real world.

[Terrapin Station]

Obviously. How could this be in question?

How could it not? Logic is invented.

If we invent something, the thing we invent obtains, right?

[Skepdick]

If we invent something, the thing we invent obtains, right?

Does it?

It's contingent upon the will of the creator.

WHY did you create X is way more important than the question WHAT is X.

But it's just more question-begging. Do questions obtain?

[Terrapin Station]

If we invent something, the thing we invent obtains, right?

Does it?

How would you not know how to answer this?

[Skepdick]

How would you not know how to answer this?

Because I don't know if obtainment obtains.

[Terrapin Station]

How would you not know how to answer this?

Because I don't know if obtainment obtains.

Gee, "Maybe nothing exists" isn't at all sophomoric in a philosophy context.

[Skepdick]

Gee, "Maybe nothing exists" isn't at all sophomoric in a philosophy context.

And who the hell is saying that?

I am just asking questions.

Do questions obtain?

[Terrapin Station]

Gee, "Maybe nothing exists" isn't at all sophomoric in a philosophy context.

And who the hell is saying that?

The person who is arguing about all of this despite not being familiar with the word "obtain" in a philosophical context.

[Skepdick]

The person who is arguing about all of this despite not being familiar with the word "obtain" in a philosophical context.

Who is that? (since at least I am not arguing)

In so far as philosophers invented the concept/word "obtain" it's contingent upon the will of philosophers.

WHY did philosophers invent the contept/word?

[Terrapin Station]

WHY did philosophers invent the contept/word?

To refer to something with language.

[Skepdick]

To refer to something with language.

So what is this "something" that you are referring to when you refer to "language"?

Does "language" obtain?