Is this not a free forum designed for the proliferation and exchange of ideas...?, i.e., ur not the "libertarian" u childishly categorize urself too be, for ur not too libertarian on the idea of the dissemination of free thought... a "libertarian" with intellecual shackles, i.e., scientific dogma, that stifles his divine reason, by his own volition... .
... and that's where ur fault lies, i.e., equating the potential of cognizant man with the actuality of purely instinctual organisms that are unaware of their own reality. We humans of understanding can consciously manipulate our environment and realities on a scale that's unprecedented on earth; as opposed to mundane animals that just act and react instinctually, i.e., mechanically, to stimuli... "Human experience consists, not of processes in an animal organism, but of these processes recognized as such."
An animal affixes itself to the herd out of fear -- the fear of standing alone and being an individual!... Real men and women of cognizance understand their own potential, and realize that a human is much more than what he or she can garner by following the pack. Follow ur herd, i.e., ur master, as a dog follows his master... yet, true freedom and cognizance can only be attained by u freeing urself from all of ur shackles and naive impediments, i.e., ur herd and ur childish fear of standing apart from the herd .
First, man is the pretentious species. Other animales have been able to perform metacognition, like types of apes. We're not special, though in some ways we are. There's a herd for any type of person - there's nothing new under the sun. I do believe in taking a moment in mid-life to become a reclusive and find yourself though, but we're social animals, and dependent upon having social interactions. This seemed to fit into what the title of this was, and Berkeley - and other idealists - would be proud. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130627125156.htm
So, a meta-physical realm does exist, tho...? And it is a logical and coherent concept, right? And man is only pretentious when he or she hasn't realized the truth... "The Fear of God is the beginning of Wisdom." -- "And the fear of God (which means the understanding and respect thereof, not actual fear) first starts with understanding. And understanding starts with knowledge and not blindly believing something that other men would have you believe but to seek it out yourself."
Metacognition is thinking about thinking. It's an advanced form of thought studied in psychology, and believed, at one point in time, only to be done by humans. Any metaphysical realm, though it may exist, cannot be talked about by beings that have no access to it. Go read some Hume and Kant. If that's what was meant, then they would have used that word. Fear has a different meaning, not understanding and respect thereof.
1.) Go read some Descartes and phenomenonology... but, isn't thinking itself an activity that's meta-physical, i.e., not restricted to the rigid constructs of 3 dimensional time and space??? So, for us thinking things to know we are able to think about our thinking, does nothing other than vindicate Descartes' foundation axiom... "I", as meta-physically thinking thing, exist, and cannot not exist when I'm thinking meta-physically! Thus, vindicating meta-physics... 2.) In other words... God can never, i.e., for eternity (pun intended), be denied. 3.) The whole of western philosophy after Descartes is literally an unpacking and dissecting of Descartes' seminal thought... Descartes addresses induction in his Meditations... thus answering Hume before Kant set skepticism straight. And, Kant was not fully right, his philosophy does not escape incoherency and fallacies... go read Schopenhauer's critical examination of Kant's inherent mistakes.
1.) No one's sure EXACTLY what thinking is, so i'm pretty sure you've got a problem with that assertion - the burden of proof. Given the evidence, and ciritcal examination, hitherto, thought is electric impulses within the biological structure known as man. 2.) God can be denied, and affirmed. It's simply sophistry either way because there's not clear-cut answer. 3.) All of western philosophy is a footnote to plato, you're giving Descartes way too much credit, or you just really like him. Tell me where he tackles indcution, I have his meditations on my bookshelve. I haven't read them in a bit. (This has to do with 1&2, Descartes, obviously, even had big doubts about the existence of god. Why else would one figure out two arguments?) 4.) No one is free from fallacies, we're not perfect. P.S. I have wanted to read Schopenhauer, but am currently reading dostoevsky, then Nietzsche, then school will probably start, so maybe next summer.
1.) Thinking is nothing other reflection upon sensory-data, i.e., sense-data... thus a thinker observes in a receptive and reflectionary manner. Descartes shows how the mind inspects in a reflectionary manner upon physical data, i.e., data confined to the rigid structures of 3 dimensional time and space -- “To further demonstrate the limitations of the senses, Descartes proceeds with what is known as the Wax Argument. He considers a piece of wax; his senses inform him that it has certain characteristics, such as shape, texture, size, color, smell, and so forth. When he brings the wax towards a flame, these characteristics change completely. However, it seems that it is still the same thing: it is still the same piece of wax, even though the data of the senses inform him that all of its characteristics are different. Therefore, in order to properly grasp the nature of the wax, he should put aside the senses. He must use his mind. Descartes concludes: “And so something which I thought I was seeing with my eyes is in fact grasped solely by the faculty (ability) of judgment which is in my mind.†2.) Says ol' Bertrand... The depth of Descartes' thought is far deeper than most are even ready to begin to endeavor to understand, really. Descartes is rightfully called "the father of modern philosophy" -- yet, sadly enough, most don't realize how important one's philsophy has to be to dubbed with such a heavy title. I realized what this great man really did in his Meditations, after virtually going through most of Western philosophical thought (before and after Descartes). It's a mind blower... . One question -- Can you know you exist without first thinking about your existence/experience? 3.) Before critiquing Kant... Schopenhauer puts forth a very fitting quote for Kant -- "It is the privilege of true genius, and especially ofthe genius who opens up a new path, to make great mistakes with impunity." Imo, the same goes Descartes. 4.) Read Schopenhauer and then Nietzsche... for Schopenhauer is the man who's thought single-handedly gave life to the thinker inside of Nietzsche. There's a reason Nietzsche referred to Schopenhauer as "Educator" (although, he claims to part form Schopenhauer in later thought, but this is not the case at all; for Schopenhauer's metaphysical will is literally the cornerstone of Nietzsche's philosophy. But, don't read too much into the implications of Schopenhauer's pessimism and Nietzsche's anarchy, for both of their philosophies are founded a foundationl fallacy, i.e., the idea of the will-to-live or the will-to-power being everything. Look into Santanyana's "Egotism in German philosophy" and u will see how resentful and naive Nietzsche's thought can be... and to add Schopenhauer's own meta-physical conclusion about Kant's philosophy may be flawed, but his metaphysics, nonetheless, is very insightful and amazing (before atoms were discovered, Schopenhauer asserted, by way of pure reason, that matter is always in motion, and that matter's essence lies in its motion; come to find out that objects, even when stagnant, are inherently mobile!)
I remember the wax argument in the second meditation (I believe that's where it comes out) I like Heidegger's going back to Descarte and showing how he should have observed the I, the most crucial thing he left out -- what is the I. Depends on your theory of Knowledge. Word. And for sure, What i've read hasn't been dependent on Schop. too much, at least to read and absorb. I've read Zarathustra, and am reading the birth of tragedy after the Karamazov brothers.