>From: Jon Johanning <jjohanning at igc.org>
>
>Not metaphysical, epistemological. And as you say, it's an *assumption,*
>not a "foundation." Foundations are something you can build on; you can't
>build on assumptions.
>
>That said, it seems to be a pretty safe assumption --- it's gotten us
>pretty far in the last few centuries.
I was thinking in broadly Heideggerian terms of the assumptions about the way the world is structured that doing science in the way we think of it today (which probably wouldn't be recognized by an ancient or a midieval) presupposes.
>
>The word "metaphysical," by the way, seems to be favored a lot more by
>non-philosophers than by philosophers these days. With all the water that's
>gone over the dam since Kant, at least, concerning what metaphysics is and
>how it can be conducted, if at all, professional philosophers have pretty
>much abandoned the term, it seems, as being not a very useful one.
Well, that depends which philosophers you're talking about. Thomists and process philosophy types do use the term, but they're not in either of the two "mainstream" camps of Anglo-American and Continental phil. The latter will employ the term negatively ("overcoming metaphysics" in Nietzsche, Heidegger, Derrida and the incredibly boring Rorty).
_________________________________________________________________ Working moms: Find helpful tips here on managing kids, home, work — and yourself. http://special.msn.com/msnbc/workingmom.armx