I couldn’t find the original on a quick Google, but:
The Master was speaking in the public square about the illusory nature of reality, when a bull got away from his handler and charged the crowd. The crowd scattered in fear, all but a young child who had been learning at the master’s feet, who had absorbed some of his wisdom and was therefore unafraid.
Afterwards, the Master approached the child’s trampled body and, saddened, asked “Why did you not run?” The child replied, with difficulty, “But Master, had you not just been teaching us that the bull was just an illusion? What should I have to fear from an illusion?” ″Yes, child,” he replied. “The bull is an illusion. But so are you.”
At that moment, the child died.
Which is to say, believing that something can be entirely explained in terms of something else doesn’t absolve me from the need to deal with it. Even if I and the bull and my preference to remain alive can all be entirely captured by the sufficiently precise specification of a set of quarks, it doesn’t follow that there exists no such person, no such bull, or no such preference.
The argument was a meta-level undermining argument supporting the necessity of metaphysical reasoning (of the exact sort that you’re engaging in in your comment);—it wasn’t an argument about the merits of reductionism. That would likely have been clearer had I included more context; my apologies.
Also, metaphysical reasoning is often necessary, agreed.
Sadly, I often find it necessary in response to metaphysical reasoning introduced to situations without a clear sense of what it’s achieving and whether that end can be achieved without it. In this sense it’s rather like lawyers.
Not that I’m advocating eliminating all the lawyers, not even a little. Lawyers are useful. They’re even useful for things other than defending oneself from other lawyers.
But I’ve also seen situations made worse because one party brought in a lawyer without a clear understanding of the costs and benefits of involving lawyers in that situation.
I suspect that a clear understanding of the costs and benefits of metaphysical reasoning is equally useful.
I couldn’t find the original on a quick Google, but:
Which is to say, believing that something can be entirely explained in terms of something else doesn’t absolve me from the need to deal with it. Even if I and the bull and my preference to remain alive can all be entirely captured by the sufficiently precise specification of a set of quarks, it doesn’t follow that there exists no such person, no such bull, or no such preference.
The argument was a meta-level undermining argument supporting the necessity of metaphysical reasoning (of the exact sort that you’re engaging in in your comment);—it wasn’t an argument about the merits of reductionism. That would likely have been clearer had I included more context; my apologies.
(nods) Context is often useful, agreed.
Also, metaphysical reasoning is often necessary, agreed.
Sadly, I often find it necessary in response to metaphysical reasoning introduced to situations without a clear sense of what it’s achieving and whether that end can be achieved without it.
In this sense it’s rather like lawyers.
Not that I’m advocating eliminating all the lawyers, not even a little.
Lawyers are useful.
They’re even useful for things other than defending oneself from other lawyers.
But I’ve also seen situations made worse because one party brought in a lawyer without a clear understanding of the costs and benefits of involving lawyers in that situation.
I suspect that a clear understanding of the costs and benefits of metaphysical reasoning is equally useful.
Where is that quote from, out of curiosity ?
If I could remember that, I probably could have found it on Google in the first place.
...fair enough. I tried looking on Google, and couldn’t find it either. Perhaps your quote is original enough for you to claim authorship :-/
Perhaps? I’m fairly sure I read it somewhere, but my memory is unreliable.