So, Ayn Rand (being dead) is no longer relevant to this debate. I'm glad we've got that sorted out. Excellent.
Let's re-track this debate. You said you were a rational philosophist, defined to mean that, "if I am incapable of measuring it, I do not attempt to manipulate it". I asked you to measure that statement. You replied that this was a metaphysical statement and did not apply to physical constructs. I asserted that this position was, in itself, a metaphysical statement. Rather than attempting to address this point, you said this was irrelevant and asked for my own position, which I duly gave. You then interpreted my position to mean that "nothing is provable," which I accepted in a bounded sense -- although it is a fairly gross and inaccurate simplification. In an attempt to get back on the topic, I went back to where we lost it: my assertion that you had made a metaphysical claim that denied metaphysics (which I highlighted as an example of an historical fallacy from philosophy). I asked for a definition of metaphysics, for which I got:
Quote:
| Metaphysics is your annoying habit of name-dropping, rather than stand on your own assertions you are making a study of the study of man. |
So, you offer no substantive definition of metaphysics -- other than being an aspect of my behaviour. Since other people have written about metaphysics well before I was even conceived, this doesn't strike me as a very good definition. Since you were the one who raised the concept of metaphysics, I am assuming you can define it more clearly than that. Otherwise, I am at a loss to know how you know that my statement was metaphysical.
The question is, then, are you going to offer a real definition of metaphysics? If so, what is it? If not, how do you know that the statement I made was metaphysical?