What is Metaphysics?

[de Silentio]

While I cannot complete subscribe to deconstructionism, I do feel that the philosophy has great things to offer. One thing that always interested me is their claim that words have no meaning in and of themselves, it is each individual that gives meaning to a word. One consequence of this is that the same word can mean many different things to different people. When I think about the word 'Metaphysics', I always think of the deconstructionists, and how right they are.

When I am asked what area of philosophy interests me most, I say metaphysics and epistemology. It is often the case that people give me weird looks like I just spoke a foreign language. The average person does not encounter these words very often, if ever, so it is understandable that they don't know what the two words mean.

However, we philosophers hear much about the two words. Epistemology is pretty much epistemology. It, more or less, has a clear definition that we can all agree on. Metaphysics, on the other hand, does not. From what I can tell, part of the problem is that the word 'Metaphysics' has been used throughout history to mean different things.

Humbly, I admit that I don't always have a grasp on the word. Some days I think I understand, and other days I consider myself a complete buffoon. Today happens to be one of those days.

So, I post today for help, and ask the forum: What is metaphysics?

[Didymos Thomas]

Defining metaphysics is difficult, mostly because the word is a blanket term for a number of issues. The term was first used to title Aristotle's works after his Physics (hence, meta-physics). Over time, the field has come to include a number of other issues, such as mind-body problems.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has a great article explaining the origin and meaning of metaphysics.

[VideCorSpoon]

REPLY
I admit I dont quite know the connection between deconstructionalism and metaphysics... It seems like a monkey with a whole different bannana. But if I were to take a stab at “what is metaphysics?” it would be this. Metaphysics is the philosophical study of being and knowing…well that is the definition that google gives you.


Of course, it is all obvious now!!! It is the study of Being!!! Unfortunately, no one can tell you really what being is, because no one reads beyond Aristotle’s metaphysics alpha.


So, let me clarify. Metaphysics is the study OF THE QUESTION “What is being?” (If we look at it in Aristotelean terms)



SO… If we understand that the question is “What is being?” we can now extrapolate a translation.



ANSWER TO THE QUESTION
“What is being” is in fact “what is substance?” (get it… physics (substance)… meta (beyond)…)



EXTENSION OF THE ANSWER
It is an ontological study of the primacy of things, or simply, a venture to the origins of substance. At the core of this view is perhaps the most difficult concept that philosophers from Spinoza, Leibniz, etc. have tried to grapple with, which is being qua being, or being as being in itself. What the heck does this mean? This means that being is it itself that is predicable of nothing yet predicated upon. What the heck does that mean??? Being is that substrate that all attributes attach!!! What the heck does that mean then????? Sounds neat and mysterious right... It goes on for quite a bit... well, Aristotelean syllogism that is.



It has taken me nearly two years to get through metaphysics and it is universally acknowledged as the hardest concept in philosophy. I remember when I did a thesis on a three page book within metaphysics and the very same question… the paper was forty pages long.

I am ecstatic that you are interested in metaphysics. It is an ultra brain scratch and a pyrrhic victory in the end, or more precisely, a battle that seems too costly to be considered a victory.

Proposition Six

[de Silentio]

Thanks for your replies. I didn't ask this question in complete ignorance, and in fact I have read portions of the aticle that D.T. suggested.

Perhaps my question was to broad, but that was kind of my point in asking it. I am to understand that metaphysics came to mean something different after Kant's critique of it, and as far as I can tell, justifiably so.

If you will, let me ask a few more questions:

Where is the line drawn between epistemology and metaphysics? They seem almost interrelated to me. This was going to be a question that came down the line, but now seems like an appropriate time.

What are the boundries of metaphysics?

Are we justified in using metaphyisical arguments to describe the world?

-------

It is ... a pyrrhic victory in the end.

That depends on how you view the cost-benefit relationship. The cost may be seemingly endless and ultimately pointless work, but the benifit is the joy I get from working on it, not my end result. So, it doesn't seem like a pyrrhic victory, for me at least.

[VideCorSpoon]

First, the metaphysics I am talking about is root metaphysics, before it gets mixed with ideas influenced by theory and belief.

You believe that epistemology and metaphysics are interrelated, yes? Both seek the origins of a thing, epistemology seeks the origins of knowledge, metaphysics seeks the origins of being (i.e. substance.)

Here’s a point though, if the goal of both is to seek the origins of a thing… knowledge, or epistemology has a problem. In order to know a thing (disregarding precognition), we must derive it from something else which imparts that knowledge through the senses. This then results in a reductio, where the knowledge came from knowledge came from knowledge, etc.

Metaphysics, or ontology, on the other hand seeks reduction to its simple substrate physically.

From my previous post, you could think of epistemology as the attribute which attaches itself to the metaphysical substrate. I think the line between the two does not exist… It’s a monkey with a whole different banana.

Epistemology is fundamentally attributed to the substance which it derives, if you think about it.

What are the boundaries of metaphysics? There are none. Metaphysics does not extend, it contracts to its simple substrate within itself, like a collapsing star (which oddly enough expands in the same instance in astrophysics). And by substrate, I mean blank slate, blank paper, etc. Metaphysics seeks the simplest thing from which everything derives from.

Are you justified in using metaphysical arguments to describe the world? Depends. On what? Exactly!! (get it… on what… substance.. funny right… anybody?)

And as for my pyrrhic victory comment… I'm glad you think that the pursuit of knowledge is its own rewards... it was a misfired joke. "and we seek knowledge for its own gain and not for any others, for this alone is true science." - Aristotle

Speaking about myself...

“Man doth like an ape that the higher he climbs, the more he shows of his ****.” -Bacon(bits) Very seldom do I catch my subtle pseudo-hubral undertone. Please… don’t take me seriously, to do so would be a pyrrhic victory.

Also, de omnibus dubitandum est... everything is to be doubted. Im a fan of Descartes as well. As for me... Aut Viam Invenium Aut Faciam!! (Is there is no other way, I shall make it.)

[de Silentio]

Originally Posted by VideCorSpoon

First, the metaphysics I am talking about is root metaphysics, before it gets mixed with ideas influenced by theory and belief.

The point of my post: you speak of metaphysics as 'root metaphysics', when I think of metaphysics, I think more like Kant, which seems more epistemological.

By 'root' do you mean the metaphysics of Aristotle? The seeking of 'first principles', I believe?

You believe that epistemoloy and metaphysics are interrelated, yes? Both seek the origins of a thing, epistemology seeks the origins of knowledge, metaphysics seeks the origins of being (i.e. substance.)

It seems that in order to seek the origin of being, you would have to understand the origin of knowledge, and vise-a-versa.

When I speak of the ultimate being of objects outside of me, the way I come to have knowledge those objects plays a crucial role on their being.

Metaphysics, or ontology, on the other hand seeks reduction to its simple substrate physically.

Now you are speaking of ontology, but isn't that only a portion of metaphysics?

From my previous post, you could think of epistemology as the attribute which attaches itself to the metaphysical substrate. I think the line between the two does not exist… It’s a monkey with a whole different banana.

You continually use the term 'substrate', and I don't think I completely understand what you are talking about.

Let me ask this question: How does epistemology relate to metaphysics?

What are the boundaries of metaphysics? There are none. Metaphysics does not extend, it contracts to its simple substrate within itself, like a collapsing star (which oddly enough expands in the same instance in astrophysics). And by substrate, I mean blank slate, blank paper, etc. Metaphysics seeks the simplest thing from which everything derives from.

See, I think we have differnet conceptions of what metaphysics is, again, the point of my post. It seems that you speak of metaphysics as ontology only. While I think of metaphysics as the exploration of a priori knowledge and how it relates to the world outside me (thus tying metaphysics and epistemology)

Do I have an incorrect view of metaphysics?

it was a misfired joke.

Sorry, I'm not good with jokes. I'm too literal (as a co-worker puts it)

de omnibus dubitandum est... everything is to be doubted. Im a fan of Descartes as well

Although I am a fan of Descartes (who seems very metaphysical!), I pulled the quote from Kierkegaard. Johannas Climacus is the book.

[VideCorSpoon]

Yes, we definitely have a different view of metaphysics. Kant in a broader sense disagrees with “root” metaphysics because it seeks to explain the origin of things in the simplest terms, thus “concepts (root metaphysical outlook) without institutions are empty.”(kant)


I’ll go as far as this… How can you (if one ever could) deduce the reductio without going to simplest terms?


I think where we lose one another is in the vantage points we know metaphysics. You know metaphysics a posteriori (kant before Aristotle)whereas I know metaphysics a priori.(Aristotle before kant) in a way.



You say…

“I think of metaphysics as the exploration of a-priori knowledge and how it relates to the world outside me (thus tying metaphysics and epistemology)”


I say…


“metaphysics is the study of the origins of things… thus from its roots we derive the extended world.

Semantic problem…
So in my terms, you say you think that “metaphysics is the exploration of knowledge gained prior to the senses(that is gained before experience) and how that prior knowledge gained before the senses relates to the extended world.”


I would venture to think that as we cling to our particular semantic frameworks, we fail to see the relative root nature of the meaning of metaphysics.



So because I have failed to convey it properly, let me say this.


Etymologically, metaphysics eventually means “beyond the physical” I understand metaphysics in its root sense, that is, before Kant came along and argued that the questions of metaphysics are built into human reasoning. Perhaps we are involved in a game of the chicken or the egg?


My definition is metaphysics qua metaphysics, that is, metaphysics as metaphysics in itself with no attributes (or in this case comments or beliefs by Kant) attached to it. It is metaphysics in its pure sense. I don’t think we can argue that in order to disagree with an idea, we first need a base idea to refute against.

Its much like the origins of your phrase “de omnibus dubitandum est.” You pulled from Kierkegaard, I pulled from Descartes, who was prior to Kierkegaard. We understand the meaning of the phrase, that everything is doubted, but in different contexts, regardless of the fact that Descartes coined the concept of universal doubt before him... namely that the origins of the phrase... or more precisely the metaphysical origin, lies with Descartes.

[Play_Dough]

Originally Posted by de Silentio

What is metaphysics?

Metaphysics is that branch of philosophy that seeks to discover 'real causes' rather than 'apparent causes'.

Metaphysics includes the observer (consciousness) as being a part of any causal chain in cause/effect relationships.

An example:
A hiker is struck by a boulder.
1) The scientist hiker says that 'gravity' was the cause.
2) The priest hiker says that 'God' (or the devil) was the cause
3) The metaphysician hiker wonders why he had himself struck by a boulder.

The bottom line is that metaphysics includes consciousness as a possible causal agency. As such 'meta' (meaning behind or hidden, like 'meta-tags' in web-design) goes beyond (behind) mundane physics which must stop at the last measureable 'physical' event.

Another example is a young child wishes that he or she had $5.00.
Two days later the child finds a 5 dollar bill in the park.
Science would call this scenario a 'coincidence'. Metaphysics would include the child's wish as a part of the causal chain.

.

[de Silentio]

Originally Posted by Play_Dough

Metaphysics is that branch of philosophy that seeks to discover 'real causes' rather than 'apparent causes'.

How are some of the examples you gave ‘real causes’. I don’t think anyone would think that the boulder falling on the hiker was caused by himself. Or is there something I am missing.

Metaphysics includes the observer (consciousness) as being a part of any causal chain in cause/effect relationships.

Why?

The bottom line is that metaphysics includes consciousness as a possible causal agency

Physics includes consciousness as a possible ‘causal agency’ also. (if I undertand what you mean by causal agency) It is demonstrated in the two-slit experiment. Here is a link to a video that demonstrates the two-slit experiement if you are not familiar with it:

YouTube - Dr Quantum - Double Slit Experiment

Another example is a young child wishes that he or she had $5.00. Two days later the child finds a 5 dollar bill in the park.
Science would call this scenario a 'coincidence'. Metaphysics would include the child's wish as a part of the causal chain.

I can see how you can use Kant’s metaphysics to show this, but it is a real stretch, and unless you can make an extremely good argument to support yourself on this, I don’t think I can except what you are saying with any certainty.

[de Silentio]

Originally Posted by VideCorSpoon

Yes, we definitely have a different view of metaphysics. Kant in a broader sense disagrees with “root” metaphysics because it seeks to explain the origin of things in the simplest terms, thus “concepts (root metaphysical outlook) without institutions are empty.”(kant)

I truly hate to correct you, but a portion of my reply depends on the quote being correct. Did you mean to say “concepts without intuitions are empty”?

If so, in Kant’s terms, how are concepts different from intuitions, they are both known a priori. Concepts are how our mind organizes the world (the rules by which we organize our experience of the world), intuitions are the how we experience the world. Without both we cannot understand the world, without intuitions concepts mean nothing, without conceptions we cannot understand our experiences.

So in my terms, you say you think that “metaphysics is the exploration of knowledge gained prior to the senses(that is gained before experience) and how that prior knowledge gained before the senses relates to the extended world.”

A priori does not mean ‘before’ experience in the sense that you use it, it means a part from experience. The difference is key to understanding Kant’s metaphysics. Kant’s first line in the CPR, states that all knowledge begins with experience, exemplifying what I stated about a priori knowledge. We still ‘learn’ something from synthetic a priori knowledge, that is what makes it synthetic. It is not that we ‘know’ that 2 + 2 = 4 before we experience it, it is that we ‘can’ know 2 + 2 = 4 before we experience it.

It is important to my argument that we are both clear on what I mean when I use a priori knowledge. If what I stated above is not clear, let me know and I will try again.

Etymologically, metaphysics eventually means “beyond the physical” I understand metaphysics in its root sense, that is, before Kant came along and argued that the questions of metaphysics are built into human reasoning. Perhaps we are involved in a game of the chicken or the egg?

If you read far enough into Kant, you eventually come to the ‘root sense’ of metaphysics that you speak of. I say this because Kant eventually ends up with our mind being the root cause of ‘things’ in the world, at least, that is, those things that we can possibly know (the phenomena). Yes, these ‘things’ exist in the noumena, but the noumena is beyond the limits of our knowledge.

All in all, I don’t think we have the semantic problem that you describe, I just didn’t let on to everything (because I am still unclear on this portion of Kant’s philosophy).

I’ll go as far as this… How can you (if one ever could) deduce the reductio without going to simplest terms?

Can you please explain to me what ‘reductio’ is.