[Hazmatac]

...what are metaphysics?

[aequalsa]

Hazmatac, on Aug 18 2006, 06:58 PM, said:

...what are metaphysics?

Are you looking for a general definition or do you wish to know specifically what objectivist metaphysics are?

[LaszloWalrus]

Metaphysics as such (without reference to Objectivist metaphysics specifically is) according to my computer dictionary:

"the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing [I would call "knowing" part of epistemology], substance, cause, identity, time, and space"

[Bold Standard]

Here are some definitions of metaphysics from Ayn Rand and Dr. Peikoff.

Leonard Peikoff, on OPAR pg 3, said:

Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that studies the nature of the universe as a whole.

Ayn Rand, on Romantic Manifesto, pg 19, said:

Metaphysics—the science that deals with the fundamental nature of reality...

Ayn Rand, on Ayn Rand Letter pg 278 (This is also in Philosophy: Who Needs It, from the title essay, but I don't have the page number at hand), said:

[M]etaphysics—the study of existence as such or, in Aristotle's words, of "being qua being"—the basic branch of philosophy.

And here is a list of some of the types of questions that metaphysics deals with:

Ayn Rand, on Ayn Rand Letter pg 278, said:

Are you in a universe which is ruled by natural laws and, therefore, is stable, firm, absolute—and knowable? Or are you in an incomprehensible chaos, a realm of inexplicable miracles, an unpredictable, unknowable flux, which your mind is impotent to grasp? Are the things you see around you real—or are they only an illusion? Do they exist independent of any observer—or are they created by the observer? Are they the object or the subject of man's consciousness? Are they what they are—or can they be changed by a mere act of your consciousness, such as a wish?

This post has been edited by Bold Standard: 19 August 2006 - 01:36 AM

[Hazmatac]

I was on another board and the answer I recieved was basically metaphysics deals with: existents, consciousness, and identity. Then comes physics which measure the particular aspects of the existent.

[Bold Standard]

Hazmatac, on Aug 23 2006, 02:07 PM, said:

I was on another board and the answer I received was basically metaphysics deals with: existents, consciousness, and identity. Then comes physics which measure the particular aspects of the existent.

There are different variations on the idea of metaphysics, depending on what theory of reality you subscribe to.. But in general it deals with the most fundamental nature of the universe as a whole.

Existence is fundamental to metaphysics. It asks "IS there an existence"? That's really the proper starting place of metaphysics (that's where Ayn Rand starts it-- with the axiom "Existence exists.")

The question of identity is also fundamental to any theory of metaphysics-- it essentially asks: "Are things what they are? Or not." And then proceeds based on the answer you get from that. If they are what they are (if they have "identity"), can they change, or are they eternal. If they can change, is that change a causal or inexplicable process? Etc. If things are not what they are, then what does that mean? Are they an illusion? Is reality riddled with contradictions? Is it possible for some things to be what they are, and other things to be what they're not? Is it possible for a thing to be what it is at one time, or in one respect, but to be what it's not at a different time, or in a different respect?

All those are metaphysical questions. Physics, biology, chemistry, psychology, paleontology, and all such sciences are concrete applications of some accepted form of metaphysics (although some philosophers have attempted to divorce science from metaphysics and to make it dependent solely on epistemology, and these people talk about "metaphysics" as if it meant "superstition" ...but don't let them confuse you, they're confused-- or worse).

And the question of consciousness could be put-- does a faculty for perceiving existence exist? Or-- do I exist, depending on how you approach it.

This post has been edited by Bold Standard: 24 August 2006 - 04:57 AM

[DavidOdden]

Hazmatac, on Aug 23 2006, 01:07 PM, said:

I was on another board and the answer I recieved was basically metaphysics deals with: existents, consciousness, and identity. Then comes physics which measure the particular aspects of the existent.

There is widespread confusion on this point, and I myself was misled by the status of physics. Metaphysics is an aspect of philosophy, and physics is a specific science. It's true that what we see as (old) physics used to be called "natural philosophy", but first, historical naming traditions can be misleading and, second, physics used to be philosophy and not science. The fundamental distinction has to do with specialization, that is, the results of physics are not at all accessible to ordinary people using their senses, rather, you need extensive specialized training and very specialised equipment. Philosophy, on the other hand, uses ordinary senses and knowledge. Philosophy will not tell you anything about quarks or gravity, but it will tell you what it means to "exist", or to "cause" something, or that there is no such thing as "pure existence, with no identity". Any technical discussion in physics presupposes many metaphysical concepts (such as "causation"), which are understood via the philosophical discipline of metaphysics.

[orangesiscool]

When the writings of Aristoltle were being collected a few decades after his death, the stuff he wrote on being etc. wasn't titled. It was simply put after his writings on physics. Meta(after)physics.

[Shading Inc.]

Hazmatac, on Aug 19 2006, 02:58 AM, said:

...what are metaphysics?

To take the word literally; metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that busies itself with those things that are beyond (= meta-) the scope of physics. What then, is physics? Well, you probably know that, but I find it helpful to define physics as the branch of philosophy (in this case 'science' is the more word you're probably used to) that busies itself with the observable. So metaphysics is about things we don't have sense data of. You know, metaphysics literally mean 'supernatural'...

Jan.

[softwareNerd]

Shading Inc., on Oct 13 2006, 02:01 PM, said:

So metaphysics is about things we don't have sense data of. You know, metaphysics literally mean 'supernatural'...

While this may be your view, it is not the Objectivist view.

A science that studies the super-natural is a contradiction and therefore cannot exist.

[Shading Inc.]

softwareNerd, on Oct 13 2006, 10:05 PM, said:

While this may be your view, it is not the Objectivist view.

A science that studies the super-natural is a contradiction and therefore cannot exist.

It is not just my view; it is a quite common ethymological interpretation.

It is my point of view though, that if objectivism really is about real things (which I'm sure you don't want to contest), it would be more proper for it to speak of physics, rather than of metaphysics.

Jan.

This post has been edited by Shading Inc.: 13 October 2006 - 01:51 PM

[KendallJ]

Shading Inc., on Oct 13 2006, 04:50 PM, said:

It is not just my view; it is a quite common ethymological interpretation.

It is my point of view though, that if objectivism really is about real things (which I'm sure you don't want to contest), it would be more proper for it to speak of physics, rather than of metaphysics.

Jan.

ummm, it is a common meaning, but more recent only. The etymology (as opposed to ethymology) you refer to is incorrect. The original reference regards "first philosophy" which is what the academic meaning of the term still refers to. If you would like to change the etymology and then suggest that academics change their usage of the term to match yours, well then you've got quite a bit of work in front of you.

Quote

<h3 id="siteSub">From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</h3><h3 id="siteSub">Aristotle is regarded as the "father" of metaphysics.</h3> Metaphysics (from Greek: μετά (meta) = "after", φύσις (phúsis) = "nature") is the branch of philosophy concerned with explaining the nature of the world. It is the study of being or reality.[1] It addresses questions such as: What is the nature of reality? Is there a God? What is man's place in the universe?

A central branch of metaphysics is ontology, the investigation into what categories of things are in the world and what relations these things bear to one another. The metaphysician also attempts to clarify the notions by which people understand the world, including existence, objecthood, property, space, time, causality, and possibility.

More recently, the term "metaphysics" has also been used to refer to "subjects which are beyond the physical world". A "metaphysical bookstore," for instance, is not one that sells books on ontology, but rather one that sells books on spirits, faith healing, crystal power, occultism, and other such topics.





History of metaphysics
The word "metaphysics" is generally held to have come from the title given to one of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle" title="Aristotle">Aristotle's works by the editor of his works Andronicus of Rhodes: Metaphysics, or in Greek, τα μετα τα φυσικά (i.e. the books after the books on physics).

Aristotle himself referred to the subject as "first philosophy". Among Aristotle's other works was Physics. The editor of Aristotle's works, Andronicus, placed the books on first philosophy right after Physics. So those books were called τὰ μετὰ τὰ φυσικά βιβλια, ta meta ta physika biblia, which means "the books that come after the (books about) physics." The name was first given to the work by Andronicus of Rhodes in c.70 B.C., referring to the customary organization of the Aristotlean corpus, but was misread by Latin scholiasts and became "the science of what is beyond the physical."

This post has been edited by KendallJ: 13 October 2006 - 03:06 PM

[softwareNerd]

Shading Inc., on Oct 13 2006, 02:50 PM, said:

It is not just my view; it is a quite common ethymological interpretation.

No, it is not; not unless you assume -- as a primary -- that the study of metaphysics will surely lead you to conclude that the supernatural exists. To say that metaphysics is the study of the supernatural is to beg the question. Metaphysics is supposed to answer questions like: is there a supernatural?

[Shading Inc.]

KendallJ, on Oct 14 2006, 12:01 AM, said:

ummm, it is a common meaning, but more recent only. The etymology (as opposed to ethymology) you refer to is incorrect. The original reference regards "first philosophy" which is what the academic meaning of the term still refers to. If you would like to change the etymology and then suggest that academics change their usage of the term to match yours, well then you've got quite a bit of work in front of you.

First, I would like to humbly excuse myself for not being a native speaker.

Then, Wikipedia isn't exactly the authority on the subject of metaphysics, is it?

And yes, we all know the tale about Andronicus and his ordering of Aristotle's works. He didn't know what category to put these particular texts in, but he thought it best they were read after the Physics, so he put them μετα τα φυσικά, etc.

But if that's how things went, we are left with a name that doesn't directly refer to what it is (like calling a cow 'in the meadow'). It would have been convenient if 'metaphysics' just meant what it's constituent components mean taken together, but if it doesn't, we're left to see if we can work out a definition.

Well then, what is it that endeavors that claim to be, or are said to be metaphysical have in common? It is that none of them is about any physically observable thing; they concern τα μετα τα φυσικά, those things trans physicam, the supernatural, the things beyond nature.

The scholastics were right after all - or can you show me an unmoved mover, free will, God, the good, an ίδεά, a cause, a natural right; the way I can show you my face?

Of course, metaphysics as a word refers to prima philosophia, but there are a lot more philosophies called metaphysical than those of Aristotle and Descartes: I repeat, the scholastics that read metaphysics to mean "the science of what is beyond the physical" were not so mistaken as one might think, regardless of whether the tale about Andronicus is true or not.

Jan.

[Shading Inc.]

softwareNerd, on Oct 14 2006, 02:10 AM, said:

Metaphysics is supposed to answer questions like: is there a supernatural?

That is exactly the question most authors in metaphysics answer, be it explicit or implicit, with a big 'yes'. I can't imagine Plotinus, Augustine or Spinoza writing the things they did if they thought there were only 'those things contemporary physics is about'.

I'm saying 'those things contemporary physics is about', instead of natural things, because these pre-modern (Spinoza is a borderline case of course, but fits the pattern) thinkers had very different notions of nature than we do. If we were to clear that up, things would get very complicating.

Jan.

[softwareNerd]

The thing is, one can say "yes, the supernatural exists" or one can say "no it doesn't". Either of those is a statement of metaphysics. Of course, if one answers "yes", one can also go on to fill up volumes with anything that one can dream of, since nobody can disprove it one way or the other. It is ridiculous to have a "science" of the unknowable and unobservable that extends beyond a statement like, "a supernatural exists".

[Bold Standard]

Shading Inc., on Oct 13 2006, 07:53 PM, said:

That is exactly the question most authors in metaphysics answer, be it explicit or implicit, with a big 'yes'.

You can't go by majority rule in philosophy.. Most authors in epistemology have ended up in skepticism or mysticism of some sort. Should we do away with epistemology too, then? Most philosophers, in general, have ended up with false conclusions of practically every kind imaginable, and many impractical and unimaginable kinds, too. Should we abandon philosophy altogether?

Yet Ayn Rand is a perfect example of a metaphysician who rejected the supernatural, and there are others who did to varying degrees also. Why should metaphysics suffer this guilt by association you attribute to it? Is that just?

[Shading Inc.]

softwareNerd, on Oct 14 2006, 03:36 AM, said:

The thing is, one can say "yes, the supernatural exists" or one can say "no it doesn't". Either of those is a statement of metaphysics. Of course, if one answers "yes", one can also go on to fill up volumes with anything that one can dream of, since nobody can disprove it one way or the other. It is ridiculous to have a "science" of the unknowable and unobservable that extends beyond a statement like, "a supernatural exists".

Of course, a "nay" is a metaphysical claim just the same as is a "yeah". And of course it's rather ridiculous to have a science of the unknowable and unobservable. Well then, if we think objectivist metaphysics is actually about something real, shouldn't it be called physics (in the broader meaning of the word), or something like that? I don't know how much metaphysical writings you're familiar with, but if you think of objectivist metaphysics as a viable science, you probably don't want it to be associated with what metaphysics usually means. By the way, even statements like "a supernatural exists" or "a supernatural does not exist" aren't scientific, because how will you prove you're right, or how would anyone prove you're wrong?

Bold Standard, on Oct 14 2006, 12:49 PM, said:

You can't go by majority rule in philosophy.. Most authors in epistemology have ended up in skepticism or mysticism of some sort. Should we do away with epistemology too, then? Most philosophers, in general, have ended up with false conclusions of practically every kind imaginable, and many impractical and unimaginable kinds, too. Should we abandon philosophy altogether?

If, as you say, we can't go by the majority, then there's no reason to follow "most authors in epistemology, [who] have ended up in skepticism or mysticism of some sort," is there? Same goes for following philosophers who were wrong. This does not mean that we are to abandon philosophy altogether; it only means that if we allow our common sense to be guided by contemporary facts, we will end up with a kind of philosophy radically different from classical and enlightenment ones.

Bold Standard, on Oct 14 2006, 12:49 PM, said:

Yet Ayn Rand is a perfect example of a metaphysician who rejected the supernatural, and there are others who did to varying degrees also. Why should metaphysics suffer this guilt by association you attribute to it? Is that just?

As pointed out, even a rejection of metaphysics is a metaphysical claim, and if viewed as such, quite a silly one actually. I think the only scientifically correct way of dealing with things metaphysical is a "Who knows? Not I..." kind of attitude. Here I will probably find a lot of opposition..?

Jan.

[Bold Standard]

Shading Inc., on Oct 14 2006, 12:56 PM, said:

If, as you say, we can't go by the majority, then there's no reason to follow "most authors in epistemology, [who] have ended up in skepticism or mysticism of some sort," is there?

Sorry, my statement wasn't very clear. What I meant when I said, "You can't go by majority rule in philosophy," is that philosophical terms or ideas should not be defined by whatever the majority of philosophers assumes that they mean. In other words, we should not define "metaphysics" by simply taking a survey of the way that most philosophers have used the term, complete with all of the premises that they base that usage on, and all the conclusions that they reach from it. If you did that, you would have to abandon philosophy as such, because philosophy, historically speaking, usually includes false premises and false conclusions (with a few non sequiturs and logical fallacies in between).

To state it a different way, the same procedure by which you have rejected metaphysics could be used to reject anything about which most people have been wrong--which is nearly everything.

Quote

Same goes for following philosophers who were wrong. This does not mean that we are to abandon philosophy altogether; it only means that if we allow our common sense to be guided by contemporary facts, we will end up with a kind of philosophy radically different from classical and enlightenment ones.

Likewise, if we allow our common sense (reason) to be guided by [universal] facts, we will end up with a kind of metaphysics which is radically different from the popular ones. Why do you allow this to work for philosophy in general, but not for metaphysics?

Quote

Well then, what is it that endeavors that claim to be, or are said to be metaphysical have in common? It is that none of them is about any physically observable thing; they concern τα μετα τα φυσικά, those things trans physicam, the supernatural, the things beyond nature.

Unfortunately, I can't read Greek, so I don't know what those characters mean (there is a phrase in English for when something is unintelligible, which comes to mind-- "It's Greek to me!"). But based on the part that I do understand, I think you have set up a straw man as your definition for Metaphysics. You have chosen a specific species of Metaphysics (supernaturalism) to stand for the whole concept. But I think the essential definition of Metaphysics is simply that it is a theory to describe the nature of the universe as a whole. In this definition, "physics" would be merely a subset, or application, of the broader concept "metaphysics." I believe my definition is more consistent with the original meaning of the term, because Aristotle himself was not a supernaturalist, in any significant way--there were still remnants of his mentor Plato's (supernaturalistic) philosophy in his metaphysics, but he was for the most part an empiricist (of a much different kind than the post-Humean nominalist/sensualist variety, since he did believe in universals, but thought that they existed in particulars) and an advocate of the reality and exclusivity of this world, as opposed to a supernatural one.

Quote

I think the only scientifically correct way of dealing with things metaphysical is a "Who knows? Not I..." kind of attitude.

I think agnosticism evades the issue, because: just because you don't know something doesn't answer the question of whether you accept the proposition or reject it.

[Shading Inc.]

Bold Standard, on Oct 15 2006, 05:45 PM, said:

Sorry, my statement wasn't very clear. What I meant when I said, "You can't go by majority rule in philosophy," is that philosophical terms or ideas should not be defined by whatever the majority of philosophers assumes that they mean. In other words, we should not define "metaphysics" by simply taking a survey of the way that most philosophers have used the term, complete with all of the premises that they base that usage on, and all the conclusions that they reach from it. If you did that, you would have to abandon philosophy as such, because philosophy, historically speaking, usually includes false premises and false conclusions (with a few non sequiturs and logical fallacies in between).

To state it a different way, the same procedure by which you have rejected metaphysics could be used to reject anything about which most people have been wrong--which is nearly everything.

It seems that this is coming down to just a quarrel on the correct definition of the word 'metaphysics', which really wasn't exactly the thing I was after; but then, who am I to try to swim upstream the current of the conversation? I'll float along.

Let me try to elucidate with an example why I think that if objectivist metaphysics is actually about real things, it should be called physics instead: Not doing so, would be like Big Bang-theorists calling their theory creationism, because it is about the same thing creationists try to explain with their theory. That would be silly wouldn't it? I think you'll think so, and that's why I think 'objectivist metaphysics' sounds silly.

Bold Standard, on Oct 15 2006, 05:45 PM, said:

Likewise, if we allow our common sense (reason) to be guided by [universal] facts, we will end up with a kind of metaphysics which is radically different from the popular ones. Why do you allow this to work for philosophy in general, but not for metaphysics?

Compare philosophy to religion, metaphysics to christianity and physics to wicca. Now, I don't think wiccans or christians would have serious problems with calling each other's ideas a religion; there can be multiple kinds op religion. The same goes for there being different kinds of philosophy; we can call both physics and metaphysics philosphical views. However, would wiccans want to be called christians? I think not, and don't think that scientists should want to be called metaphysicians either. That's one reason why I allow this to work for philosophy in general, but not for metaphysics.

Another reason I will give in reply to your last paragraph.

Bold Standard, on Oct 15 2006, 05:45 PM, said:

Unfortunately, I can't read Greek, so I don't know what those characters mean (there is a phrase in English for when something is unintelligible, which comes to mind-- "It's Greek to me!"). But based on the part that I do understand, I think you have set up a straw man as your definition for Metaphysics. You have chosen a specific species of Metaphysics (supernaturalism) to stand for the whole concept. But I think the essential definition of Metaphysics is simply that it is a theory to describe the nature of the universe as a whole. In this definition, "physics" would be merely a subset, or application, of the broader concept "metaphysics." I believe my definition is more consistent with the original meaning of the term, because Aristotle himself was not a supernaturalist, in any significant way--there were still remnants of his mentor Plato's (supernaturalistic) philosophy in his metaphysics, but he was for the most part an empiricist (of a much different kind than the post-Humean nominalist/sensualist variety, since he did believe in universals, but thought that they existed in particulars) and an advocate of the reality and exclusivity of this world, as opposed to a supernatural one.

I'm sorry, I thought it was you who quoted Wikipedia, but it wasn't; τα μετα τα φυσικά means "that/those beyond/after the physics". It's highly ambiguous.

And well, of course Aristotle thought his metaphysics was what we would call physical. I don't think any philosopher ever thought his metaphysical theories were not about something; of course they all thought their theories were about the universe as a whole. That's exactly the problem. That's why I say that if objectivist metaphysics is about something real, it should be called physics: You don't want to go about making claims about things you can't know something about, not even whether they're real - do you? Assuming then, for the sake of the argument, that you do; what difference would there be between a science of being qua being (for as far as we know it; for as far as it's real to us) and physics?

Bold Standard, on Oct 15 2006, 05:45 PM, said:

I think agnosticism evades the issue, because: just because you don't know something doesn't answer the question of whether you accept the proposition or reject it.

Am I supposed to accept or reject a proposition when I don't know the answer to it? Am I to guess? Because I will never know whether there exists more than I what know exists. If we allow ourselves to be guided by contemporary facts (although I can't see how these wouldn't in fact be eternal facts), I claim we will end up with no metaphysics at all, or, if you like, an agnostic one. I do realize there is a problem here, but I will wait and see if that is how far you would take it.

Cheers,
Jan.

This post has been edited by Shading Inc.: 18 October 2006 - 05:52 PM