↪Zettel We cannot know everything, so at some point in our quest for knowledge we will reach a point in which we will have to use that which we know to talk about that which we don't, and to talk about ways to explore that which we don't know. In my opinion, that's metaphysics; a tool formed from verified knowledge to probe the unknown. — Daniel

I dont think of metaphysics so much as speculation reaching beyond what we know as fact, but as the plumbing underneath our verified knowledge, its foundation and condition of possibility. We cannot know empirical facts with any greater certainty than we can the metaphysical foundation grounding this knowledge. It is that which we cannot doubt even when all else is in question.

Yes, but 2023 Buick Enclave has third row video.

Your turn.

Anything to the point? Anything at all? — Zettel

The title of your thread is "How can metaphysics be considered philosophy?" but what you went on to describe is not metaphysics by almost anyone's definition. I answered the question expressed in your title. Yes, metaphysics, i.e. the study of fundamental nature of reality, should be considered philosophy.

As I predicted, this discussion has melted into a definitional puddle.

Down to business.

Three thousand years of metaphysics has yet to issue a single knowledge claim. — Zettel

When it comes to metaphysics, I find R.G. Collingwood's definition in "An Essay on Metaphysics" most useful. As @Banno hinted, in Collingwood's view, metaphysical questions have no truth value. They are not true or false, they are useful or not useful. Metaphysics sets out the rules, what Collingwood calls "absolute presuppositions," of human understanding. To vastly oversimplify; in my view, probably not Collingwood's; science is applied materialism, mathematics is applied idealism.

As for ethics and aesthetics - do they belong as part of philosophy? Sure, why not. Issues of what is right and what is wrong are fundamental human questions. People have been obsessed about what is beautiful and what is not for a long time. Agreed - those answers have no truth value. They are not true or false, but we've established, at least to my satisfaction, that philosophy need not address issues of truth.

Thanks for making my point. The propositions issuing from metaphysics are imponderable, i.e., they cannot be rationally assessed, i.e., they cannot be rendered a truth value. If they cannot be rendered a truth value, then they cannot be claimed as knowledge. If they cannot be claimed as knowledge, then they cannot eventuate in wisdom. And if they cannot eventuate in wisdom, then there is nothing for philosophy to love. Thus, it is logically and epistemologically impossible for ethics and aesthetics to be philosophy.

Again, you give nothing beyond how you happen to "see" things. That is not philosophy; it is what neighborhood biddies exchange over the backyard fence while hanging laundry.

Thanks for making my point. The propositions issuing from metaphysics are imponderable, i.e., they cannot be rationally assessed, i.e., they cannot be rendered a truth value. If they cannot be rendered a truth value, then they cannot be claimed as knowledge. If they cannot be claimed as knowledge, then they cannot eventuate in wisdom. And if they cannot eventuate in wisdom, then there is nothing for philosophy to love. Thus, it is logically and epistemologically impossible for ethics and aesthetics to be philosophy. — Zettel

Again, to vastly oversimplify, philosophy isn't truth, knowledge, or wisdom; it shows us how to find truth, knowledge, and wisdom.

Again, you give nothing beyond how you happen to "see" things. That is not philosophy; it is what neighborhood biddies exchange over the backyard fence while hanging laundry. — Zettel

You haven't addressed the content of my argument.

Again, more of the same from you. You have no argument; you have an unsupported point of view. Unfortunately, trafficking a Weltanschauung is not substitute for reasoned rejoinder. This is not to say you are not entitled to your feelings; it is to say that your feelings do not describe "what is", only "what is to you". Big difference.

Are metaphysical doctrines such as aesthetics and ethics really "branches" of philosophy ... — Zettel

Aesthetics and ethics and doctrines about aesthetics and ethics are not the same. A way of looking and seeing, and a way of being or living are experiential not discussive.

Wisdom requires knowledge — Zettel

By knowledge I take it you mean what is:

ponderable, falsifiable, empirically verifiable — Zettel

This is an aspect of knowledge. It does not cover such things as self-knowledge. Knowledge and knowledge claims are not the same. There are aspects of knowledge that are experiential not discussive.

It does not follow from the claim that metaphysics is not knowledge that metaphysics is not philosophy. Love of wisdom and love of knowledge are not the same.

Again, more of the same from you. You have no argument; you have an unsupported point of view. Unfortunately, trafficking a Weltanschauung is not substitute for reasoned rejoinder. This is not to say you are not entitled to your feelings; it is to say that your feelings do not describe "what is", only "what is to you". Big difference. — Zettel

You still have not addressed the substance of my argument.

Sorry, pouting is not substitute for reasoned rejoinder, either.

This is not to say you are not entitled to your feelings; it is to say that your feelings do not describe "what is", only "what is to you". Big difference. — Zettel

Maybe not as big as one might think.

“The success of science cannot be anything but a puzzle as long as we view concepts and objects as radically independent; that is, as long as we think of "the world" as an entity that has a fixed nature, determined once and for all, independently of our framework of concepts." “So much about the identity relations between different categories of mathematical objects is conventional, that the picture of ourselves a describing a bunch of objects that are there "anyway" is in trouble from the start.”(Hilary Putnam)

Sorry, pouting is not substitute for reasoned rejoinder, either. — Zettel

You keep making snarky remarks about my comments, but you don't respond to their substance.

Again, more unsupported sentiment in lieu of reasoned counter. There seems to be a widespread belief here that just one's pale utterance alone can somehow suffice the matter, that supportive logic, reason, argument and/or evidence are not a necessary condition of philosophical discussion.

FYI, philosophy deals only with knowledge of the world, not with self-knowledge, That is because self-knowledge has no objective, corroborative means to prove the epistemic worth of its claims.

Please explain how metaphysics is philosophy when philosophy means "love of wisdom" and metaphysics does not (read: "cannot") provide the knowledge required for wisdom to obtain. Thanks.

They are not "snarky" remarks, Your comments have no substance. My counters to you just run off your back like water off a duck's. Your continued avoidance of the fact that your responses here are void of explanatory and/or supportive force serves only as testimony to your lack of intellectual integrity.

philosophy deals only with knowledge of the world, not with self-knowledge — Zettel

This is by your own lights:

more unsupported sentiment in lieu of reasoned counter. — Zettel

If Plato's writings count as philosophy then it is evident that philosophy deals with self-knowledge.

Please explain how metaphysics is philosophy when philosophy means "love of wisdom" — Zettel

What does love of wisdom mean? Can you provide an answer that is more than unsupported sentiment?

...lack of intellectual integrity. — Zettel

So we move on from vague innuendo to actual insults. And yet you've still not addressed my comments.

No, by knowledge I mean awareness of "what is". "What is" is that which is empirically verified.

Your broad question falls under Meta-Metaphysics.

Here's a good book on the subject.

Q.E.D.

And more of the same.

zzz-zzz-zzz

Plato's writings are metaphysics, not philosophy. That is the whole point of my OP.

Etymologically, "love" at time and context of ancient Greek philosophy meant "regard" or "appreciation".

Q.E.D. — Zettel

What does that have to do with the fact that you have not addressed my argument, only restated the same incorrect complaint over and over.

...lack of intellectual integrity. — Zettel

That’ll teach you to tangle with a superior mind, lowly varmint.

And more of the same.

zzz-zzz-zzz

That’ll teach you to tangle with a superior mind, lowly varmint. — Joshs

What do you mean "lowly?" All I want @Zettel to do is respond to my comments before he gets banned.

What "argument"?

What do you mean "lowly?" All I want Zettel to do is respond to my comments before he gets banned. — T Clark

That shouldn’t take long. Just keep disagreeing with him. I’ll grab some popcorn.

The propositions issuing from metaphysics are imponderable, i.e., they cannot be rationally assessed, i.e., they cannot be rendered a truth value. — Zettel

Can you give an example of an imponderable metaphysical proposition?

Can you type without sticking out your tongue?

by knowledge I mean awareness of "what is" — Zettel

What you mean by knowledge is not the same as what the term has meant throughout its history. The same goes for the terms philosophy and wisdom.

Etymologically, "love" at time and context of ancient Greek philosophy meant "regard" or "appreciation". — Zettel

According to Liddell-Scott φίλος(philos) means loved, beloved, dear.

It is odd that you reject the way the term philosophy was actually used at time and context of ancient Greek philosophy while appealing to a questionable alleged etymology of φίλος. It is also odd that you neglect the other half of the term, that is, σοφῶς (sophos).

Already given (Plato's remark on "Forms").