So @Wayfarer is not committing the genetic fallacy by referencing Aristotle.

I understand that instinct, but to reject Aristotle on the subject while comparing him to cartoons is to misunderstand the subject.

The most important thing I was trying to say was that you are unlikely to find a good definition of metaphysics and then go on to study it. The trick is to get involved in the discussions and let the definition take care of itself. The discussions are much more interesting anyway. — Ludwig V

That would probably be true if metaphysics was just something interesting to talk about as opposed to something really important and useful that has important consequences.

It's pretty simple. — frank

The contents of this thread, and all the other metaphysics threads, demonstrate it’s not simple at all, although it could be if everyone would just agree with me.

In the name of simplicity: I agree with you!

Now what?

Sure, but I think sending someone who's asked about metaphysics to read Aristotle is nuts — frank

Nobody was really doing that though, they were just pointing out that his writing is where the term originated...

I watched the entire hour and 14 minute video that Wayfarer posted on the book last night: it's a decent synopsis. Some of Aristotle's ideas are very clear, others are vague and confusing chains of logic. It's interesting to know also that "Metaphysics" isn't even a precise way to label his book, it's terminology after the fact.

Now what? — Moliere

If you’ve read many of my posts, you know the subject of metaphysics comes up all the time. A large portion of the fruitless arguments here on the forum result from lack of metaphysical clarity.

Now what?—Use it.

The contents of this thread, and all the other metaphysics threads, demonstrate it’s not simple at all — T Clark

So true. Probably the best way to understand metaphysics is to read Otto Von Simpson's book on the philosophy of gothic cathedrals. Ars sine scientia nihil est. Yay! It's complicated!

It's interesting to know also that "Metaphysics" isn't even a precise way to label his book, it's terminology after the fact. — ProtagoranSocratist

:up:

So true — frank

You left out the most important thing—the “agree with me” part.

It's interesting to know also that "Metaphysics" isn't even a precise way to label his book, it's terminology after the fact. — ProtagoranSocratist

Yup. That much is good to note, I think, because it shows how Aristotle isn't the arbiter of metaphysics, but rather the term was developed over time and became to mean something.

You left out the most important thing—the “agree with me” part. — T Clark

That goes without saying.

It’s hard to define metaphysics, but you can know it by the value it brings. Metaphysics should be in the background of every philosophical discussion. Whether it’s discussed or not, it should at least be recognized. When the metaphysics is ignored or misunderstood, philosophy falls apart.

the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space.

So how can something be a "first principal"? Do you agree with google or not? — ProtagoranSocratist

First principle, in that these are concepts that are not simply compounds of other concepts. Diamond is a hard sparkly carbon substance, but substance itself, is just substance. We might look up diamond in a dictionary if we were unfamiliar with them, but we cannot look up substance. The definition only tries to codify our pre-existing intuitions of what substance is. If we lacked that intuition somehow, the definition would be meaningless to us.

This is what I take 'first principal' to mean. Not something that is necessarily ontologically basic. But something that is conceptually basic, the mental building blocks from which we build more complex conceptual structures, such as "wedding ring". Trivial seeming, but an intricate compound of the concepts 'marriage', 'diamond', 'ring', 'wealth', 'commitment', etc. And each of these are themselves compound. Because it is compound, discussion of "wedding ring" is not metaphysical, it is definitional, practical, cultural. Whereas, if you break these concepts down, you hit a kind of bedrock, where you find concepts like being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space.

These concepts cannot be broken down definitionally. They can only be philosophized, by creatively, artfully constructing a definition, which involves creating a deeper conceptual space into which these seemingly primordial concepts are placed. This is metaphysics.

it's like how in chemistry, the elements are the raw substances, that can't be broken down into anything else.

When people say "that's meta" in daily usage, they're usually talking about something in a philosophical sense...like the general characteristics, or the bigger narrative behind something. If that's what metaphysics are in philosophy, then metaphysics is a rendundant term. — ProtagoranSocratist

Why is it redundant?

Metaphysics is truly a tricky concept. There is actually a short clip where Michael Gorman talks about waiting in line at the store: 23:55. That is one example of a shift into a metaphysical mode of thinking. Although metaphysics has lots of different related definitions, it has to do with thinking about real things in a deeper way, and this means thinking about their deeper commonalities. So when you are at the store and instead of just grabbing, buying, and leaving, you stop to think about the whole concept of a market, or of trade, or of money, etc., then you are shifting into a more metaphysical register. Metaphysics is not some hermetically sealed compartment that is distinct from all other compartments of thinking. It is more a kind of valence or mode or abstraction that occurs in thinking.

(Different thinkers cash this out in different ways, but given what I infer about your background I think Gorman's example of standing in line at the store might be more helpful than a deep dive into Husserl, for example.)

Why is it redundant? — Leontiskos

Because philosophy primarily speaks of things in generalities as well, but ignore that comment, i was just thinking aloud

Metaphysics is truly a tricky concept. There is actually a short clip where Michael Gorman talks about waiting in line at the store: 23:55. That is one example of a shift into a metaphysical mode of thinking. Although metaphysics has lots of different related definitions, it has to do with thinking about real things in a deeper way, and this means thinking about their deeper commonalities. So when you are at the store and instead of just grabbing, buying, and leaving, you stop to think about the whole concept of a market, or of trade, or of money, etc., then you are shifting into a more metaphysical register. Metaphysics is not some hermetically sealed compartment that is distinct from all other compartments of thinking. It is more a kind of valence or mode or abstraction that occurs in thinking. — Leontiskos

Yep, that's aristotle's book "metaphysics" in a nut shell, an early version of taxonomy in biology and chemistry classifications.

Metaphysics is about the nature of reality. It's pretty simple. — frank

That's sort of right, but the reason it's not simple is this. If metaphysics is about the nature of reality, then what is not metaphysics? What activities do we engage in that are unrelated to reality? Or that are not about reality or its nature?

Given that everything is reality and nothing is not reality, if metaphysics exists at all then it must represent a more subtle distinction. Or else it must distinguish the more real from the less real (or something like that).

Because philosophy primarily speaks of things in generalities as well, but ignore that comment, i was just thinking aloud — ProtagoranSocratist

But this is correct. Metaphysics and philosophy do have a strange overlap; a strange redundancy.

Yep, that's aristotle's book "metaphysics" in a nut shell, an early version of taxonomy in biology and chemistry classifications. — ProtagoranSocratist

Actually Aristotle's Metaphysics is precisely not about classifications in biology or chemistry. In some sense, for Aristotle, metaphysics is about the sort of classifications that apply equally to biology and chemistry (and physics and every other particular area of study). Metaphysics is about the non-particular. What sort of things tie all particular disciplines together? Things like 'being', 'truth', 'God', etc. So metaphysics can reasonably be understood as the "height" of generalization and abstraction, where we are considering concepts that are applicable to literally everything (i.e. being qua being). Yet my point was that every time we shift in the direction of increased generalization and abstraction (or "depth"), we are shifting into a more metaphysical mode.

The claim that metaphysics is empty (‘otiose’ was Ayer’s term) is itself a metaphysical claim. That’s basically what sunk the positivists. — Wayfarer

:up:

Or else it must distinguish the more real from the less real (or something like that). — Leontiskos

Yea. It's about ultimate truth, which is why I brought up gothic cathedrals. Metaphysics is tinged with the idea that we're finding a hidden, but grand truth about what's right under our feet.

Metaphysics is about the nature of reality. It's pretty simple. — frank

Yea. It's about ultimate truth, which is why I brought up gothic cathedrals. Metaphysics is tinged with the idea that we're finding a hidden, but grand truth about what's right under our feet. — frank

I don’t get it. If it’s so simple why have people been arguing about it for thousands of years with no resolution in sight—just going around and around and around.

Materialism, realism, idealism, anti-realism, existentialism, stoicism, nihilism, empiricism, rationalism, utilitarianism, and all the other isms—do you really think one of those is right and all the rest are wrong?

I recommend “Introduction to Metaphysics,” by Heidegger. Don’t let his reputation dissuade you; it’s worth the read.

Or at the very least, presupposes the possibility of it. From there, it’s legitimate to propose a theory under which it may be described. — Mww

The trouble is that, when we come to looking for an answer, we find it very difficult to articulate one that acquires the consensus that needs to coalesce around a truth. That's why it is different from science.

The trick is to get involved in the discussions and let the definition take care of itself. -- Ludwig V
That would probably be true if metaphysics was just something interesting to talk about as opposed to something really important and useful that has important consequences. — T Clark

Yes. Perhaps we would do well to spend more time articulating why the questions are so important and what important consequences answers have.

if everyone would just agree with me. — T Clark

World peace! Yay! But the end of all the fun and excitement of doing philosophy. It'll be hard to wean people off that.

What sort of things tie all particular disciplines together? Things like 'being', 'truth', 'God', etc. So metaphysics can reasonably be understood as the "height" of generalization and abstraction, where we are considering concepts that are applicable to literally everything — Leontiskos

I'll buy the scope of the concepts that fall under metaphysics and consequently that very high levels of abstraction are in play. That's the problem. We think our ordinary ways of talking about concepts are going to work for us. But they don't. I'll push your metaphor further and claim that the height of abstraction is such that it has no oxygen - that is, it's a problem, not a feature.

Yea. It's about ultimate truth, which is why I brought up gothic cathedrals. Metaphysics is tinged with the idea that we're finding a hidden, but grand truth about what's right under our feet. — frank

I know what truth is (except when I'm doing metaphysics). But what's ultimate truth?

I don’t get it. If it’s so simple why have people been arguing about it for thousands of years with no resolution in sight—just going around and around and around. — T Clark

Long ago I remember reading a piece by Isaiah Berlin about philosophy (reference forgotten) that claimed that philosophy is about all the questions that nobody knows how to answer. That caught my attention and eventually sucked me into philosophy. It would explain the phenomena.

Materialism, realism, idealism, anti-realism, existentialism, stoicism, nihilism, empiricism, rationalism, utilitarianism, and all the other isms—do you really think one of those is right and all the rest are wrong? — T Clark

You've got a point there. So it may be that truth or falsity isn't the issue. I've got time for the idea that metaphysics is about how to interpret - think about - the world and life and Grand Questions. Truth is beside the point or perhaps not the whole point.

The claim that metaphysics is empty (‘otiose’ was Ayer’s term) is itself a metaphysical claim. That’s basically what sunk the positivists. — Wayfarer

Perhaps we need to consider positivism in its context - which is the development in physics of some really mad theories. Many philosophers dismissed them out of hand - and they were not wrong. Positivism set up a framework - instrumentalism - that provided a justification for pursuing them even though they were clearly impossible. That focus is what led to the sharp distinction between descriptive, factual, true-or-false statements and the rest. Physics was true to its mission and defined a boundary that enabled the project to proceed. Perhaps that's an example of what @T Clark meant when he talked about metaphysics as "something really important and useful that has important consequences". I'm not sure that physics has yet abandoned it, so perhaps talking of it as sunk is a bit premature.

Metaphysics is not physics.

For example, the speed of light is a fundamental constant in nature, and is known to be 299 792 458 m / s. Physics knows that the speed of light is constant and is universal. Physics may ask why a constant and why a universal, but in order to undertake physics, physics does not need to know the answers to these questions. Metaphysics is concerned with those questions about the nature of reality that physics does not need to know the answer to.

Metaphysics asks questions, such as why does light exist, why does it have the specific value it has, why is its speed universal throughout the Universe, what does it mean to be universal, what exactly is a space encompassing 299 792 458 metres, what exactly is a time of one second, what does the number 299 792 458 mean and how does the mind know about things such as space, time, numbers and universals.

So we can ask these metaphysical questions, such as “do universals exist”, but as FH Bradley wrote "metaphysics is the finding of bad reasons for what we believe on instinct" and as Wittgenstein wrote "most of the propositions and questions to be found in philosophical works are not false but nonsensical".

Metaphysical questions and answers only exist in language, and the truth of a proposition can never be discovered within language. It is not the case that “the apple is on the table is true” but rather “the apple is on the table” is true IFF the apple is on the table. Truth transcends language. Not only is it the case that it is logically impossible to discover the truth of a metaphysical answer within philosophical language, it is also logically impossible to know whether the metaphysical question itself is valid. As both Bradley and Wittgenstein infer, truth, including metaphysical truth, cannot be discovered within language.

If metaphysical truth cannot be discovered with philosophical language, then we need to look elsewhere for metaphysical truths.

….when we come to looking for an answer…. — Ludwig V

It would help to bear in mind the question for which an answer is sought. If it is the case that answers sustained by experience determinable through science, are vastly more consensual than answers sustained by logical speculation determinable through metaphysics, it follows that the questions related to the one are very different than the questions related to the other.

While it is true metaphysics cannot be a science in the sense of the established empirical sciences, there is no contradiction in treating metaphysics scientifically, that is, in accordance with basic principles as grounds for its speculative maneuvers.

A human does, after all, use his one brain to ask vastly different kinds of questions, which presupposes the brain’s capacity for addressing either one. Mathematics is sufficient proof, in that for what reason proposes from itself metaphysically, experience proves with apodeictic certainty naturally.

Otherwise, how well the address in general, is another matter entirely. Like….you know…gods and stuff. And that gadawful notion of possible worlds. (Sigh)

A large portion of the fruitless arguments here on the forum result from lack of metaphysical clarity. — T Clark

How do we achieve or pursue metaphysical clarity?

Long ago I remember reading a piece by Isaiah Berlin about philosophy (reference forgotten) that claimed that philosophy is about all the questions that nobody knows how to answer. That caught my attention and eventually sucked me into philosophy. It would explain the phenomena. — Ludwig V

After 3,000 years I would, and do, suspect there are no answers to the questions.

So it may be that truth or falsity isn't the issue. I've got time for the idea that metaphysics is about how to interpret - think about - the world and life and Grand Questions. Truth is beside the point or perhaps not the whole point. — Ludwig V

I think this is exactly right. It's at the heart of what metaphysics means to me. This is what I posted back on the first page of this thread:

Metaphysics is the attempt to find out what absolute presuppositions have been made by this or that person or group of persons, on this or that occasion or group of occasions, in the course of this or that piece of thinking. — R.G. Collingwood - An Essay on Metaphysics

Here's what he says about absolute presuppositions:

Absolute presuppositions are not verifiable. This does not mean that we should like to verify them but are not able to; it means that the idea of verification is an idea which does not apply to them.... — R.G. Collingwood - An Essay on Metaphysics

How do we achieve or pursue metaphysical clarity? — Moliere

Geez, now you're going to make me put my money where my mouth is. I'll take a first swing at it. Here are some characteristics of metaphysically clear writing:

• Important terms are identified and defined.
• Underlying assumptions are explicitly identified.
• The scope of the discussion is laid out explicitly--what issues and questions, or at least what kinds of issues and questions, are being addressed.
• Describe the uses and consequences of the particular metaphysical positions being discussed.

As I noted, this is a first take. I don't like it much. Definitely needs work. Beyond what's on the list, just general good writing rules also apply.

I've been listening to William James recently. He writes wonderfully clearly about metaphysics. I'll think more about what I like about his work to tighten up my thoughts.

Actually Aristotle's Metaphysics is precisely not about classifications in biology or chemistry. In some sense, for Aristotle, metaphysics is about the sort of classifications that apply equally to biology and chemistry (and physics and every other particular area of study). Metaphysics is about the non-particular. What sort of things tie all particular disciplines together? Things like 'being', 'truth', 'God', etc. — Leontiskos

actually, based on my research this isn't accurate. Earlier, i only said that aristotle presented an earlier version of classification for the natural scienes. Having read small sections of "Metaphysics", the similarities in thought became pretty clear to me, so I just assumed that book supplied the basic logic for taxonomy classifications since I've heard before in my schooling that Aristotle formed the basis for modern sciences. They never taught us anything substantive about aristotle, but I saw the connection in reading a few paragraphs of metaphysics online...

https://journal-redescriptions.org/articles/10.33134/rds.314

They can be, though. Elements aren't elemental, they can be further broken down into more basic particles. But discovering this more basic structure required tremendous intellectual work.

This is the same kind of work metaphysical philosophy attempts. But, as there is no standard of success, there is no real progress, unlike the sciences. We are more or less stuck with the same basic concepts we've used for millennia.