The question of “why anything?” seems deeper.

Yes. According to Heidegger, in What Is Metaphysics?, the fundamental problem is "Why is there something rather than nothing?" He ruins the question by proceeding to reflect on "the Nothing".

What do you think? Marcel or Heidegger (or someone else)?

Do you agree with the following? — Mitchell

There must be a deeper metaphysical problem, because we know what you are already, we just haven't worked out how to implement you.

Agree with the OP.

Buddhism is the most colossal example in history of applied metaphysics.

Christianity took the opposite road. It has always been a religion seeking a metaphysic, in contrast to Buddhism which is a metaphysic generating a religion.

Whitehead, Religion in the Making.

I understand metaphysics to be primarily concerned with realising an identity that is not subject to death. The first book I read on the subject, and still one that I hold in high regard, was Alan Watts' The Supreme Identity: An Essay on Oriental Metaphysics and the Christian Religion. It is a universalist work which seeks to elucidate the common threads found in Taoism, Buddhism, Vedanta and Thomism. Similar genre to Huxley's Perennial Philosophy and Huston Smith's World's Religions. Very different from recent analytical metaphysics in preserving the emphasis on liberating insight - 'prajna' in the Buddhist lexicon - as distinct from mere 'doxastic' belief systems.

Actually there's some crossover with Heidegger, in that at the time of Heidegger's later career, D T Suzuki was lecturing in the US, and Heidegger did once or twice express his appreciation of Suzuki's ideas. However he wished to work within the boundaries of the Western philosophical tradition and I think wouldn't have been willing to incorporate Buddhistic elements in his thinking. Whereas for many boomer types, such as myself, Heidegger and his contemporaries were insufferably academic (quite aside from Heidegger's association with the Nazi party, which was another major red flag). Whereas Alan Watts was, at least, hip.

Are you familiar with Jacob Needleman?

Do you agree with the following?

“…[E]xcept for the problem of ‘What am I’ there are no other metaphysical problems, since in one way or another, they all lead back to it”
Gabriel Marcel, Homo Viator — Mitchell

The 'What' has a metaphysical presupposition in it, for me, about objects and object-ness. Is a single question in itself some sort of presupposition?

I remember one of his books vaguely, maybe titled What is Philosophy which is associated in my mind with E F Schumaker's Guide for the Perplexed from my long gone days of interest in Gurdjieff. If I remember correctly they were both admirers of Gurdjieff.

He writes on, defends, and calls us back to, the "Perennial Philosophy, in The Heart of Philosophy

Indeed I am, like him a lot. I found a copy of his Lost Christianity earlier this year, although it is so far in my 'to read' pile. But very much the kind of author I admire.

Yes, that was the book. I believe I may still have it on my shelves somewhere.

Then you might enjoy Bart Ehrman book Lost Christianities. Here is a you-tube interview with him. Ehrman on Lost Christianities

Why ask a question that can have no answer?

I've glanced at Ehrman. More interested in Elaine Pagels, Richard Smoley, and neo-gnosticism, myself.

The big questions of metaphysics were always predicated on the assumption that the universe was designed; that god, and or gods were behind that design and the it was possible to unpack the underlying logic of the design.
This inevitably led to a series of culturally specific answers which were partial and carried with them the endemic assumptions of the progenitor culture.

Now we know better. Metaphysics is now a language game as all the "first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, identity, time, and space" are culturally constructed.
All attempts to employ objective and therefor cross cultural answers to these questions is all about science, and it would do scientists the world of good to get themselves a few pointers in metaphysics. All that seems to lie behind the material world has been placed there by the study of science, which, historically has been 90% false, and in development all the time.

This would either help them learn some humility and build more speculative and critical ideas about the universe or, like many philosophy students have found; teach them just enough to screw them up for the rest of their lives.

Why can't it be answered? I've been amazed instead how close we are getting to a fairly complete answer.

Why something and not nothing is of course a dead-end causal inquiry. But why something and not everything starts to become an answerable one. We have a ton of science that now speaks to that.

Do you agree with the following?

“…[E]xcept for the problem of ‘What am I’ there are no other metaphysical problems, since in one way or another, they all lead back to it”
Gabriel Marcel, Homo Viator — Mitchell

I would say, "What is it that is creating and evolving?". With a notion of this, further questions can be formulated.

“…[E]xcept for the problem of ‘What am I’ there are no other metaphysical problems, since in one way or another, they all lead back to it” — Mitchell

How can you do metaphysics without specifying the terms of your epistemology (tentative answer : poorly)?

As such, 'What can I know', 'How can I know' and 'Why can I know' seems equal contenders to the foundation of any metaphysical system, unless we artificially and meta-philosophically decide to restrict the range of the inquiry.

A contrario, it is perfectly legitimate to raise the fact that as such, it also seems impossible to do epistemology without having worked out a certain metaphysical framework. Perhaps, thus, we should oberve that such domains of inquiry are a priori correlated and co-determined. Perhaps, also, should we relegate the move to a specific problem of any such domains to the status of a sophistic artifice.

I love Gabriel Marcel, and questions about existence are of extreme important.. but I do also wonder: what exists that is not accessible by my perceptions?

By the time you've phrased the question, the answer has already moved on.

LOL. That hasn't been my experience. The metaphysics of "what is there?" is important and interesting... but, exploring human existence is more important and interesting, IMHO.

but, exploring human existence is more important and interesting

And the nature of "human existence" is not a metaphysical problem?

Do you agree with the following?

“…[E]xcept for the problem of ‘What am I’ there are no other metaphysical problems, since in one way or another, they all lead back to it”
Gabriel Marcel, Homo Viator — Mitchell

No. There are other metaphysical problems, whether they all lead back to it or not. Whether they all lead back to it or not is doubtful. And, in my view, it isn't even that much of a problem, if it's a problem at all.

Marcel has me thinking that the nature of human existence could be described as a metaphysical mystery.

human existence could be described as a metaphysical mystery

For him it is. See his two volume work, The Mystery of Being. Despite being 2 volumes, it is a fast read, as far as philosophy goes.

I've read every one of Marcel's plays that I could get my hands on(he himself wanted to be known for his plays- he thought the arts was the way to influence culture), and I've read a lot of secondary literature about him and that describes his thinking, but I've only read a few of his essays. I do play on reading his other works.

I agree with it, that's why my main interest has always been philosophy of mind. All the other branches are uninteresting for me until we get what we are sorted. I see why they have to exist though.

We are human. That's what we are. I thought that we had that sorted for some time.

Why can't it be answered? — apokrisis

The big questions of metaphysics were always predicated on the assumption that the universe was designed;...
Thought that was self explanatory.

But why something and not everything starts to become an answerable one. We have a ton of science that now speaks to that. — apokrisis

Not really. In fact not at all. Science only describes. If you want reasons, talk to a priest, they have all the solutions with no effort whatever.
Science can tell us how it all happened, but there is no answer to why something not nothing.

Thanks for your opinion.