The aim of philosophy [metaphysics], abstractly formulated, is to understand how things in the broadest possible sense of the term hang together in the broadest possible sense of the term. Under 'things in the broadest possible sense' I include such radically different items as not only 'cabbages and kings', but numbers and duties, possibilities and finger snaps, aesthetic experience and death.To achieve success in philosophy [metaphysics] would be, to use a contemporary turn of phrase, to 'know one's way around' with respect to all these things, ... — Wilfrid Sellars

(2020)
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/526452

(i guess i should have tried to find older threads of a similar type before posting this, I suppose, even though what you have there is much longer method for defining it) — ProtagoranSocratist

It’s rare for someone to go back and look into old threads. The one I linked is four years old. There have been lots of threads on metaphysics in the interim. I wouldn’t have linked it except I thought the interactions among posters on that first page would be helpful to get an overview of how different people think about the subject. As you can see, I was sort of trying to do the same thing that you’re doing here.

Metaphysics is hard. Almost nobody agrees on what it actually means. That’s why I was pleased to find Collingwood. I found something that suits me and I can stick with it and don’t have to rethink it every time this subject comes up.

Probably best to think of it as fundamental elements. It most certainly is an annoying term!

When it comes to ethics I am interested in metaethics, which is more or less looking at the fundaments of what ethics means, how valid it is and what alternative perspectives there are of looking at behaviours and ideas considered as ethical that can be framed as something apart or a part of ethics.

Think of it as what aliens would do if they came across a TV for the first time. They would explore its function, purpose and what it consists of. They may never figure out its use doing so but they would certainly be able to discover a lot about the object before them.

There is a lot of jargon across academia. I think when it comes to the sciences and philosophy it is often needed. Beyond that it is just pure obfuscation used in an attempt to make something look intellectual-- Foucault, Heidegger and Derrida are some examples of this in philosophy. That is not to say just because people do it they mean to always fool the reader, but some do, and themselves too just as often.

It is a lesson in being concise so as not to trick youself. If you find the term useless do not use it and question it when you see it used. I have struggled with the very same issue as you too. Just stay alert and keep questioning what people mean and if they are really saying anything at all :)

Things like substances, essences, and unchanging truths, are mostly just fictional. Metaphysics is mostly "what a human says about a thing." A reification through grammar. A grammatical seduction.

Worth doing. You don’t have to drill down to all the details for it to be useful.

I was thinking about this some more. The thing about metaphysics for me is that it’s the most useful idea I’ve ever come across. It colors all of my understandings about, not only philosophy, but everything conceptual and intellectual.

So, that’s what I’d say to you, find a definition of metaphysics that you can use as a tool.

Probably best to think of [metaphysics] as fundamental elements. — I like sushi

Even more so, I think of metaphysics (ontology) as a synoptic, rational study (contemplation) of fundamental (a priori) questions (aporia) ... from which axiology (ethics, aesthetics) and epistemology (phronesis-praxis) can be derived within constraints (a posteriori) via philosophical discourses (e.g. poetics, dialectics, critiques, hermeneutics, experiments, etc).

I am saying that it is not the way to understand what 'metaphysics' means. — Clarendon

What is the way to understand what 'metaphysics' means? Listen to @Clarendon says on it?

I like that answer because it opens up ancient through to modern iterations without putting a finger on the scale regarding them.

What a juvenile response.

Thanks.

It's a serious question. What is the way to understand what 'metaphysics' means?

That's an excellent quotation.

I must have looked up this word at least 10 times. Here's what comes up:
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. — ProtagoranSocratist

Dictionaries are a good starting-point, but are also often not particularly helpful. The list of topics suggests that metaphysics is defined by its subject-matter. The quotation from Wilfrid Sellars in @180 Proof's post above expands on this by giving the questions, not just the topics. But what really distinguishes metaphysics is how you set about answering the questions - methodology. But don't look for an explanation of the methodology - watch how people conduct their discussions. You'll get some idea from that and then you can build on that by joining in.
A good idea is to look at what people discussing metaphysics are talking about and how they are talking about it. You could even ask a question or two.
You'll have gathered that it is a contentious question, and that there are people who think metaphysics doesn't exist or is an illusion. (I admit I am among them.) I think you'll find it most helpful to look around for books and articles that discuss the topics listed and try to make sense of those. (Google will help, but choose carefully. There's good stuff out there, but also lots of rubbish.)
The most important thing is to see what the questions are. There's a famous hint from St. Augustine. He said that he knew fine what time is until he asked himself what it is and found he could not explain it. That puzzlement about something that is entirely familiar and everyday is what motivates philosophy - in my opinion, of course.
I wish you good hunting!

You'll have gathered that it is a contentious question, and that there are people who think metaphysics doesn't exist or is an illusion — Ludwig V

The claim that metaphysics is empty (‘otiose’ was Ayer’s term) is itself a metaphysical claim. That’s basically what sunk the positivists. I think some of the bad rap metaphysics gets is because of its repetition by those who repeat it in slogan form without really grasping it.

You'll have gathered that it is a contentious question, and that there are people who think metaphysics doesn't exist or is an illusion. (I admit I am among them.) — Ludwig V

...it would seem you're right if very vague things can't really exist (which is usually how i navigate information in general), but what I've gotten so far is that metaphysics is either very basic knowledge about a thing...like, what separates a tortoise from a non-tortoise...or maybe as the guy in the you tube video that @Wayfarer posted is implies, something that's in the realm of super-human knowledge that can't really be known. Other than that, I guess I'll keep intercepting information about metaphysics until I no longer do.

Actually I'll own up, I didn't watch that whole video, but I briefly reviewed it and also his other materials and I'm sure it's bona fide. (Not that I won't watch it.)

But as for 'super-human knowledge' - this is a delicate question. There are hints in Aristotle and other ancient sources, of the experience of higher states of awareness in which something vital about truth is grasped. You find allusions to it in the writings of St Augustine. It is also encountered in Eastern sources (Hindu and Buddhist) that refer to samadhi states. A lof of ancient metaphysics have these references but they're very difficult to interpret. And also, the subject is prone to a lot of sensationalism by popular writers who are seeking to exploit them.

In today's culture, because these insights are categorised along with religion then they're generally disregarded or deprecated.

Actually now that I think of it, I have a .pdf of a very good, recent textbook on metaphysics. It's not that big of a book, but well worth reading if only the intro section, and the section on Plato. Any questions, please feel free to bring them up here, as it's on-topic.

Thinking Being: An Introduction to Metaphysics in the Classical Tradition, Eric Perl.

I have a .pdf of a very good, recent textbook on metaphysics. — Wayfarer

Your advice was very good on the Burtt book, so I’ll definitely give it a look.

Very different subject matter but a well - regarded book. Out of print, I Iuckily found an online copy - it ought to download properly book-marked, which helps in navigating it.

The claim that metaphysics is empty (‘otiose’ was Ayer’s term) is itself a metaphysical claim. — Wayfarer

I'm trying to give up arguments of that form. I used to love them, but I've come to appreciate how important it is to understand that arguments fully before dismissing them. I can't resist pointing out that, by their definition of "empty", they were correct. Which possibly means they missed the point.

For myself, I am stuck in that I cannot see that it matters greatly whether you say that the concept of matter is meaningless or that matter doesn't exist. In other words, de re and de dicto are, in a sense, images of each other. For all my criticism of idealism, in the end, I think that there is nothing that idealists cannot say in the language they allow themselves that realists cannot say in the language they claim for themselves. So perhaps it comes to a question of what hangs on the issue, if anything.

I think some of the bad rap metaphysics gets is because of its repetition by those who repeat it in slogan form without really grasping it. — Wayfarer

It's difficult, though. Either one has to refute a generic form of idealism, which will likely consist of mostly slogans, or one has to refute a specific idealism, which leaves the rest unrefuted. It is perfectly clear that metaphysics has not finished, and that fact sends its own message. The anti-metaphysics of the early 20th century is not the first of its kind and I'm sure it will not be the last. A slogan - "The most fundamental problem in metaphysics is whether metaphysics exists". :smile:

Other than that, I guess I'll keep intercepting information about metaphysics until I no longer do. — ProtagoranSocratist

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.

In today's culture, because these insights are categorised along with religion then they're generally disregarded or deprecated. — Wayfarer

The problem is that it is very hard to sort out the false from the true, the helpful from the unhelpful. In the end one has to look at their effect on the lives of those who take them seriously. That means their lives beyond the experiences themselves.

What is the way to understand what 'metaphysics' means? Listen to Clarendon says on it? — Moliere

That's not what he was suggesting. He was disagreeing with Wayfarer that the best place to start is by reading Aristotle, which is perspective from two thousand, three hundred years ago. He prefers a more contemporary starting point. What's your stance?

The most fundamental problem in metaphysics is whether metaphysics exists" — Ludwig V

Well asked. :up:

The odd thing is that in asking the question, one also answers it. (emoticon of scratching head in bewilderment - the classical philosophical position.)

What is metaphysics?

Metaphysics asks those questions we don’t need to know the answer to, but which we are curious to know the answer to.

All WH questions are open ended and used to gain knowledge, but some WH questions are metaphysical and some aren’t. Metaphysical questions ask questions that we don't need to know the answer to because they have no import on our ability to live our lives, but only ask out of intellectual curiosity.

1 “Where is Paris?” is not a metaphysical question, as we need to know that Paris is in France when planning a holiday.

2 “When does the train arrive?” is not a metaphysical question, as we need to know this when trying to get to work.

3 “How does a rocket get off the ground?” is not a metaphysical question, as the rocket scientist needs to know the answer.

4 “What is the time?” is not a metaphysical question, as we may need to know the correct time when catching a train, but "what is time?” is a metaphysical question, as knowing the nature of time is irrelevant to the question “what is the time?”.

5 “Who is Aristotle?” is not a metaphysical question if the answer is “Aristotle was an ancient Greek philosopher”, but is a metaphysical question if the questioner is wanting to know his underlying philosophical identity, as knowing his underlying philosophical identity is irrelevant to knowing his philosophy.

6 “Why does a rock fall to the ground?” is not a metaphysical question if the answer is “because if follows the law of nature that d = 0.5 f t²”, but it is a metaphysical question if the questioner is wanting to know “why is d = 0.5 f t²”, as knowing why d = 0.5 f t² is irrelevant to knowing that d = 0.5 f t².

As described, metaphysics is over and above the axioms of physics. Physics only needs to know that certain axioms work, whereas metaphysics wants to know why these particular axioms work. Knowing why certain axioms work is not something that Physics needs to know.

Unfortunately, the very name metaphysics contains the seeds of its own destruction. For example, the fundamentals of language can only be understood using a meta language, something external to language itself. But when this meta language uses language itself, an impossible conundrum results. Similarly, the fundamentals of (physical) concepts can only be understood using meta concepts, something external to the concepts themselves. When these meta concepts use the same concepts as the concepts being investigated, another impossible situation arises.

That Aristotle's work so named is concerned with similar enough things that starting with Aristotle isn't bad.

The odd thing is that in asking the question, one also answers it. — Ludwig V

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.

Yes, quite so.

That Aristotle's work so named is concerned with similar enough things that starting with Aristotle isn't bad. — Moliere

Maybe so. I started with Bertrand Russell's book on the history of philosophy. He's engaging and really funny.

He is engaging and really funny, though I have to note that his history is almost more of a joke book than a proper history of philosophy. It says true things about the ancients, but it skips over the medievals and bastardizes the German philosophy (in an albeit funny way).

My reason for responding to @Clarendon was because I thought Clarendon might be committing the same fallacy he's accusing @Wayfarer of, but not noticing it because it has been used for less time.

I.e. to ascribe a real meaning to "metaphysics" such that one can say "That's not how to understand 'understand metaphysics" is to simply point to a different body of texts that define it differently, rather than to argue for why that's the better way.

Given my various stances on metaphysics I've said it's a similar bubble-popping method that I'm employing.

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

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

It's simple until it is not simple :D

I think it's not so easy to define, but I agree with your assertion that metaphysics is about the nature of reality.

"Being qua being" would be the Aristotelian approach, as I understand his metaphysics.

I suppose really I just want to highlight that even giving a suggestion for a starting point -- be it a quick and easy definition or a reference to a historical text -- is the sort of thing which metaphysics can question, which is why it's hard to define.