it's true that Kant never had any interest in speaking against the underpinnings of ascetic reasoning like Nierzsche did, but the main takeaway i'm getting fron transcendental idealism is that Kant did believe he had the human imagination partially mapped...

That is a good observation. Kant had figured that he had nailed down the uses of psychology but the time since then has proven otherwise.

There's a further complication here because by the time Kant was using the word "metaphysics", it was already modified quite apart from Aristotle's intended discussion under the book by that name (The Metaphysics).

Aristotle was concerned with the ground of being, in modern parlance, the nature of the world. By the time Descartes uses the term, he uses metaphysics to cover a lot of the questions we would label as "epistemology", concerning the way we interpret the world.

Back then "epistemology" was not used, as this term was coined in mass contemporary usage by the late 19th century.

So Kant in talking about metaphysics discusses issues that are "metaphysical" in the ancient sense but also "epistemological" in our sense.

But I don't think Aristotle would've agreed with how the term was latter used. Not that he used the word. But the book is about the world and its nature.

I think these aspects complicate the situation.

So Kant in talking about metaphysics discusses issues that are "metaphysical" in the ancient sense but also "epistemological" in our sense. — Manuel

Good to know. :up:

But I don't think Aristotle would've agreed with how the term was latter used. Not that he used the word. But the book is about the world and its nature. — Manuel

It's my opinion that the term "metaphysical" has to relate to what he was getting at in his book though...but that's just me, it will be interesting to see what heideggar has to say about it.

It's my opinion that the term "metaphysical" has to relate to what he was getting at in his book though — ProtagoranSocratist

That's fine. But why do you think that?

But why do you think that? — Manuel

because so far, nobody has been able to give a clear and distinct definition to the term: it still has multiple meanings, and overlap between the definitions of philosophy, epistemology, and ontology. Since this is the case, all the more reason to ground the notion of "metaphysics" in the first place it was used.

I've noted the way people have defined it, but the real groundbreaker would be if someone could give examples of both what it is and isn't. However, if that continues not to be the case, I'll just assume it means "relating to the basic/fundamental characteristics of a thing", like talking about "essence", and then i'll personally just use philosophy, epistemology, and ontology. The latter two are more specific and easier to explain, but come to think of it, philosophy isn't a more specific term than metaphysics...however, it is more familiar, and more likely to be understood by others.

I'm aware that the name "metaphysics" didn't come about for aristotle's work until centuries later, but it's still significant considering the utter lack of surviving documentation we have from the ancient greeks and romans.

Do you have any idea what "noumena" is? — ProtagoranSocratist

What does Kant in the CPR mean by noumena, transcendental object and thing in itself?

The problem of exegesis
An exegesis of Kant’s CPR is problematic because his ambiguity of language makes it often difficult to determine the exact meaning of his text. Therefore, rather than trying to directly interpret his given text, and on the assumption that his underlying ideas are sensible, it may be a better approach to first establish one’s own opinions about the subject and then confirm that your own opinions are a valid interpretation of the given text. Unfortunately, following this approach, there is the real possibility that two different valid interpretations may be discovered about the same given text. A problem with David Hume, who may be read either as an Empiricist or Rationalist.

The noumenon and thing in itself in the two world view
It is clear that our concept of a red postbox may be very different from the reality of a red postbox. For example, we perceive the colour red, yet science tells us that the postbox actually emits a wavelength of 700nm. This begins to lead into the two world view, in that there are two types of object, the object as we conceive it in our mind having the colour red, a noumenon, and the object as it really is in the external world emitting a wavelength of 700nm, a thing in itself.

Even though a wavelength of 700nm is still another concept, we can reasonably conclude that what we perceive may or may not exist in the external world. In the external world what may exist may be the colour red, may be a wavelength of 700nm or may be something else altogether, say X.

The transcendental object in the two aspect view
There is also the two aspect view, where the object as we conceive it in our mind and the object as it really is in the external world are but two aspects of the same object. For a single object, having the colour red may be thought of as a different aspect of the external reality X. In other words, we start with the premise that seeing the colour red is another aspect of the emission of the external reality X. We see the colour red. We conclude that our seeing the colour red is another aspect of the external reality X. Our conclusion that seeing the colour red is another aspect of the external reality X is a justification for our premise that seeing the colour red is another aspect of the external reality X.

This is a transcendental argument. Therefore, the object that has one aspect of having the concept of the colour red and another aspect of an external reality X may be named a transcendental object. Being a transcendental object, there is a necessary and universal connection between the colour red and the external reality X.

The background to the transcendental object
All we directly know are our thoughts (concepts, ideas, reasoning, judgements, understanding) and appearances (phenomena, sensibilities). Kant wrote his Refutation of Idealism in defense of Realism, the idea that there is an external ground for these appearances. If there is an external ground for these appearances, then these appearances are determined externally and not by any human observer of them. Therefore, these appearances must have an internal reason and internal logic that mirrors their ground. Not an internal reason and logic determined by the human observer, but an internal reason and internal logic determined by the external ground. It is up to the human observer using their own reason and logic to discover within these appearances the internal reason and internal logic that already exists. It is therefore through human reason and logic that the human has a direct pathway to an external reality. Not a direct literal pathway, but a direct metaphorical pathway, where a metaphor creates a relationship between two different entities by stating that one is the other.

My explanation
Thing in itself = an object as it exists in the external world independently of our perceptions. I can think about the concept of a thing in itself, in the same way that I can think about the concept that there are things that I don’t know. However, I can never know what a thing in itself is. It is part of the two world view.

Noumenon = an object as it exists as a concept in our mind, such as our concept of a red postbox. Our concept may or may not be the same as the thing in itself, but this is unknowable. It is part of the two world view.

Transcendental object = an object as it exists in the two aspect view. The first aspect is as a noumenon, a concept in the mind. The second aspect is as a thing in itself, the ground of appearances. As knowledge of the object is synthetic a priori, which is transcendental, such knowledge is both necessary and universal.

I've noted the way people have defined it, but the real groundbreaker would be if someone could give examples of both what it is and isn't. — ProtagoranSocratist

What's hard about defining metaphysics as being about the (fundamental features of) world?

At the end of the day, it's terminological preference, so I can't say my "definition" of metaphysics is more correct than yours.

What's hard about defining metaphysics as being about the (fundamental features of) world? — Manuel

Because it's a philosophy term that does not refer to concrete objects.

because so far, nobody has been able to give a clear and distinct definition to the term: — ProtagoranSocratist

I don’t think this is true. I gave a clear and distinct definition that you and most others don’t like. The confusion can only be resolved by consensus, which is unlikely, as evidenced by this and past discussions here on the forum. There will be another one just like it within a month and the same arguments will be regurgitated over and over.

:up:

What's wrong with this?

I think of metaphysics as a synoptic, rational study of fundamental questions... — 180 Proof

e.g.
https://bigthink.com/thinking/4-hardest-unsolved-problems-philosophy/ :chin:

i never said there was anything wrong with it...

I don’t think this is true. I gave a clear and distinct definition that you and most others don’t like. — T Clark

This is an understandable criticism, yet i personally think a clear explanation of what metaphysics is not is needed in order to put the matter to rest. So far, i've concluded that the words philosophy and ontology have a lot of common ground with metaphysics, but it isn't clear how metaphysics is distinct, or if it is distinct.

@Clarendon did claim that defining metaphysics is not:

In philosophy it is the study of what things are, in and of themselves. — Clarendon

But to me this logic doesn't any sense.

Keep in mind you can leave the conversation anytime you want if i seem too obtuse or stupid, but i do think remembering a word does have to do with the specifications i've layed out here.

Well, I was responding to this ...

nobody has been able to give a clear and distinct definition to the term — ProtagoranSocratist

Keep in mind you can leave the conversation anytime you want if i seem too obtuse or stupid, but i do think remembering a word does have to do with the specifications i've layed out here. — ProtagoranSocratist

I’m not sure, is this addressed to me? Are you saying if I don’t agree with something you write, I should go away?

so in your way of thinking about it, i already answered your question. I must admit you do live up to your preference for the strong stuff.

No it was addressed towards everyone. I think it would be better, if one of you were to conclude that i'm beyond "getting it", to either leave or try explaining again rather than insulting me, don't you?

No it was addressed towards everyone. I think it would be better, if one of you were to conclude that i'm beyond "getting it", to either leave or try explaining again rather than insulting me, don't you? — ProtagoranSocratist

What did I say to you that was insulting? I only said I thought what you wrote was wrong and then I explained my reasons. I don’t understand.

you're reading too far into both my comments: doesn't it seem rather self-evident that we are dealing with a broad term that will not be easily defined?

And why are you taking my other comment so personally? I was trying to give everyone license to disagree with me or keep using my thread for whatever benevolent purpose. I already explained that i was not directing that exclusively at you.

OK, I will take your suggestion and go elsewhere.