I think a clue to the problem is in one of the quotes you've given:

Metaphysics in its classic sense has always been understood to be the rational investigation of the eternal order. — StreetlightX

Whereas in a lot of modern thinking, the idea of there even being 'an eternal order' is passé. Positivism says straight out that metaphysics is empty words, and a lot of people agree. I think you feel the pull of something beyond - hence your attraction to the Tao Te Ching - but find it very frustrating and difficult to pin down or articulate what it is, as you say in your post.

Practically the only outpost of traditional metaphysics in today's world is with Catholic philosophers who follow Thomas Aquinas. The reason for that is that Aquinas himself was an exemplar of the 'perennial philosophy' in the Western tradition. But there is clearly a conflict between those 'traditionalist' types of philosophy, and modern philosophy generally, on a lot of grounds. Modern philosophy is overall anti-metaphysical, because metaphysics, rightly or wrongly, is identified with religion and it doesn't sit well with our secular age. (See Philosophy Lives, John Haldane.)

I think to study the subject takes a lot of reading and reflection but it is possible to attain an understanding of it. There are unprecedented opportunities for self-study on the internet nowadays. So - don't give up. And don't fold for 'craptastics'. There is something real and important to be understood in all of this.

Metaphysics is the attempt to find out what absolute presuppositions have been made by this or that person or groups of persons, on this or that occasion or groups of occasions, in the course of this or that piece of thinking. — T Clark

This seems wrong to me. Metaphysics consists in various "absolute presuppositions (that) have been made". So, doing metaphysics is making such presuppositions. Studying metaphysics (meta-metaphysics?) then is the study of, or "attempt to find out what absolute presuppositions have been made".

Metaphysics in its classic sense has always been understood to be the rational investigation of the eternal order. — StreetlightX


Whereas in a lot of modern thinking, the idea of there even being 'an eternal order' is passé. — Wayfarer

This is true, but the modern thinking that dismisses the idea of "an eternal order" is also a metaphysics. If you start from the twin assumptions that there is an eternal order and that human rationality alone is capable of discerning (and even understanding?) that order, then your efforts will be directed towards the goal of discerning and understanding that (purported) order.

On the other hand if you reject the idea of such an order, or reject the idea that such an order, even if it existed, could be purely discerned and understood by human rationality, then your metaphysics will consist in working out what seems to be the most plausible to think about the nature of the real in light of the whole movement of human thought and the sciences.

I would call it an approach towards the truth of existence.

Most of it is rigorous daydreaming; a pseudo-scientific posturing about things that cannot be known, usually with a surreptitious (right-wing) political aim (i.e. propaganda).

Metaphysicians are musicians without musical ability. — Carnap

To the flames! :fire: :fire: :fire:

the modern thinking that dismisses the idea of "an eternal order" is also a metaphysics. — Janus

Do you think Carnap would agree that his work falls under the heading of metaphysics? Or is a matter of irony if it does?

Damned! I listened to that one this afternoon! But in the Wall video where they sit together in the studio. "Mother do you think they drop the bomb?"

Metaphysics, in Collingwood's sense, is very important to me. It is central to my understanding of the nature of reality and our relationship — T Clark

The nature of reality? You mean Collingwood,'s view of it, and his relation to it.

After reading some of your comments here and elsewhere, I think Salmon's metaphysics about causal forks and statistical causation is perfectly fit for you. I had to read that brown book obligatory, but it's so far removed from actuality. Luckily, I only remember it's brown, soft shiny cover, and it resides as a mistakenly imposed memory in my brain. It's simply too much!

No no no. That won't do. Metaphysics is the stuff of the transcendent. Metaphysics is that which lies beyond the physics. Metaphysics is what Kant tried to ask how is it possible. Metaphysics is whatever Hegel said. And worldmaking, and interpreting physics, and seeing spirits and is gobbledygook and also profound.

It's pretty obvious.

For a minute, let’s discuss what I want metaphysics to be, but which it probably isn’t. At least not entirely – I want it to be the set of rules, assumptions we agree on to allow discussion, reason, to proceed, e.g. there is a knowable external, objective reality; truth represents a correspondence between external reality and some representation of it; it’s turtles all the way down; the Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao. Ha! — T Clark

There are few things in life that are exactly what we want them to be. So philosophers, unlike Scientists, tend to adapt the Self to the Situation (Ethics), instead of changing the world to better suit the human body (Physics).

It would be nice if we could all agree on a "set of rules" for discussing metaphysical questions. That would at least put philosophy on a stable foundation, like the "show-me" empiricism of Science. And Francis Bacon probably devised his Method of Inference with that in mind. But, to date, the best we've been able to do is to quantify the uncertainty of our educated guesses. Since practical physical science deals with real things, at least we can add to the statistical certainty of our inferences by repeating experiments, in order to weed-out exceptions to the general rule. But theoretical Metaphysical Science deals with Ideal concepts that merely represent crude approximations of reality (*1 icons).

Unfortunately, Post-Enlightenment Science staked a claim on all empirically verifiable questions (just the facts, no feelings *2), and left-over for Philosophy only the perennial probability questions that have more-or-less-likely answers. Science greedily hoarded all the objective facts under its purview, and let naive philosophers argue endlessly about subjective opinions. Hence, feckless philosophers can only hope to get Closer-To-Truth, by following Aristotle's logical rules for Induction.

However, some Philosophers, Theologians, and a few Scientists don't even agree that there is a "knowable external reality" for our concepts to correspond to. In that case, there's no benefit to logical argument. So only power rules. And Ecclesiastical Courts of Inquisition take the place of experimentation for ruling out error. So the only humane alternative is to have Democratic Courts of Inquiry like The Philosophy Forum, limited only by Logic and respect for civilized discourse.

That said, we are still faced with agreeing on a definition of whatever it is we are disagreeing about. Which is even more difficult, if we can't even agree on what divisive topics fall under the umbrella of Metaphysics. Some dismiss the very idea of non-physics as non-sense, and refuse to even engage in dialog. And others dismiss physics as illusions of greedy minds. So, that's why I went back to Aristotle, to discover what topics he excluded from his book of Physics, and which he included in the second volume "After-Physics". The substance of volume II later became known to Medieval Christians as the "Meta-Physics", and to Enlightenment Scientists as "non-stuff" and "non-sense".

In Volume I, he defined what today we would call the Elements (Matter) and the Principles (Laws) of Physics, illustrated with specific instances. Then, in the Meta-Physics, he turned to the various ideas that humans have postulated, to explain the mysteries of the Real World. Those ideas are not themselves found in Reality, but in human imagination. Hence, we call them "Ideal". And even pragmatic Aristotle adopted Plato's notion of Ideal "Forms" (ideal patterns for real things) in his explanations. And that non-physical concept is also at the core of my own worldview, based on the Reality and Ideality of what we now call "In-form-ation". :nerd:


Meta-physics :
The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value.
1. Often dismissed by materialists as idle speculation on topics not amenable to empirical proof.
2. Aristotle divided his treatise on science into two parts. The world as-known-via-the-senses was labeled “physics” - what we call "Science" today. And the world as-known-by-the-mind, by reason, was labeled “metaphysics” - what we now call "Philosophy" .
3. Plato called the unseen world that hides behind the physical façade: “Ideal” as opposed to Real. For him, Ideal “forms” (concepts) were prior-to the Real “substance” (matter).
4. Physics refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind. Meta-physics includes the properties, and qualities, and functions that make a thing what it is. Matter is just the clay from which a thing is made. Meta-physics is the design (form, purpose); physics is the product (shape, action). The act of creation brings an ideal design into actual existence. The design concept is the “formal” cause of the thing designed.
5. I use a hyphen in the spelling to indicate that I am not talking about Ghosts and Magic, but about Ontology (science of being).
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

PS___That definition of the disputatious term implies that Philosophers have no business arguing by the rules of Physics, instead of the applicable rules of Reason.

*1 Do We See Icons or Reality? :
https://social-epistemology.com/2019/12/05/do-we-see-icons-or-reality-a-review-of-donald-hoffmans-the-case-against-reality-brian-martin/

*2 Facts vs Opinions :
In the 1950's TV police drama, Dragnet, dour detective Joe Friday --- whenever a witness began to stray from observations to insert personal impressions --- would shush them with "just the facts ma'am".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragnet_(1951_TV_series)

Do you think Carnap would agree that his work falls under the heading of metaphysics? Or is a matter of irony if it does? — Wayfarer

It would depend on the nature of the dismissal of metaphysics. If the claim was that talk of an eternal order is incoherent or meaningless then it might be considered to be a semantic claim. On the view that metaphysics is impossible because it is incoherent, without meaning, to speak, or at least make claims about, things which cannot be empirically tested, then no claim could rightly be considered to be a metaphysical claim.

Heidegger, who rejects traditional metaphysics (as Kant did) in a different way, unless I am mistaken, sees metaphysics as a subset of phenomenology (and hermeneutics) and on that view metaphysical ideas would be different ways of disclosing our experience of the world, and not propositions to be considered true or false. This view could perhaps be interpreted as being close to Collingwood's

:lol: :up:

Whereas in a lot of modern thinking, the idea of there even being 'an eternal order' is passé. Positivism says straight out that metaphysics is empty words, and a lot of people agree. I think you feel the pull of something beyond - hence your attraction to the Tao Te Ching - but find it very frustrating and difficult to pin down or articulate what it is, as you say in your post. — Wayfarer

I don't think I am searching for "something beyond." I'm looking for the most mundane, scotch tape, macaroni and cheese thing there is. Metaphysics is not something beyond, it's mayonnaise, salt and pepper, those chicken cutlets on the counter in the kitchen. As you can see, I'm late for dinner. Metaphysics isn't beyond, it's before.

I've started two threads prior to this one about defining specific philosophic terms. Those were for "mysticism" and "consciousness." The conclusions I came to for those two terms is the same one I've come to for this one - I don't need to understand them better, I need to find a new word, because the old one doesn't work any more, generally because they're hung with so many different and discordant meanings and connotations that they obscure more than they enlighten.

Next time I am confused about a term, I'll know how to handle it. Don't try to understand it. Don't start a new discussion. Just come up with a different word. That, by the way, is why there are so much dumb-ass jargon in philosophy. Too many people like me wanting to wipe the slate clean.

meta-metaphysics — Janus

There's already a term for meta-metaphysics. It's "metaphysics." As I noted in a recent post, it's metaphysics all the way down.

Too many people like me wanting to wipe the slate clean. — T Clark

The question does arise as to why bother posting on a philosophy forum if you think it's a waste of time. I mean, I ask myself that also, but at least I have an interest in the subject.

Heidegger, who rejects traditional metaphysics (as Kant did) — Janus

Kant criticized traditional metaphysics, but he did not reject metaphysics wholesale, as positivism does.

Most of it is rigorous daydreaming; a pseudo-scientific posturing about things that cannot be known, usually with a surreptitious (right-wing) political aim (i.e. propaganda). — _db

"Right-wing political aim" seems like a stretch.

I would have thought it is almost impossible not to hold a metaphysical position. Surely, whenever you take a view about the nature of reality, you are expressing a metaphysical belief.

This from Kant stuck me as interesting:

Metaphysics has as the proper object of its inquiries three ideas only: God, freedom, and immortality.

Freedom?

After reading some of your comments here and elsewhere, I think Salmon's metaphysics about causal forks and statistical causation is perfectly fit for you. — Verdi

I feel very at home with Collingwood.

No no no. That won't do. Metaphysics is the stuff of the transcendent. Metaphysics is that which lies beyond the physics. Metaphysics is what Kant tried to ask how is it possible. Metaphysics is whatever Hegel said. And worldmaking, and interpreting physics, and seeing spirits and is gobbledygook and also profound. — Manuel

Yes, and this is why I need a new word.

The epiphany I've just had is that I should just give up. Screw it. I'll make up a new word. Here's some ideas:

[1] Potrzebics
[2] Stuff n' things
[3] Collingwood's metaphysics (C-metaphysics)
[4] Craptastics
[5] Rigamarole

I think I'll use number 3. — T Clark

Sounds good.

There are few things in life that are exactly what we want them to be. So philosophers, unlike Scientists, tend to adapt the Self to the Situation (Ethics), instead of changing the world to better suit the human body (Physics). — Gnomon

I don't propose to change the world, just some words. And I don't need to change them for anyone other than myself.

It would be nice if we could all agree on a "set of rules" for discussing metaphysical questions. — Gnomon

For me, metaphysics is the set of rules.

That said, we are still faced with agreeing on a definition of whatever it is we are disagreeing about. Which is even more difficult, if we can't even agree on what divisive topics fall under the umbrella of Metaphysics. — Gnomon

I was never really interested in discussing "metaphysics" or metaphysics as such. I want to talk about, and use, Collingwood's metaphysical way of seeing things in my everyday and intellectual life. In order to do that, I've concluded that I need to call it something other than "metaphysics."

The question does arise as to why bother posting on a philosophy forum if you think it's a waste of time. — Wayfarer

I don't think posting on the forum is a waste of time and I don't remember ever saying it was.

I thought I had offered a serious response, what I got was a chicken sandwich. Don't worry, I'll make my own in future.

:clap:

Why is that? Historically, elaborate metaphysical systems have often been used as a justification for an existing hierarchical political system.

I thought I had offered a serious response — Wayfarer

My response was perfectly serious. I admit it was playful, metaphorical, but I don't see how it was disrespectful of your response.

Why is that? Historically, elaborate metaphysical systems have often been used as a justification for an existing hierarchical political system. — _db

Interesting. Do you have an example you like?

Scholasticism, Hegelianism, Hinduism.

That's fine and understandable.

The only issue you may have is that when people ask do we have selves or is the world ideal and the like, you'll find yourself in a situation in which you'll say "that's not metaphysics, metaphysics deals with propositions." That's not what Schopenhauer or Peirce would say.

It's difficult.

It's difficult. — Manuel

And that's one of the reasons you have Sisyphus as your icon.

A quick one: metaphysics is chronophobia.

Hah! You're sharp.

Better to push a boulder up a mountain for eternity, than hitting your head on the wall repeatedly.

Cheers.

Is your claim that it is metaphysics all the way down itself a metaphysical or ontological, or a merely epistemological one? I'm not sure if you're being serious, but if so, my retort would be that there is no fact of the matter regarding what we should call the study of the history of metaphysics, which is what Collingwood refers to as just 'metaphysics'. There is, distinct from this historical study of metaphysics, the possibility of practicing metaphysical thinking which has no truck with any traditional metaphysics.