Hmm. Isn't that a profound Metaphysical question you're asking?

I didn't say it would be fun for you.

Meh. What's important here is that there is more than one way to use such words. Pretending that there is one true way is problematic.

So when metaphysicians agree on usage, or when they differ, do they not seem to think there might be some essential ground for doing so? Is it really "just a word game" within that linguistic community, or is only within philosophy of language that a word game is actually a word game in the way you intend to use the term here?

I'm almost inclined to say metaphysics shouldn't use the word at all.

As an expression of all things within a context, it makes sense-- "everything in my cupboard is gone."

The way metaphysics usually wants to use it though, as a reduction of all the world to a singular idea, is just incohrent. "Everything" cannot exist. To exist means to be distinct from other things, a seperate state to anything else. We might say that any state is is defined by NOT being everything.

You're are too kind Banno. There are not merely different usages of "everything". The usual "metaphysical" one is outright incohrent.

You are already playing games.

Essences. Bah.

As an expression of all things within a context, it makes sense-- "everything in my cupboard is gone." — TheWillowOfDarkness

This is what works in formal logical systems; it's that domain of discourse.

So can you answer a straight question for once: how ought a metaphysician use words?

You appear to be asking a metaphysical question: do non-material things exist? — Mongrel

A good interpretation of the question. The answer is that non-material things exist if you include them in the domain of discourse.

That's a straight question?

Evasion.

Sorry, my English is bad. — wax1232

Your English is just fine, btw. (Your command of my language is certainly better than my command of whatever your native language is.)

I'm curious to know what you think of the answers you've gotten so far.

What were you thinking about that led you to ask the question?

The way metaphysics usually wants to use it though, as a reduction of all the world to a singular idea, is just incohrent. "Everything" cannot exist. To exist means to be distinct from other things, a seperate state to anything else. We might say that any state is is defined by NOT being everything. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Yeah. So that is why metaphysics would in fact be so concerned with the obvious demarcation between everything possible and everything actual.

Have any of you guys ever studied any basic metaphysics?

Yes. That's rather my point. Metaphysics is a defunct language game; the wheels turn, the mechanism moves, nothing happens.

So can you answer a straight question for once: how ought a metaphysician use words? — apokrisis

To order coffee and seduce their beloved. But not to do metaphysics.

Yeah. So that is why metaphysics would in fact be so concerned with the obvious demarcation between everything possible and everything actual.

Have any of you guys ever studied any basic metaphysics? — apokrisis

Love this.

No, I studied modal logic instead. Much more interesting.

Science seems to be happening and thriving despite your belly-aching. People talk about path integral and multiverses quite happily. Ideas about everythingness have become research projects as we understand them in terms of ontologically rational limits or constraints.

Great, a straight answer to one question at least. No.

So what about that Lewis guy, eh? Modal logic produces the craziest of all crazy Metaphysical shit.

Hm. People play Scrabble and Monopoly, too.

Lewis has a particular slant on the way existential quantifiers work; fun!

To order coffee and seduce their beloved. But not to do metaphysics. — Banno

So the answer to my question is this? Metaphysics shouldn't exist? And you can't see that is already a metaphysical proposition?

If it is, it might be the only one.

But the point is there is no coherent use in either actuality or possiblity.

Either is defined be a distinction, by being NOT everything, by being a particular state or possible outcome. To speak of "everything" in either context is only incohrent and confusing. It takes away us away from what is metaphysically significant about both: that state or possibility is logically its own, rather than everything.

Or rather in the usual fashion of Metaphysical reasoning, we are seeking the dichotomy that breaks apart the question in its most perfect possible logical fashion. The distinction of the potential and the actual attempts to meet the standard of being mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive.

They might not achieve that as a dialectical opposition. The attempt may be found wanting. But at least it is understood what the essential game is here. The meaning of terms of art are defined in this mutually grounding fashion.

If it is, it might be the only one. — Banno

Yes. And so it might not be. Hence my request that you get beyond assertions and offer arguments. Of course I have zero expectation of that.

Argument?

If you can't see that the OP is a question about word use, then that's not my problem.

But it is puzzling that an erstwhile utilitarian baulks when someone points out that use is more useful than meaning.

Are they chanting "Bann-o! Bann-o! Bann-o!" in that clip? That can't be right.

So what about that Lewis guy, eh? Modal logic produces the craziest of all crazy Metaphysical shit. — apokrisis

So your argument here is: Lewis is shite; Lewis is a part of modal logic; therefore all modal logic is shite.

Your own offering is wanting.

That can't be right. — Srap Tasmaner

Indeed! So the fellow waving his gladius must be Apo!

I gave a reasonably definite view - both of what might be the usual response within an Aristotelian metaphysics, and then a more contemporary Peircean version that expands on that in a way remarkably in agreement with modern science.

You can respond with counter arguments to that if you like. But if you simply want to run around the village shouting your usual "metaphysics is bunk" slogans, then dung will naturally be flung in your general direction. It is indeed another game that we can find entertaining.